Memorandum by The Open Spaces Society
(PI 05)
INTRODUCTION
1. The Open Spaces Society, founded in 1865,
is Britain's oldest national conservation body. A registered charity,
we campaign to create and conserve common land, village greens,
open spaces and rights of public access, in town and country,
in England and Wales. We represent all categories of legitimate
user on all categories of path. We have 2,250 members consisting
of individuals, organisations and local authorities.
2. We have 42 local correspondents who act
for us in particular districts in England and Wales, objecting
to proposed path changes on behalf of the society and reporting
their action to the society's executive committee.
3. Most of our dealings with the Planning
Inspectorate at public inquiries are in relation to cases concerning
public highways, either orders made under the Highway Act 1980
(creation, diversion and extinguishment orders) or orders made
under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (to add paths to,
or delete paths from, the definitive map). We also occasionally
attend inquiries into applications for works on common land under
Section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925, and planning inquiries.
4. Although we are here somewhat critical
of the Planning Inspectorate, we stress that we consider that
it is infinitely preferable for the Planning Inspectorate to determine
contested path orders rather than local authorities, as has been
suggested in proposal 5 of the government consultation paper Improving
rights of way in England and Wales. It is much better for
there to be an independent party deciding on contested path issues
and not the local authority which is likely to have an interest
in the outcome, particularly as it is the owner of the surface
of the path.
5. We can give examples for the points raised
in this memorandum if the committee calls us to give evidence.
THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE
INSPECTORATE'S
INTERNAL TARGETS
AND THE
QUALITY OF
THE DECISIONS
MADE
6. We are not aware of the Inspectorate's
internal targets and consider these should be published so there
can be a public assessment of whether the targets have been met.
THE CONSISTENCY
OF DECISIONS
MADE
7. This is something which does cause us
concern. There appear to be no guidelines as to how an inspector
arrives at a decision, or if there are such guidelines, they are
not public and we therefore do not know whether the Inspectors
are adhering to them.
8. For example when we object to an order
under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 to divert a path, it
appears to be a lottery whether we win or lose. For instance,
some inspectors attach considerable importance to the historic
nature of the network, while others think purely in terms of modern-day
recreational needs. It is impossible to predict what the outcome
will be.
9. In addition, Inspectors take a different
view about the need to make the path order absolutely accurate,
despite advice in DoE circular 2/93 about this.
10. It is essential that Inspectors are
consistent in the presentation of their decision letters and that
the letter includes all the information that is presented to the
inquiry and makes it clear what the inspector's view was on each
point raised. On decisions on definitive map modification orders
the inspector must include a clear explanation of how he weighed
all the evidence that was presented to him. It should be remembered
that if a party wishes to appeal to the High Court against a decision
letter, that person needs sufficient information from the decision
letter to be able to make the appeal.
11. We have also noted an inconsistency
in decisions on applications to fence common land under Section
194 of the Law of Property Act 1925. For example, last year a
scheme to fence Chobham Common in Surrey was rejected after public
inquiry whereas a scheme to fence Stedham Common in West Sussex
was allowed after an inquiry. Both Inspectors were town planners,
at both inquiries there were local objectors including the parish
council, and at both promoters argued that fencing, by allowing
grazing, benefited the biodiversity and helped to restore a rare
heathland habitat. At Chobham, the Inspector rejected fencing
because "it was the unfenced and ungated nature of the common
which distinguished it from most of the countryside". At
Stedham Common, the Inspector could have rejected the fencing
on the same grounds but instead, while noting the need "to
negotiate gates to walk or ride on the common", the local
perception of the common as a "wilderness" area, and
"the change to the character and local distinctiveness of
the place", he considered that "the need to maintain
and enhance this internationally important habitat outweighs the
loss of existing benefit that would arise". So in very similar
cases, Inspectors came down on different sides.
THE RELATION
BETWEEN THE
INSEPCTORATE AND
GOVERNMENT OFFICES
12. It would be helpful to have a clear
statement as to how the planning Inspectorate will function in
relation to the new Greater London Authority.
THE ABILITY
OF THE
INSPECTORATE TO
ADJUST TO
CHANGING WORKLOADS,
INCLUDING THE
USE OF
NEW TECHNOLOGY
AND THE
VOLUME OF
LOCAL PLAN
INQUIRIES
13. We have no comments to make on this.
THE TREATMENT
OF COMPLAINTS
TO THE
INSPECTORATE
14. While complaints are always dealt with
courteously, we find it annoying that the Inspectorate is not
prepared to enter into correspondence about decisions or the way
in which an Inspector behaved at an inquiry. For instance, we
have made complaints about the way Inspectors have handled site
inspections and, although we received a reply to our letter, we
could not be certian that our complaint had been addressed fully.
THE IMPACT
OF HUMAN
RIGHTS LEGISLATION
15. We are concerned that objectors at public
inquiries are frequently disadvantaged. For example, in the case
of large planning inquiries, the applicants are able to marshal
legal and professional representation. Not only can lawyers intimidate
witnesses, but they can cause the timetable to be lengthened considerably,
which is a great disadvantage to objectors, generally volunteers,
who cannot take time off work to sit through an endless inquiry.
It needs an Inspector with the right qualities to control this
sort of situation.
RECRUITMENT, TRAINING
AND EQUAL
OPPORTUNITIES
16. In the past we know that the Inspectors
were all men and all over 50, drawn from a narrow band of society.
We are pleased to note that efforts have been made to widen the
recruitment process so that there is a greater variety of Inspectors
now, but we think that this could be improved further. Inspectors
should come from all walks of life.
17. With regard to training, we consider
that Inspectors should make more use of independent specialists
in rights-of-way work. We have offered to help with training but
our offer has yet to be taken up.
PUBLICISING PUBLIC
INQUIRIES
18. We have noted that sometimes the requirements
have not been adhered to relating to publicity for public inquiries.
In addition, we consider that inquiries should be held close to
the site to enable all interested people to attend and that facilities
should be provided for photocopying etc on the site.
19. To often, our volunteers cannot attend
inquiries because they are held during working hours. We therefore
submit that the Inspectorate should be prepared to hold evening
sessions (as it does automatically for inquiries into applications
under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925). We see no
need for there to be a discrepancy between section 194 inquiries
and other inquiries.
ASSISTANCE FOR
PARTIES TO
INQUIRIES
20. We have no comments on this.
COMPLIANCE WITH
TIMETABLES
21. We note that sometimes it takes a long
time for an order to come before the inquiry but that is not always
the fault of the Planning Inspectorate. We are not clear what
the timetable is and this should be published along with the targets.
THE AVAILABILITY
OF ASSESSORS
FOR SPECIALIST
INQUIRIES
22. We have no comments on this.
Kate Ashbrook
General Secretary
February 2000
| 
