Memorandum by The Ramblers' Association
(PI 08)
1. The Ramblers' Association (RA) is a voluntary
organisation and registered charity founded in 1935. Its four
core aims are to promote walking, to protect public rights of
way, to campaign for access to open country, and to defend the
beauty of the countryside. It has over 204,000 supporters consisting
of more than 127,000 individual members and 77,000 members of
affiliated clubs and societies.
2. The RA's main area of contact with the
Planning Inspectorate is with the Rights of Way Section which
deals with all public path and definitive map modification orders
which have been the subject of objection and which have been passed
to the Secretary of State for determination.
3. Below, we make certain criticisms and
suggestions for improvement concerning the work of the Planning
Inspectorate, Our experience of dealing with public path orders
and definitive map orders has given us exceptionally wide experience
of the work of the Planning Inspectorate; and we believe that
we are well-placed to comment as follows. But for all the criticsms
we may make, we wish it to be known that we value very highly
the independent arbitration afforded by the Planning Inspectorate;
and we believe that the system for dealing with public path orders
and definitive map orders needs no major overhaul.
4. We therefore oppose any suggestion, as
lately made elsewhere, that the right for objectors to have their
cases considered by an independent Inspector should be removed.
The importance of independent arbitration is well illustrated
by the use made of procedures available under Schedule 14 of the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981[32].
Figures obtained for our monitoring of path orders over the period
1983-87 show that of 118 orders made following a direction from
the Secretary of State, 58 per cent were ultimately confirmed.
Since 95 per cent of those orders were to add paths to the definitive
map or to recognise additional rights, these rights would have
been denied to the public had the relevant surveying authorities
had the final say.
CONSISTENCY OF
DECISIONS MADE
5. There is a great deal of concern among
rights of way practitioners about the consistency of decisions,
particularly in respect of definitive map modification orders
which frequently require the analyses of complex historical documentation
and maps. There is a need for greater clarity and explanation
of how and why a particular decision has been reached. Consistency
in the presentation of decision letters is needed.
6. The constraints of the present consultation
exercise exclude us from appending a schedule of examples of this
shortcoming. Let one case suffice: by no means the worst. An RA
member writes: "at two reclassification inquiries [into orders
under section 54 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981] for
one track in adjacent parishes, the Inspectors put different weight
on the value of a railway plan and other evidence, and we ended
up with half the track bridleway and half byway. In general there
seem to be large differences in the interpretation of evidence."
RA staff have heard versions of this complaint dozens of times.
7. Some Inspectors appear to disregard central
guidance issued by the DETR: for example, guidance on the inclusion
in order schedules of descriptions of the width and other characteristics
has been ignored, even when pointed out by objectors (DoE Circular
2/93 Annex B paragraph 18: see decision FPS/W2275/7/4, December
1999), while others regard the following of that advice as axiomatic
(FPS/W2200/4/30, 27 September 1996, paragraphs 17 and 19).
8. We suggest that the tape-recording of
inquiry proceedings should be investigated as means both of assisting
Inspectors and of providing verbatim reports of proceedings for
use in quality control checks.
9. We welcome moves to make the guidance
issued to Inspectors available to the public and hope that the
Inspectorate will be open to constructive comment on such guidance.
TREATMENT OF
COMPLAINTS TO
THE INSPECTORATE
10. Those involved in rights of way cases
are often frustrated in their complaints by the Inspectorate's
refusal to engage in any discussion about decisions.
11. We believe that more frequent meetings
between the Planning Inspectorate and interested parties such
as user-groups should be held.
RECRUITMENT, TRAINING
AND EQUAL
OPPORTUNITIES
12. For many years, the Association and
other organisations representing path user groups had consistently
complained that the Inspectors we encountered at public path and
definitive map modification order inquiries were exclusively male
and drawn from a very narrow band of society. We have been pleased
to note that this situation is changing but progress is slow and
we would urge the Inspectorate to continue to explore ways of
widening its recruitment net.
13. Occasionally a list of current inspectors,
with details of their qualifcations, former careers and so on
is published; but very rarely. The Inspectorate should publish
this information more frequently: perhaps annually.
14. In respect of training, we would urge
the Inspectorate to make more use of independent specialists in
rights of way work for the provision of Inspector training.
PUBLICISING PUBLIC
INQUIRIES
15. There is a need for consistency in publicity
and procedure of inquiries. Preferably this should be achieved
by legislation.
16. We note that sometimes the name of the
individual Inspector to conduct a particular Inquiry is made known
in advance to all parties; sometimes only to the order-making
authority; sometimes not at all. There should be consistency,
and equal treatment of all parties.
ASSISTANCE FOR
PARTIES TO
INQUIRIES
17. Most of the work carried out by the
Association in connection with individual public path and definitive
map modification orders is undertaken by our network of volunteer
footpath workers, many of whom are in full-time employment and
have to take leave of absence from their work to attend inquiries.
We take the view that, because of this, the Inspectorate should
make far more effort to ensure that all parties are able to attend
inquiries. If an inquiry is arranged at a time when an objector
cannot attend, then he or she is effectivley denied the right
to be heard.
18. To achieve this, it may be necessary
for the Inspectorate to take a more active role in the organisation
of inquiries—at present they simply ask the order-making
authority to suggest a date.
19. We would warmly welcome the provision
of "out-of-hours" inquiry sessions as a way of alleviating
this problem.
20. It is unsatisfactory that there are
no procedural rules for the conduct of Inquiries, save for a statutory
instrument which allows the individual Inspector to decide this.
Lay participants occasionally find themselves "thrown"
by the occasional departure from what had been the practice at
previous Inquiries. Here is one example. At an Inquiry into an
order to add a right of way to the definitive map, the order-making
authority took a neutral stance and left the applicant, an RA
member, to present the case for addition, acting as advocate.
She made her opening speech, setting out what she intended to
prove and so on; and was about to call her first witness when
the Inspector intervened, and asked the objectors if they had
any questions to ask of the advocate. The objectors then "cross-examined"
her on the content of her opening speech, as if it had been evidence-in-chief.
This seemed wrong: since the evidence which the objectors were
attacking had not yet been called, the advocate found herself
having to defend in details evidence which (at that point) was
still hypothetical. In a criminal trial, the prosecuting barrister
is not put into the witness-box to answer questions on the content
of the opening speech, and our member was somewhat unprepared
for what seemed a somwhat illogical departure.
21. We have only very slight experience
of the recently-introduced public hearings. What experience we
have suggests that they can be less "fair" than Inquiries.
Around a table, the more confident people can tend to dominate.
The formal atmosphere of the Inquiry is a control over this.
COMPLIANCE WITH
TIMETABLES
22. In some cases there are inordinate delays
between the making of an order and the holding of a public inquiry,
though we acknowledge that in some cases the blame for this rests
with the order-making authority, not the Planning Inspectorate.
23. Even in straightforward cases there
are occasional surprisingly long delays, without explanation or
notice, in the issue of the Inspector's report.
Janet Davis
February 2000
32 Where an application for a definitive map modification
order is turned down by the surveying authority, for example on
the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to justify the
claim, this measure allows an appeal to the Secretary of State
who if satisfied by the evidence directs the surveying authority
to make an order notwithstanding its earlier rejection of the
claim. Back
| 
