Memorandum by The Vale of Glamorgan Council
(PI 12)
I have comments to make on some of the specific
terms of reference for the inquiry, and these are set out below.
I stress that these are officer comments and have not been referred
to Committee.
QUALITY OF
DECISION
Whilst it is accepted that many issues in planning
are of a sometimes subjective nature, I consider that there have
been instances where the relevant policy context in the Development
Plan has been accorded less weight than "other material planning
considerations". The Council had hoped that the introduction
of Section S54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 would
mean a much stricter adherence to the adopted Development Plan,
but this is not always the case.
CONSISTENCY OF
DECISION MAKING
This Authority has had some difficulties in
the past on the issue of inconsistency. In fact, I have written
previously to the Welsh Office (now the National Assembly for
Wales) regarding the quality of the decisions of one particular
Inspector. On a statistical analysis incorporating many appeal
decisions, it was discovered that the proportion of appeals allowed
by this particular inspector was much higher than the normal 34:66
ratio; in fact, his particular record was virtually the reverse
of the normal ratio. I would therefore wish the Sub-Committee
Inquiry to ensure, wherever possible, that there is a greater
internal consistency of decision-making to include comparisons
between individual Inspectors and clear consistency when comparing
decisions on individual planning issues eg barn conversions.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT
PLAN INQUIRIES
I am concerned that the Planning Inspectorate
is causing significant delay to the adoption of the Vale of Glamorgan
Unitary Development Plan.
The Vale of Glamorgan was the only Authority
in Wales that had a chance of meeting the target of adopting its
Unitary Development Plan prior to the end of 2000. The Vale of
Glamorgan is a medium size authority that has devoted a large
amount of its limited resources to the fast preparation of its
Unitary Development Plan. The Council therefore views with great
concern and disappointment that despite its efforts and the use
of two Inspectors, the Council will not receive the Report until
the 26 January 2001.
The Service Agreement between the Council and
the Planning Inspectorate led the Council to believe that based
on the 4:1 ratio of reporting time to sitting days and site visits,
that there would be a maximum response of 200 days. Given that
the last day of sitting was early November 1999, and that there
were a great deal of opportunities for writing up during the Inquiry
process, the 26 January 2001 seems an inordinately long waiting
time for the Inspector's Report.
The Planning Inspectorate needs to speed up
the preparation of Unitary Development Plan reports to ensure
that development plans are adopted quickly and to ensure that
the Plan led system is given the opportunity to work. Clear timetables
need to be set by the Inspectorate in respect of development plans
and further resources need to be dedicated to ensuring that Local
Planning Authorities receive quick and accurate Development Plan
Reports.
Local Planning Authorities currently pay £430
per day for the use of a Development Plan Inquiry Inspector whilst
all other Planning Inquiry services are free. I consider that
this rate should be fully examined to see whether authorities
are receiving "Best Value" for their investment.
COMPLIANCE WITH
TIMETABLES
There have been examples in the past, and there
is currently a very important case, where appeal decisions on
S78 appeals take an extremely long period of time to be decided,
after the closure of the public Inquiry. Delays of this nature
often create great uncertainty, not just for the applicant and
Local Planning Authorities but also for other developers who need
to fully understand the policy context, and Central Government
interpretation of that policy context, before they commit themselves
to major investments. This Council considers that for major appeal
decisions there should be a time limit set for the official decision
letter to be issued, and that this time limit should be strictly
adhered to.
OTHER CONCERNS
There is a public perception of which this Council
is keenly aware through its contact with Community Councils and
elected Members, that there is a greater reluctance to dismiss
appeals where a developer has already undertaken a built development
without the necessary consent (retrospective applications). The
public perception is that there is a greater tendency to accept
a "fait accompli" and therefore avoid the need to put
appellants/developers at financial risk because of the remedial
works which would be involved. This is not a fact that the Council
can prove, but the public perception of this certainly does exist.
In a similar vein, it does appear that Section
174 enforcement appeals take longer to determine than Section
78 appeals. Perhaps this is because appellants tend to drive the
S78 appeal process forward whereas it is normally Local Planning
Authorities who wish to progress Section 174 appeals. This Council
feels that S174 appeals should be placed on an equal footing in
terms of time-tabling, as Sl78 appeals, and a case could even
be made for prioritising them. The Council has recently received
(January 2000) a consultation paper on improving enforcement appeal
procedures from the National Assembly for Wales, and this point
will certainly be made in response to that Paper.
Rob Quick
Chief Planning Officer
February 2000
| 
