Memorandum by John Andrews (PI 14)
1. MY INVOLVEMENT
WITH THE
INSPECTORATE
This has been over a period of some 15 years,
during which time I have participated in a wide variety of inquiries,
some of them local planning inquiries, but the large majority
being inquiries into orders relating to public rights of way.
I have had a particular responsibility to the Suffolk
Area branch of the Ramblers Association as the local representative
of the Association in matters relating to unrecorded rights of
way, consequently, although I have had no legal training, I have
had a fairly lengthy experience of the approach of inspectors
to a range of legal issues, some of them exceedingly complex,
and to the interpretation of evidence.
2. THE VALIDITY
OF ORDERS—THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE OPERATION
AT BRISTOL
AND INDIVIDUAL
INSPECTORS.
I have found insuperable difficulties in circumstances
when it seemed to me that orders were invalid—either for
technical reasons or because they appeared to be made under inappropriate
legislation. The headquarters team have the task of "validating"
orders. However, on every occasion that I have sought to make
representations that an order was invalid, they have declined
to address the issue that I have raised.
The explanation for this reluctance to intervene—as
in almost every issue of a procedural nature—is that the
inspector has full responsibility and the matter has, therefore,
to be left to him or her. When the point has been raised at the
commencement of the ensuing inquiry, the response of the inspectors
has consistently been that, if those charged with the task of
validating the order have found no fault with it, then there is
nothing that the inspector either could or should do about it.
On the latest occasion that this issue has come into play, in
the course of a "written representations inquiry", the
inspector decided that the Inspectorate had no involvement at
all with this aspect of the order and that the only redress available
to an objector in this context was to pursue the order-making
authority in the courts. The general approach of the Inspectorate
seems to be both very unclear and somewhat inconsistent.
3. THE CONDUCT
OF AN
INQUIRY
There is an enormous problem for all parties
to an inquiry in relation to the way in which an inspector handles
the situation. This is that inspector has the task of running
the entire operation i.e. of being judge, jury, scribe and usher.
In doing this, he or she has total discretion over the conduct
of events. If something happens which does not appear to be acceptable,
there is no effective process for complaint or redress. Matters
of which I have had cause to complain have included:—
a. being denied the right cross-examine a
solicitor on a question of law—the inspector ruling that
such matters were for him alone to decide,
b. being prevented from cross-examining a
police inspector about issues that she had raised about road safety
and security in a statement supporting an order—no explanation
for this refusal being offered,
c. being told off by an inspector for not
presenting certain evidence earlier in the proceedings, having
forgotten that he had actually told me about an hour previously
to leave that matter until he was ready to deal with it,
d. being accused by an inspector on a site
visit of re-locating county council waymarks in order to further
my case,
e. having some of my evidence challenged
by an inspector on a site visit only seconds after he had delivered
the customary warning that there was to be no re-opening of the
arguments in the case,
When I have made a complaint to the Inspectorate's
Bristol office about some of the above problems, they have referred
the matter to the inspector, who has merely denied that there
was any truth in what I had said. There having been no independent
official record, there the matter had rested.
4. DECISION LETTERS
Similar difficulties to those described in the
section above can arise from the lack of a truly independent record
of the proceedings. I have had great concern on a variety of counts
eg
f. that evidence has frequently been misrepresented
in a decision letter,
g. that items of evidence brought forward
have not been referred to—thus creating the impression that
their significance has been overlooked or set aside,
h. that highly questionable "rulings"
given by an inspector in the course of the inquiry have not been
referred to and
i. a particularly serious issue—that
inspectors have failed to give explanations why they have come
to their conclusions, notably on such crucial issues as the application
of case law.
5. INCONSISTENCY
OF APPROACH
I have had experience of a number of cases in
which the approach of inspectors to matters of law and interpretation
of evidence has shown clear contradictions. I would emphasise
that I fully acknowledge that that every case is different in
the matter of detail. My concern is, however, that decisions are
being arrived by the application of very different processes of
thought in relation to the principles involved. A fairly dramatic
example of this was provided by two very similar Suffolk cases
relating to proposed byways. I was able to list a series of ways
in which the inspectors had been in direct conflict in the views
they had expressed about the application of the law or the assessment
of the weight and character of certain kinds of evidence.
As a result, I had no hesitation in sharing
the conviction of the county council staff involved that, if each
of these two cases had been handled by the "other" inspector,
both decisions would have been the reverse of those which were
in fact reached.
6. THE QUALITY
OF INSPECTORS
It is very hard to prove the accuracy of what
are, to a degree, subjective impressions, but I am convinced that
the quality of inspectors varies to an alarming extent. In general
I have found those inspectors charged with running local plan
inquiries to be men of very high calibre, usually having excellent
recall, an ability to grasp the essentials and to disregard extraneous
matters and the capacity to set themselves above the emotional
and personal cross-currents which often invade the inquiry forum.
This is equally true of a very few inspectors
who deal with public rights of way inquiries, but there are others
whose ability to deal with highly complex legal issues seems questionable
and who sometimes appear to be out of their depth in relation
to the matters on which they have to decide. Some, as it appears
to me, are not entirely free from bias—either of a personal
nature or in the way that they form their conclusions. There are
reasons to believe that emotional pressures from eg aggressive
and voluble inquiry participants and a tendency to take more notice
of the "standing" of the person making a point than
the validity of the case being made sometimes have a direct effect
on the outcome of an inquiry.
7. THE TRAINING
AND MONITORING
OF INSPECTORS
It has been almost impossible to obtain clear
information about the extent and nature of training and the monitoring
of the performance of inspectors. If the information that has
been made available through user groups is anywhere near the truth,
there must be severe doubts about its adequacy. There is somewhat
conflicting information coming from the Inspectorate about the
extent to which performance is monitored and decisions are scrutinised.
Some inspectors have made comments indicating that they are of
such seniority and experience that they operate with an entirely
free "rein".
I have no knowledge of the process by which
it is decided that an inspector has become too old and/or unreliable
to continue in post. That question is a very important one and
there is every reason why matters relating to training and performance
assessment should not be kept hidden from the public.
John Andrews
20 February 2000
| 
