Memorandum by Robert Halstead (PI 18)
I would like to make the following comments
in respect of Rights of Way Public Inquiries conducted by the
Planning Inspectorate:
(1) The conduct of inquiries by Inspectors
is excellent, my experience is that Inspectors go to great lengths
to ensure both sides get a fair hearing.
(2) The quality of some, not all, decisions
is questionable. There are many inconsistencies and problems.
By way of recent example I enclose an extract
from an Inspector's decision letter dated 9 February 2000. (ref.
FPS/R4405/7/7).[34]
I would draw your attention to Paragraph 63. The inspector clearly
confuses the criterion for making an order with the criterion
for confirming an order which are different see R v Secretary
of State for the Environment, ex parte Bagshaw and Norton (1994)
68 P + CR 402. In respect of this order the Inspector confirms
the order using criterion for making the order as opposed to the
criterion for confirming the order. The statement in the first
sentence of Paragraph 63 "I feel unable to say that this
right of way exists" suggests that as a finding the Inspector
concludes that the correct balance of probabilities test has been
applied and the evidence fails that test.
In paragraph 74 the Inspector appears to confuse
the interruption provision in S31 with the proviso in S31 relating
to the landowners intention to dedicate.
(3) Rights of way seems to be a forgotten
corner of the Planning Inspectorate. Rights of way do not warrant
a mention even in the Advisory Panel's report on standards within
the Inspectorate.
Planning Inquiries concern the private rights
of a landowner to develop his land, they are dealt with quickly,
yet the wider public rights to use the minor highway network are
given a much lower profile. In a democratic society, why is such
a position tolerated. Two years ago the PI allegedly suspended
any further Rights of Way inquiries because they "had run
out of money".
Rights of Way Inquiries need a much higher profile
and priority.
(4) Inspectors need better training in Rights
of Way law. There can be no better example for this need than
Paragraph 63 of the 9 February 2000 decision letter referred to
in (2) above.
Some inspectors are clearly well trained and
provide good decision letters.
Robert Halstead
February 2000
34 Ev. not printed. Back
| 
