Memorandum by Beazer Group Plc (PI 24)
1. QUALITY OF
DECISIONS
As a user of the Inquiry System, Beazer Group
would not wish to make comments on the Inspectorate's internal
targets but concentrate on the more general issue of the potential
conflicts between speed and quality of decisions. There has been
a recent improvement in respect of Section 78 appeals relating
to the time between submitting an appeal and the appeal hearing
and also an increase in the speed of issuing decisions. However
in our opinion there is no reason why Planning Inspectorate targets
for hearing dates and inquiry dates should not be speeded up to
offer developers such as outselves a more realistic timescale
for decision making. For example, in respect of an appeal we have
recently submitted on a site in North Somerset, the application
was first submitted to the Planning Authority on 30 April 1999
with the aim of negotiating a permission with the local authority.
With no prospect of a decision in sight the Company submitted
an appeal on 20 December 1999. We have an appeal date on the 3
Mary 2000. Having to wait five months for an appeal date means
the application will not now be determined in our current financial
year and this has a knock on effect on our medium term financial
planning and when we could have expected units on the site. It
mitigates against using the planning process properly, as we have
done in this case, in seeking to negotiate with the local Planning
Authority and give them sufficient time to consider the application
properly and reach a decision.
In hindsight it would have been better to submit
an appeal against non-determination after eight weeks and accept
the disadvantages that the local authority will see this as a
threatening approach. We accept that part of the problem is also
caused by the local Planning Authority not accepting the first
date offered and seeking to push the inquiry as far ahead as possible.
A possible solution to this would be to specify a target date
for arranging the hearing after the submission of the original
appeal. In our view the normal target should be eight weeks but
it would be reasonable to have provision for special circumstances
which could be argued either by the appellant or the local authority
to take account of particular circumstances.
The above deals with the timing issue. In terms
of the quality of Inspectors, generally our view is the overall
quality is good but it increases with the experience of the Inspector
and the greater complexity and more public interest in the inquiry.
The quality of decisions issue (and to some extent the consistency
issue dealt with next) is almost impossible to gauge given the
very nature of the planning system whereby each case is different
and must be considered on its individual merits. In our view quality
issues are difficult to isolate and often are confused with differences
of opinion over the facts and issues of the case.
2. THE CONSISTENCY
OF DECISIONS
MADE
Again the need to consider each case on its
merits is an issue here. Also whilst the ultimate responsibility
lies with the Secretary of State, the sheer volume of planning
case work requires delegation to a large number of independent
arbitrators. Therefore given the large number of Inspectors, absolute
consistency is impossible and subjectivity is an acknowledged
element of British planning, which in our view remains more important
than absolute consistency. There is also the danger that an increased
quest for consistency will have a knock on effect on timescales.
For example, there does seem to be an increase in the number of
decisions being called in by the Secretary of State and this is
indeed associated with increased time delays.
In our view a particular issue relating to consistency
concerns prematurity and Inspectorate decisions in respect of
allocations prior to the adoption of local plans. Looking at decisions
generally and not just those relating to Beazer it does appear
that sometimes the fact that the proposal is premature in relation
to the timescale of the local plan is sometimes used as a reason
to partly justify allowing the appeal and sometimes to dismiss
the appeal. However, in cases where local authorities are seeking
to rely on prematurity to justify refusal and they are not realistically
and actively reviewing their plan, Inspectors should be able to
apply a presumption in favour of the development. Whilst the approach
to site specific issues must vary there should be a consistency
applied to general issues such as that of prematurity.
3. THE RELATIONSHIP
OF THE
INSPECTORATE TO
GOVERNMENT OFFICES
It would appear to Beazer Group that the relationships
are at the best "poor". In our view the issue is more
of whether there indeed should be a relationship between the Inspectorate
and Government Offices. It is particularly important that the
Inspectorate should be seen to be independent. Equally Government
Offices should not be treated favourably at inquiries and in respect
of Local Plan inquiries their representations should be treated
in the same way as others. One weakness in the system is that
the Secretary of State, the public and the Inspectorate relies
on the Government Office to make representations adequately, given
that a Planning Inspector will only hold an inquiry into objections
to a development plan. If the Government Office overlooks a significant
error in the plan and no other objections to that issue are raised
the Inspector cannot recommend changes formally (although he may
do so informally). Another issue is that in the past Government
Offices have tended to submit a large number of objections to
plans including objections on points of detail which can slow
down the plan process. It is important that if the new two stage
deposit process is to work this level of detailed objection is
reduced.
4. CHANGING WORKLOADS
Firstly we are concerned at the pressure put
on the Inspectorate by the inability of local authorities to perform.
There seems to be a lack of recognition that a long lead in period
is required before the opening of a Development Plan Inquiry and
Inspectors need to do a lot of work before the inquiry. Too often
authorities put back opening dates which will clearly cause problems
for the Inspectorate. Also in respect of a recent Section 78 inquiry,
Beazer Group was concerned that the local authority caused the
inquiry to be postponed due to the illness of the officer due
to give evidence (who in this case was the Chief Planning Officer)
when clearly the authority should have been in a position to provide
an alternative witness. Although sympathetic to us, the Inspector
was powerless to do anything other than accept the Authority's
proposed postponement. In our view there need to be sanctions
(probably financial) against authorities who cause unnecessary
delays to inquiries in addition to the existing provision for
costs.
Secondly, we are concerned with the length of
time taken to produce reports for Local Plan Inquiries. It is
not clear from the outside how much use is made of new technology
but we do note that decisions are sent to appellants by post on
paper and there is clearly room for improvement there. Additionally
there seems to be no reason why the Inspectorate's appeal database
could not be made available on the Internet, which would be far
more efficient than the current method for disseminating information
and making a charge for it.
Thirdly, only a minor point, but nevertheless
important, in our view all decisions would benefit from having
a plan outlining the site area attached to the decision to make
matters absolutely clear.
Fourthly, we are concerned that Inspectors'
workload will increase as the Government pursue an increasingly
design-led criteria for housing development. Design is very subjective
and often comes down to a matter of opinion. It could therefore
lead to an increase in refusals for planning permission on design
grounds and inevitably a subsequent increase in appeals. The Inspectorate
needs a clear strategy for dealing with the physical workload
and also ensuring it has the necessary expertise to adjudicate
meaningfully on design matters.
Fifthly, we are aware that the Planning Inspectorate
make increasing use of planning professionals appointed as Planning
Assistants to assist the Inspectorate. This does appear to be
advantageous in that it can increase the flexibility and the expertise
of the Inspectorate with Planning Assistants working under delegation
by Inspectors and also undertaking administrative tasks. In our
view making greater use of Planning Assistants should have the
effect of freeing up Inspectors for other work or reducing their
reporting time and thus enabling them to take on more cases than
at present.
Sixthly, to encourage use of written representations
rather than some form of inquiry, we consider appellants should
have the ability to seek to recover costs for unreasonable behaviour
of local authorities in respect of written representations. This
again should reduce the workload of the Inspectorate.
Finally, we would wish to raise the issue of
whether there is a case to be made for "court style"
inquiries with decisions being made on the day or closely following
the close of the inquiry. The ability to do this and produce a
report should be increased with the availability of new technology
and reporting techniques. Whilst this will not be suitable for
all inquiries, and certainly not local plan inquiries, we think
that such an approach should at least be tried on an experimental
basis for simple inquiries.
5. THE IMPACT
OF HUMAN
RIGHTS LEGISLATION
AND PUBLICISING
PUBLIC INQUIRIES
In our view these two issues are clearly linked.
The issue of whether the Human Rights Act 1998 will grant third
parties rights of appeal is an important issue. It would have
significant impacts for the Inspectorate and also would introduce
further delays in the Planning System. In our view it is important
to ensure that the Appeal System does work properly and does give
sufficient publicity to enable third parties to become involved
in the system. If the existing system works properly there is
no need for third party rights of appeal. At the moment publicity
relating to Planning Appeals is only generally adequate for those
who are already aware of the planning system. The current situation
whereby publicity rests with the local Planning Authority has
the inherent drawback to that authority that more publicity means
more interest which means more work and higher costs. In these
times of equal opportunity and the conveyance of information,
there may be a case for setting up a "publicity section"
within the Inspectorate. In our view this would be necessary for
Section 78 inquiries to ensure that all those residents likely
to be affected are aware of the proposal. In our view it probably
will not be necessary for Local Plan Inquiries providing the local
authority can show that it has made arrangements to contact all
residents and inform them of the Local Plan process.
6. THE AVAILABILITY
OF ASSESSORS
FOR SPECIALIST
INQUIRIES
Our view on this issue concerns the need to
ensure the correct balance between maintaining the authority and
independence of the Inspector and ensuring that increasingly complex
issues are properly dealt with. In the first instance, it is important
to point out that Planning Inspectors are specialist assessors
and independent in their own right. In that case it is important
to ensure that the right Inspector is selected from the outset
who will understand all the issues related to the inquiry. Only
where that is impossible to achieve should the use of specialist
assessors be contemplated. For example, a Beazer appeal held in
1997 related to an enabling calculation and the restoration of
a listed building which the Inspector clearly did not understand.
In that instance we consider an Inspector proficient in dealing
with listed buildings and enabling calculations should have been
appointed. However, noise conditions and noise issues are becoming
increasingly important, and in our view that is such a specialist
area usually involving specialist consultants appointed by both
the appellant and the Local Planning Authority, which demands
a specialist assessor advising the Inspector on such issues.
Paul Davis
Group Planning Director
February 2000
| 
