Memorandum by Niall Blackie, Solicitor
and Legal Associate of the Royal Town Planning Institute and Roger
Tweedale, member of the Royal Town Planning Institute (PI 37)
1. Together we have significant experience
of the planning process, of Inquiries and of decision letters.
2. We believe that there are several areas
in which different Inspectors have markedly different approaches
to Planning Appeals. Each of these areas is relatively "controversial",
and it is understandable that in some cases different individuals
would reach different conclusions presented with the same situation.
However, it is felt to be important that inconsistencies are minimised.
3. We feel that one reason for the difference
in approach is the significance of Section 54A. This consultation
is not intended to review Section 54A. However, all planning decisions
are taken against a backdrop of that Section. Previous to the
introduction of that Section there was a well-known, and well-followed
presumption in favour of development. PPG1 now speaks of a presumption
in favour of development that is in conformity with a Development
Plan, but is silent as to other issues. The problem with the Development
Plan process is that Development Plans have a great deal more
to say than setting out allocations of land for particular types
of development, or setting out specific proposals for the use
of land within a Council's administrative area. Development Plans
have become cluttered with a range of other policies, which are
incapable of objective assessment. A policy in a Development Plan
which militates against developments which have a detrimental
impact on the amenities of an area would, therefore, elevate an
amenity issue to a Section 54A consideration. We consider this
has the effect of making a difficult issue unnecessarily harder
for the Inspectors. We consider that Development Plans should
exclude policies which state the obvious (as in the example above),
or which simply purport to re-state Government policy.
4. The significant benefit which would be
achieved by this would be the streamlining of the Development
Plan process. But the key benefit would be the removal of policies
which either paraphrase Government policy or are no longer synchronised
with Government policy. It is a major cause of inconsistency that
the Development Plan policy which attracts Section 54A status
is either simply at odds with a Government policy because the
policy has changed, or because a new policy has been created.
5. The second area of concern is with the
Green Belt policy. Green Belt policies may fall into the same
category as the above. In neighbouring Authorities within the
same Green Belt we have observed different Development Plan policy
statements. We have observed policies which have been apparently
overtaken by Government re-statements of overall policy. Presently,
in every Green Belt case, the Inspector has to weigh the Green
Belt policy of the Secretary of State and the Development Plan
policy. He should not be having to do this.
6. Within the Green Belt policy there are
various indications as to what is to be considered as appropriate
development. We think that these could be helpfully re-written.
(The Local Plan should then do no more than to indicate the extent
of the Green Belt, confirm that within the Green Belt Government
policy on Green Belts will be adhered to, and state any local
variations to Government policy which can be justified. The plans
should not purport to restate the Government policy, for the reasons
given above). But within the policy itself, PPG2 deals with matters
such as extensions to houses, cemeteries and major development.
7. As to extensions to houses, the policy
talks about extensions which are not disproportionate. In one
Authority local to our practices, supplementary planning guidance
indicates that extensions up to 66 per cent are considered acceptable.
In a neighbouring Authority similar supplementary planning guidance
indicates that extensions up to 30 per cent are considered to
be acceptable. The weight to be attached to those policies will
be for the Inspector. The Inspectors are not to blame for the
difference of opinion. However, depending on how the case is presented
to a different Inspector, there may be significant differences
in the result achieved. We think that the Secretary of State should
be invited to avoid language which is almost calculated to be
imprecise.
8. In the case of extensions to business
premises, there is presently no real guidance as to whether extensions
to businesses within the existing curtilage of the business can
be considered appropriate development. The assumption, therefore,
is that it is not appropriate development. We know, however, that
some Inspectors can be persuaded that the needs of a business
for expansion amount to a very special circumstance. Unfortunately,
others cannot. The absence of a clear policy on this issue is
regrettable, but is not, perhaps, the subject of this consultation.
However, there is an immensely wide range of views from the Inspectorate
as to what is a very special circumstance. We doubt that it would
be possible to define all such circumstances. However, we believe
that this leads to inconsistency in approach by Inspectors.
9. The third example that we wish to give
in relation to Green Belt matters is one concerning the view that
cemeteries are an appropriate use within the Green Belt. However,
because the word "crematorium" does not appear in the
guidance, a cemetery with appropriate buildings that also include
a small cremator tacked on to the end of the (acceptable) Chapel,
is viewed as inappropriate development.
10. We would also like to refer to the absence
of clear guidance on refurbishment proposals for buildings within
a Green Belt. It appears to us that there are differences in the
approach of Inspectors as to the relationship between the concepts
of "openness" in relation to the Green Belt or a site,
and the consolidation of buildings within a given site, perhaps
involving taking some buildings down, and putting others up, with
a marginal increase in floor area. Some Inspectors have no difficulty
in allowing such proposals, others are less ready to accept the
idea.
11. In two recent cases that we have seen,
one Inspector felt that a proposal was made acceptable by virtue
of the significant tree planting proposal, the other felt that
the tree planting proposal destroyed the open character of the
area. Both Inspectors were dealing with the same Development Plan
policies in support of tree planting.
12. As to Conservation Areas, we see, again,
a problem of fundamental approach. The statutes speak in terms
of preservation and enhancement. But this is in terms of the character
or appearance of the Conservation Area. It seems to us that Inspectors
have a fundamental view that any change should be assumed to be
harmful unless it can be positively shown not to be. So that replacement
of one form of development with another is considered to be a
problem.
13. We believe that planning is about the
future. The future involves development and change. If the planning
regime starts with an assumption that the status quo should be
preserved, then it will not achieve the needs of the Community.
If planning becomes a restrictive regime synonymous with pickling
the present, then the future will be harmed. Most of the inconsistencies
which we see in the decision taking process arise from the starting
point from which the decision maker is to be moved. If the starting
point is that Planning Permission should be forthcoming unless
there are sound and clear cut reasons for refusal, then, we believe,
significant progress would be made. We consider that that policy
can be reconciled with Section 54A. We consider that it should
be restored as soon as possible. The concerns over consistency
in the decision taking process arise in respect of the period
since the policy was removed.
February 2000
| 
