Memorandum by P J Colbourne (PI 40)
1. These comments are based on my experience
of contacts with the Planning Inspectorate and of personal involvement
with a number of Public Inquiries and one Hearing concerning Public
Rights of Way.
2. I was for some years a Group Footpath
Secretary of the Ramblers Association and also a member of its
Surrey Area Executive. I have also made representations and offered
evidence before several Public Inquiries as a concerned individual.
3. The matters on which I wish to offer
comment, and which I believe may be relevant to your deliberations,
are as follows:
(i) The absence, or lack of availability
so far as the individual is concerned, of reliable guidance as
to the type and scope of evidence which may be accepted as being
relevant for consideration by an Inspector.
(ii) The difficulties and disadvantage suffered
by ordinary members of the public when opposing Orders proposed
or supported by a well resourced corporate body (eg County Council)
and, in particular, the necessity for objectors to an Order to
have the right, and reasonable opportunity, of access during the
inquiry to the Order Making Authority's (OMA) unexpurgated file
on the subject of the inquiry.
(iii) Possibly resulting from or exacerbated
by 3(i) above, great inconsistency in the range and relevance
of evidence which individual Inspectors allow to be introduced
and/or which they take into account when making their decisions.
(iv) The failure of the Planning Inspectorate
(PI) to properly investigate and respond to complaints about the
conduct of Public Inquiries and about the failure of Inspectors
to give due consderation to errors and omissions in evidence submitted
by an OMA.
(v) The apparent impotence or unwillingness
of the PI to "comment or intervene" (PI's words) on
a HA's responsibility for rights of way and, in particular, disregard
of Statutory Duties or guidance in DoE Circulars.
4. Because their content relates closely
to several of the matters listed above, I shall be most grateful
if you will accept enclosure (A)[79],
my letter to the PI dated 4/11/1997 and enclosure (B)26, PI's
response to it dated 23/12/1997 as part of my submission. (I assume
you have access to PI files for the checking of other references
if necessary).
5. Item 3(i) is exemplified at Para 2 of
enclosure (A)26 which describes the steps I thought it prudent
to take to avoid, as far as possible, problems at future inquiries.
The responses were unsatisfactory and the conduct of the 1997
FP209 (Farnham) Diversion inquiry more than justified my earlier
concerns.
6. The matters at item 3(ii) above are,
I believe, well illustrated by paragraph 6 of enclosure (A). Objectors
are reasonably expected to prepare their evidence in advance of
the Inquiry. The difficulties put in the way of objectors by an
OMA beforehand, whether by accident or design, can prevent a "level
playing field" however impartial the Inspector. For example,
the de facto refusal to make known to me the identities
or, even, existence of other objectors prejudiced the objectors'
case and wasted inquiry time because of the impracticality of
organising a co-ordinated objection. Commonly the organisation
of an inquiry and the layout of the hall is in the hands of the
OMA. Most Inspectors, in my experience, respond well to suggestions
that, as is often the case, facilities for the objectors are inferior
to those the OMA has provided for itself. However, members of
the public are usually inexperienced in such matters, somewhat
daunted by the atmosphere and so make no comment.
7. Paragraph 6 of enclosure (A) illustrates
also item 3(iii), how an objector's case can be unfairly prejudiced
by Inspectors' inconsistent attitudes to presentation of evidence
and also the importance they attribute to serious mapping errors
and unauthorised changes to the Definitive Map by the Surveying
Authority or the HA. Although paying lip service to the principle,
some Inspectors seem less than ready to disturb long established
but frequently reported unlawful obstructions even when caused
(eg FP Frensham 542 Diversion Order 1995) by works which took
place after warnings from the HA.
8. Paragraph 3(iv) refers. The Press Release
states that the Sub-committee "will wish to examine the treatment
of complaints to the Inspectorate". In my experience this
aspect of the PI's work falls far short of what the public is
entitled to expect. If, for example, an Inspector's style and
manner of conducting a Public Inquiry was alleged to be as described
in paragraph 5 of enclosure (A), PI's response at enclosure (B)
that "I can assure you that all our inspectors are aware
of the need to protect witnesses at inquiry from threatening or
over zealous questioning" is hardly adequate. Likewise, the
last part of my paragraph 5 referred to the Inspector's insistence
on his right to retain documentary evidence, not have sight of,
which was no problem. Considering the care taken to detail and
provide supporting evidence for my complaint I believe such a
casual and carelessly drafted dismissal does no credit to PI's
image or authority.
9. It has been my experience over the past
decade that the greatest threat to the availability and quality
of public Rights of Way has been, not lawbreaking land owners
but negligent or officious ROW officers and ill informed elected
members. Too often these persons misuse diversion or extinguishment
orders to rid themselves of long neglected problems and threaten
cost claims against objectors. This seems to be borne out by findings
of the Countryside Agency which concluded that a dedicated Ombudsman
was necessary in this case. The reluctance of the PI to pass comment
or provide precise answers to written questions contrasts with
clear and positive content of Departmental Circulars. I believe
that these matters should be addressed by the proposed Inquiry.
February 2000
79 Ev. not printed. Back
|
