Memorandum by English Heritage (PI 41)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 English Heritage is the lead body for
England's historic environment providing a comprehensive national
source of expertise, skills and funding for the protection, understanding,
and enjoyment of the country's built and archaeological heritage.
In addition to a wide range of identification and survey work,
grant programmes and advice, English Heritage operates the National
Monuments Record, an archive of over 12 million photographs and
records of England's man-made heritage. We are also responsible
for the conservation and management of 409 historic sites and
properties which are open to the public.
1.2 English Heritage has a statutory role
in the planning system, advising Local Planning Authorities and
the Secretary of State on over 19,000 listed building consent,
scheduled monument consent and planning cases each year. In particular,
we advise the Secretary of State on whether he should call in
for his own decision, certain categories of listed building consent
application. Where such a case is called in, we may then give
evidence at any subsequent public enquiry. We also from time to
time give evidence to public enquiries in respect of planning
applications in which we have an interest. English Heritage staff
give evidence at between 20 and 30 inquiries each year.
1.3 We have great admiration for the work
of the Planning Inspectorate and for the dignity, courtesy and
professionalism of the Inspectors who conduct public inquiries,
we have a number of suggestions to improve the conduct of public
inquiries and the work of the Inspectorate.
2. PRE-INQUIRY
ADJOURNMENTS
2.1 In the interests of efficiency and cost
effectiveness, it is sometimes necessary for a decision to be
taken on whether an adjournment of a date for a public inquiry
should be granted. Whilst the Government Regional Offices and
the Planning Inspectorate rightly only allow adjournments in exceptional
circumstances, there is a tendency for them not to want to consider
an adjournment at all in the last two weeks or so before an inquiry.
The preference is instead to leave it to the Inspector to open
the inquiry and then hear submissions on whether there should
be an adjournment. The effect of this is that all preparation
has to be done in case the inquiry goes ahead.
3. THE CONDUCT
OF INQUIRIES
3.1 We have great admiration for the fair
and patient way in which public inquiries are conducted which
ensures that all involved believe that they have had a fair and
full hearing. However, this is almost taken to a fault and there
are occasions when Inspectors could be stricter, for example in
requiring parties to keep to pre-agreed timetables, not to repeat
evidence, and not to take up too much time with legal or procedural
arguments or irrelevant grievances, to the benefit of all involved.
4. THE CONTENT
OF PUBLIC
INQUIRIES
4.1 We feel that more could be done both
at pre-inquiry meetings and once an inquiry has started to focus
all parties on those issues which are going to significantly affect
the outcome of the inquiry rather than those that could readily
be dealt with separately between the Local Planning Authority,
the Applicant and others.
4.2 Public inquiries always look at a range
of issues from significant issues of principle or policy to detailed
points of design and landscaping. In our opinion, public inquiries
should concentrate more on the high level issues, which are identified
in advance as those that the Secretary of State specifically wishes
to see addressed. This helpful pre-inquiry procedure is rarely
used to shape the presentation and organisation of topics at the
inquiry. A more "hands-on" structuring of inquiries
could enable greater focus on the key issues in dispute, thereby
reducing the length of the proceedings. This could be done by
the Inspector adding detail to the matters to be considered previously
identified by the Secretary of State at the commencement of an
inquiry.
5. PRE-INQUIRY
STATEMENTS OF
CASE
5.1 We find pre-inquiry statements of case
a helpful way of ensuring that everyone is aware of the key issues
that the main parties wish to raise. This procedure could usefully
be extended so that any significant party could be asked to produce
a short statement of case. This would assist all parties in understanding
what issues were likely to arise and reduce inconvenience and
adjournments. It would also assist Inspectors in identifying the
main issues.
5.2 We have noticed inconsistencies when
third parties are required to produce pre-inquiry statements.
Clearer guidance would help to correct this.
6. THE CONSISTENCY
OF DECISIONS
6.1 Where English Heritage is aware of inconsistent
decision-making on the part of Planning Inspectors dealing with
cases relating to historic buildings, the decisions often turn
out to have been made by Inspectors lacking specialist knowledge
of heritage matters. This may simply indicate a failure to identify
the specialist nature of the issues involved, leading to the allocation
of an Inspector without the necessary professional qualifications.
Alternatively, it may demonstrate a real shortage of the expertise
needed to deal with appeals involving the various aspects of the
historic environment.
6.2 Traditionally, heritage cases have been
dealt with by architect/planners but there now seems to be a shortage
of younger professionals with this combination of skills joining
the Inspectorate. In the past the Inspectorate regularly held
technical seminars with English Heritage on major conservation
themes, but this has not been the case for some years. English
Heritage recently addressed an architectural seminar of the Inspectorate's
Built Environment Group on the subject of enabling development
but that was as the result of an isolated invitation. We will
be seeking to increase the frequency of this kind of contact.
6.4 High quality architecture and urban
design and the conservation and careful management of the historic
building stock are vital ingredients of a successful built environment.
It is important that Inspectors are recruited with, or trained
to develop, the necessary skills to make informed and consistent
judgements on design and conservation issues. If the Inspectorate
lacks this necessary expertise, it should be encouraged to recruit
additional specialists, step up its internal training programmes
and promote the setting up of relevant university courses.
6.5 A related problem that we have encountered
is that Assessors appointed to advise Inspectors on valuation
tend to be the older and more established members of the surveyors'
profession, who can lack the up-to-date knowledge of the current
market to give sound advice.
7. THE TREATMENT
OF COMPLAINTS
TO THE
INSPECTORATE
7.1 This can be a frustrating area because
the response given is always intentionally uninformative so as
not to prejudice the decision issued, and there is no way of knowing
whether or not any corrective action has been taken to ensure
that subsequent cases are treated differently. As the Government's
statutory adviser on matters relating to the historic environment,
there should be a channel for English Heritage to discuss such
matters with the Inspectorate without prejudice to past decisions.
February 2000
| 
