Memorandum by Leeds City Council (PI 47)
The City Council has particular concerns regarding
the following—
(i) The low priority assigned by the Inspectorate
to planning enforcement cases. Notwithstanding the recent procedural
changes that the DETR have consulted upon, the appeal aspect of
the enforcement regime remains the weakest part of the process,
since once an appeal is lodged an Enforcement Notice is "suspended"
until such time as a decision is made on the appeal. In the meantime
local residents and the public generally may have to continue
to suffer loss of amenity over a prolonged period of time.
(ii) Despite reassurances that the Planning
Inspectorate have introduced measures to ensure more consistent
decisions are made, there still remain examples where Inspectors
arrive at completely different conclusions even though cases are
almost identical. There has been a recent case in Leeds where
two different Inspectors have reached opposite decisions on very
similar proposals in the same street. This is not only difficult
to understand, but does not improve confidence in Members and
public alike in the planning appeals system. Unfortunately, it
is seen as a lottery.
(iii) A complaint was lodged with the Inspectorate
regarding the conduct of an Inspector at an Informal Hearing.
The appellants were legally represented, including employing a
barrister. There was no advance notice that the appellant would
be legally represented, and the City Council was not legally represented
at the Hearing. Officers, Ward Members and local residents were
unhappy that despite reassurances made by the Inspector at the
outset of the Inquiry, he did not follow the "rules"
which he laid down, and allowed the appellants to take over the
Hearing and as such it was run like a Public Inquiry.
An immediate complaint was lodged with the Inspectorate
(well before the outcome of the Hearing and the related application
for costs had been decided). The complaint was referred to the
Inspector in question for his views. It is hardly surprising that
he could see no basis for the complaint and considered the Hearing
was run in a satisfactory manner. A complaints system where there
is no independent scrutiny is fundamentally flawed. The Planning
Inspectorate need to review how they deal with the situation described
above. The current system is clearly unsatisfactory.
(iv) There appears to be some difficulties
within the Planning Inspectorate in dealing with situations which
may cut across and involve different sections. The Planning Inspectorate
appears to be compartmentalised with sections independent of each
other and unable to operate in a flexible manner.
This was well illustrated when the
City Council was having to deal with a section 78 appeal on the
same site and at the same time as objections through the UDP Inquiry.
Due to this inflexibility and poor co-ordination, the City Council
had no choice but to force the issue through applying for judicial
review.
(v) A recent case in Leeds has highlighted
an issue regarding the approach of the Inspectorate to decision-making.
The City Council is seeking to improve the character and appearance
of a rundown industrial estate in East Leeds to help attract investment
and jobs. The opportunities to achieve any enhancement are limited,
and therefore if and when such opportunities arise they require
to be fully grasped. In the particular case in question, the City
Council was not supported by the Inspector in its aim to achieve
improvements. The Inspector was content to accept the "lowest
common denominator", rather than supporting the City Council's
objective in trying to uplift the area. In the circumstances,
the Inspector could have still allowed the appeal but subject
to a condition. This would have made all the difference.
It is disheartening for Members and officers
alike when on the one hand the Inspector supports a policy objective
but then through the form of his decision denies the local planning
authority of the means of achieving that objective.
P A Joyce
Acting Assistant Director
March 2000
|
