Supplementary memorandum by the Office
of the Deputy Prime Minister (HIS 50(a))
THE ROLE OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS IN URBAN REGENERATION
I am writing following my recent appearance
before the Urban Affairs Sub-Committee conducting the inquiry
into the role of historic buildings in urban regeneration. I promised
to get back to the Committee on one or two issues that had arisen
during the oral evidence session on Monday 9 February. Specifically,
I undertook to send you some more information about the issue
of appeals, the research on the impact of the Planning Delivery
Grant, and the best value performance indicators and measurements
of quality for the future.
The Committee was keen to explore the question
of the increase in the number of planning appeals being made to
the Planning Inspectorate (PINS). You will be interested to see
the enclosed recently published report of a study by Arup into
the reasons for the increasing volume of appeals, Investigating
the increasing volume of planning appeals in England. The
aim of the study was to quantify and qualify the reasons for the
increase in planning appeals in order to inform this Office's
End-to-End Review of PINS. The Report on that Review entitled
Review of the Planning Inspectorate was published at the
same time as the Arup research and I enclose a copy of that, too.
The Arup study concludes that appeal levels
are being influenced by a range of factors working in different
combinations in different locations. It acknowledges that the
increase in refusal rates has in part been a consequence of the
increasing emphasis on meeting Best Value Performance Indicator
(BVPI) targets. But this is not the whole story, and the research
indicates that there has not been any systematic tendency for
planning authorities simply to refuse applications in order to
meet BVPI standards. It suggests that BVPIs—and central
Government policy more generally—are not solely responsible
for the increase in appeals and that any effect is likely to be
temporary, with appeal rates settling down over time.
BVPIs are an invaluable tool to assist local
authorities in improving the efficiency, effectiveness and economy
of their service delivery. The two key planning BVPIs which we
are rolling forward into 2004-05 are those which underpin ODPM's
PSA 6 and which also provide a basis for calculating Planning
Delivery Grant allocations. BV109 measures the percentage of planning
applications determined in line with development control targets.
And BV200 measures local authority performance on plan-making.
We are also rolling forward BV106, which measures the percentage
of new homes built on previously developed land. This indicator
underpins the PSA target to ensure by 2008, 60% of additional
housing is provided on previously developed land and through conversions
of existing buildings.
Planning BVPIs have often been criticised for
being too focussed on timeliness and process measures and inadequately
reflecting outcomes of the planning system. We have therefore
recently consulted on the introduction of two BVPIs that are designed
to measure the quality of service offered by local planning authorities.
The first indicator, which comes into force on 1 April, will measure
the percentage of planning appeals allowed in relation to the
total number of planning appeals against refusals. By looking
at the success of appeals against refusals, it is possible to
assess appeals performance and, indirectly, the quality of planning
policy and service provided by an authority. The second indicator
is a Quality of Service Checklist. The purpose of the questions
in the Checklist is to assess whether quality systems that will
lead to quality outcomes are in place in local authorities.
The consultation period closed on 11 February
and we wrote to local authorities on 20 February with the definitive
list of questions for the Quality of Service Checklist that we
are proposing to introduce as a new planning BVPI. I enclose a
copy of the letter sent to Chief Executives. That letter also
explains that details of all planning BVPIs will be set out in
the BVPI 2004-05 guidance document which we are aiming to publish
later this month.
There have been allegations that some authorities
have been behaving perversely by refusing applications or putting
pressure on applicants to withdraw in order to qualify for increased
Planning Delivery Grant. Certainly there is evidence—albeit
anecdotal—that as planning authorities are becoming more
business-like in delivering their planning service within target,
they are increasingly inclined to turn down incomplete or poorly
submitted applications. This is of course an area where developers
have a key role to play if we are to achieve a more responsive
planning system that better serves the needs of all stakeholders.
The proposals we have in the Planning Bill enabling the Secretary
of State to prescribe forms for planning permission and other
consents will help in this respect. Our proposed measures will
ensure that a comprehensive standard of information is provided
when applications are submitted to planning authorities and this
will in turn lead to greater certainty and speed in handling.
In view of the concerns raised about authorities
behaving perversely, we have carried out an extensive analysis
of the factors related to improved performance—the level
of withdrawals, the refusal rate and the rising number of applications—and
have found no consistent statistical relationship between these
indicators and improved performance. Nevertheless, we have decided
to impose two new conditions on PDG payments for next year. These
are designed to ensure that ODPM has the power to act appropriately
to withhold payment in part, or recover part or all of grant paid,
where there are concerns over the accuracy or proven inaccuracies
in the information on which allocations were made. We will also
be reducing grant allocations to those authorities that have a
poor record of success in defending appeals. This will provide
a measure of assurance that the grant is not rewarding poor quality
decisions.
In addition, the allocations for PDG for the
coming year are now based on performance against development control
targets, plan making performance, housing delivery in areas of
high housing need, location of Enterprise Areas and performance
at appeal. This year's allocation criteria recognise that providing
a quality planning service is not just about taking quick decisions—although
that is important—and they reward a broad range of planning
activity.
I mentioned that we had commissioned research
into how the PDG has been spent and the way in which it is working.
The initial findings of the research suggest that some PDG is
being spent on conservation, although the research is still underway.
The project is scheduled to finish later this month and the results
will be published in due course. I will ensure that a copy of
the research report is sent to the Committee at that time.
The Committee also wanted to know what effect
the increase in planning appeals was having on PINS performance.
The attached graph shows the number of planning appeals received
over the last four years and PINS performance at determining them—split
between the three procedure types: written representations, hearings
and inquiries. It illustrates the recent sharp increase in appeal
receipts—around 10% a year in each of the two years following
2000-01 and which has continued into 2003-04.
On top of this, the reduction in the time limit
for submission of appeals from 6 months to 3 months, which came
into force on 5 September 2003, has had the effect of bringing
forward appeal receipts and is expected to result in up to 2,500
appeals being received early between October and May 2004.
PINS have been managing their resources to deal
with rising workload and the bulge in brought forward appeals.
There has been a 24% increase in Inspector productivity on appeals
in the first three quarters of 2003 compared to 2002 resulting
from the recruitment of salaried Inspectors, appointment of additional
consultants, contracted productivity and fee per case initiatives.
The increase in Inspector productivity has been made possible
by a similar increase in output by the administrative staff. Figures
on PINS performance for 2003-04 will be announced to Parliament
in due course.
I hope this helps to clarify the specific points
raised by the Committee. I look forward to receiving the Committee's
report in due course.
Yvette Cooper
26 April 2004
| 
