Planning Inspectorate Newsletter - Issue 2
PLANNING INSPECTORATE STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS FOR 2005
Introduction
1. The End to End review of the Planning Inspectorate, published in 2004, recommended that an annual meeting of stakeholders be arranged and conducted by the Planning Inspectorate. The first such event was held in April 2004, with Inspectors hearing presentations from Stakeholders. The event was deemed a success by many, but proved to be too large a forum for effective dialogue. It was therefore decided to hold more focussed stakeholder meetings with defined customer groups.
2. Those groups were defined as:-
a. central government customers;
b. the customer panel
c. the development community;
d. bodies with an oversight role;
e. legal bodies;
f. public bodies;
g. professional bodies;
h. interest groups;
i. regional bodies.
3. This paper sets out the issues raised at the meetings that were held during 2005. A copy was sent to all those invited to the meetings – see list at Appendix 1
4. Each meeting considered a generic, practically based agenda, whilst also including items of particular concern to individual organisations. A genuine dialogue was generated, which furthered mutual understanding and identified practical areas for customer improvement.
5. It was generally agreed with participants that, rather than the Inspectorate producing detailed minutes of each meeting, a report would be produced, highlighting the issues raised and the Inspectorate’s response. This paper sets out the first set of outcomes under the following headings:
a. joint inquiries in areas of housing need;
b. understanding the new development plan process;
c. policy and practice on the return of late statements
and the
d. resulting claims for costs;
e. rights of way casework.
Joint inquiries in areas of housing need
6. This discussion took place during a continuing period of excess demand over Inspectorate resources. Whilst the Inspectorate was able to demonstrate how the backlog of written representations appeals had been eliminated and initiatives were in hand to increase the throughput of informal hearings, public inquiries were being scheduled up to a year in advance. The Inspectorate had done this in order to give certainty to developers, and were now investigating the possibility of bringing forward as many public inquiries as possible.
7. The developers present were concerned about the practical implications of either bringing inquiries forward, or of later appeals preceding those already scheduled. Their suggestion was that in areas of housing need, in particular, joint inquiries should be scheduled. They also advocated that:-
a. LPAs and developers should be asked to liaise in advance and to offer a mutually acceptable date to the Inspectorate;
b. best practice advice be prepared to advocate full use of statements of matters (i.e. not just common ground);
c. reasons for call-in should be precisely worded;
d. more extensive use is made of pre inquiry work (either in meetings or by letter) setting out:-
- timetables; and
- lists of core documents etc.
8. As of November 2005, the Planning Inspectorate is able to record an improving position on all major casework, where the scheduling of public inquiries for called-in and recovered cases has been reduced from 52 to 32 weeks, a 40% improvement during the year. Work is now in hand to bring forward all public inquiries during 2006, starting with the prioritisation of housing appeals. Wherever possible the Planning Inspectorate will schedule outstanding inquiries before June 2006, and new inquiries within the period specified in the regulations (20 weeks for transferred cases, 22 weeks for call-in and recovered cases).
[Secretary’s note: as part of the Government’s response to the Barker report, the Inspectorate now aims to schedule all inquiries/hearings considering 10+ houses within 20/22 weeks of receipt and to issue 80% of the Inspectors’ decisions within 30 weeks of receipt and all reports to the First Secretary of State in accordance with statutory timetables. (February 2006)]
Understanding the new development plan process
9. Much of the concern from developers in particular related to the preparation phases of the new spatial plans. Fundamentally, real fears existed that:-
a. LPAs would not produce a robust evidence base;
b. LPAs would undertake SEA/SA assessments only on their preferred sites, putting the onus on objectors to provide the evidence base for alternative sites;
c. Inspectors would not do enough to examine synergies/overlapping issues with bordering spatial plans and would not provide explanations for their conclusions;
d. developers would not be effectively engaged at the preparation stage;
e. best practice information/experience would not be shared and myopic approaches would prevail;
f. the soundness test was not a substitute for good common sense and over-reliance on it would alienate the public.
10.In response to those concerns:
a. the Inspectorate will be providing best practice advice on preparing Development Plan Documents including ensuring that there is a good evidence base to proposals;
b. in relation to SEAs, it is likely that LPAs will focus on preferred sites but any appraisal would need to include consideration of alternative sites;
c. Inspectors are trained to give a proper balanced assessment of plan strategies, including the provision of appropriate reasoning. This includes a consideration of synergies and ensuring overlaps are dealt with correctly;
d. it will be up to developers to engage in the plan preparation stage, local authorities will need to demonstrate proper stakeholder involvement as set out in their Statements of Community Involvement;
e. the Inspectorate will be working with the Planning Advisory Service, ODPM, POS and other appropriate partners to ensure best practice and experience will be shared. We will also use the internet/web site to "post" examples and respond to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).
11. It was agreed that excellent communication would be needed to share and learn from experience throughout the sector. In particular, the Planning Inspectorate is proposing to launch a newsletter from January 2006 to support learning and communication.
Late statements
12. Developers expressed their concerns about the custom and practice adopted by the Inspectorate. Statements received on time were sent to the other party. Late statements were returned to the initiating party. This frequently resulted in the LPA having receipt of the developer’s statement, with the Inspector deciding on the first day of a public inquiry whether to accept the late statements. In a complex case this could lead to an adjournment.
13. The developers requested also, advice on claiming for costs. Inspectors (and the Inspectorate) continue to be guided by Circular 8/93, which is remedial and disciplining in its aims, not punitive. Three requirements have to be met for an award, as re-affirmed in Circular 05/2000:
a. an application has to be made (costs awards cannot be instigated by the Inspector);
b. unreasonable behaviour has to be demonstrated with regard to the ‘defendant’ party; and
c. the unreasonable behaviour must have led to wasted or unnecessary costs by the applicant for costs.
14. In accordance with the published guidance, submitting representations at the inquiry or hearing that had previously been returned by the Inspectorate as out of time (or indeed were never previously submitted) is likely prima facie to amount to unreasonable behaviour and any subsequent adjournment (even for a short period) for the parties to read such material is prima facie likely to be evidence of wasted or unnecessary costs. Each application has to be decided on its merits and is for the appointed Inspector to decide; internal monitoring confirms that Inspectors do generally award costs in such circumstances.
Casework involving rights of way
15. Problems had been arising in both RoW casework and planning appeals because applicants were not involving third parties in negotiations. Requiring such consultations might require legislation. The Cyclists’ Touring Club representative would be invited to meet Inspectorate staff dealing with RoW casework.
Next steps
16. The Inspectorate would be inviting participants to the next round of annual meetings in 2006; provisional dates are set out in Appendix 1.
January 2006
Appendix 1
ANNUAL STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
1. Organisations invited
STAKEHOLDER GROUP AND DATE OF MEETING |
ORGANISATION |
|---|---|
Development Community |
Home Builders Federation |
Interest Groups |
Campaign to Protect Rural England |
Public Bodies |
Environment Agency |
Professional Bodies |
Royal Town Planning Institute |
Legal Bodies |
Planning and Environmental Bar |
2. Purpose of Each Meeting
1. To enhance two-way communication between the Planning Inspectorate and representatives of the stakeholder community.
2. To generate two-way engagement and accountability between the Planning Inspectorate and the stakeholder community.
3. To identify areas for improvement and future action.
3. List of attendees
Development Community
Andrew Whittaker, Home and Builders Federation
Paul Garber, Home and Builders Federation
Faraz Baber, British Property Federation
Henry Robinson, Country Land and Business Owners Association
Brian Kingsley-Smith, Country Land and Business Owners Association
Fenella Collins, Country Land and Business Owners Association
Rachel Burns, British Retail Consortium
Corinne Swain, Advisory Panel on Standards
Interest Groups
Daniel Pullan, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Barry Davies, British Institute of Agricultural Consultants
Henry Oliver, Campaign to Protect Rural England
Gordon Felway, Cyclists Touring Club
Public Bodies
Colin Eastman, Environment Agency
Esther Kurland, Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
Jo Russell, Countryside Agency
Charles Wagner, English Heritage
Jane Burgess, English Heritage
Dr Andrew Brown, English Heritage
Professional Bodies
Kelvin, McDonald, Royal Town Planning Institute
Colin Goodrun, Landscape Institute
Rachel Fisher, Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors
Hugh Jones, County Surveyors Society
Lee Searles, Local Government Association
Legal Bodies
PEBA - Robin Purchas
Peter Goatley
Richard Harwood
Harriet Townsend
Law Society Pat Thomas, S J Berwin
Julia Farthing, Environment Agency
Moira Fraser,Thomas Eggar
Iain Gilbey, Shoosmiths
Brian Greenwood, Norton Rose
Stephen Taylor, Swindon BC
Steven Durno, Secretary
4. Dates of Meetings in 2006
To be arranged - probably similar times to 2005 meetings.
5. Contact points in the Planning Inspectorate
Sheila Rice
Personal Assistant/Chief Executive
Sheila.Rice@pins.gsi.gov.uk
Tel: 0117 372 8965
Alan Payne
Head of Chief Executive Support Unit
Alan.Payne@pins.gsi.gov.uk
Te: 0117 372 8371
