Planning Inspectorate Newsletter - Issue 6
Summary of Stakeholder Meetings held by PINS Summer 2007
June and July saw an intensive round of stakeholder meetings designed to facilitate timely discussions on the implications of the Planning White Paper on the services provided by the Planning Inspectorate. The presentation (PDF 
61kb) generated a range of informed comment and focused discussion, which we hope helped shape the submission of detailed comments to CLG. The main points emerging were as follows:
- A lack of enthusiasm for Local Member Review Bodies.
- Costs Regime should be extended to written representation if criteria are introduced to determine the method of appeal; more use should be made of the costs regime to penalise parties who failed to follow best practice.
- Fast tracked householder and TPO appeals may lead to increased demand and could disadvantage 3rd parties and unrepresented appellants. 8 weeks was too short a target.
- General agreement that the nature and content of appeals could be improved by earlier, more detailed information on e.g. complexity, counsel availability.
- Agreement that cross copying of submissionsshould be done by the parties on Section 78 appeals; strong view that this was inappropriate for Rights of Way cases.
- The issues around introducing new material (i.e. case creep) were hotly debated. There was more support for than opposition to the principle. Most stakeholders believed that amendments were acceptable in practice, even at the last moment.
- Some concern that submitting statements of common ground at 6 weeks was too early for complex cases, and inappropriate for Rights of Way cases.
- No fundamental objections were raised to the concept of fees for appeals.
A full list of stakeholder groups is attached at Appendix A. Remember that it is still possible to respond to the Planning White Paper. Comments should be forwarded to CLG via Planning Reform Team, Communities and Local Government, Zone 3/J2, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5DU planningreformconsultation@communities.gsi.gov.uk by 17 August.
Local Development Frameworks - Update
A presentation (PDF 14kb) was made to stakeholder meetings held during Summer 2007.
At 4 July 27 DPD examination reports had been issued and 7 DPDs been found unsound. About 77 DPDs were received by the Inspectorate in 2006/7- only 26% of what was expected based on Local Authorities’ original Local Development Schemes. Slippage in submission of DPDs for examination and their quality had been recognised by the Local Government Association (LGA) as a problem which proposals in the Planning White Paper aimed to address. However, in their document launched at the RTPI Convention in June “planning at the heart of place-shaping” (PDF 898kb) the LGA advised that LPAs should not stop or defer developing their plans.
Other key messages emerging from increasing knowledge and understanding of the LDF system were:
- LPAs should submit DPDs which they considered to be sound and capable of scrutiny;
- Late changes by LPAs caused problems at examination;
- Lack of corporate buy-in had contributed to the problems of slippage;.
- The Core Strategy was the key document for the LDF.
- Proposals in the Planning White Paper were not about fundamental changes to the system.
- Generic guidance for local authorities on how to deal with specific topics (eg heritage) in their Core Strategy would be helpful; the Inspectorate keeps a bibliography of such guidance for Inspectors.
- Local authorities were encouraged to work together to make best use of resources and share best practice.
- The Inspectorate had been working with Government Offices (GO) to ensure consistency of approach to soundness issues.
Stakeholders were finding differences between the way different various local authorities were approaching the LDF system and there was some confusion about what was happening at Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) level. Strategic issues were not always being dealt with at the beginning of the process. Adequate consultation did not always take place.
The Inspectorate’s Lessons Learned (PDF 1006kb) document, also launched at the RTPI Convention provided detailed guidance on the lessons which had emerged from experience of the early examinations.
UPDATE ON PERFORMANCE
A presentation (PDF 29kb) about the Inspectorate’s performance in 2006-7 was given.
The Inspectorate had met most but not all of its targets for England; we had met all the targets for Wales. We had achieved what we said we would in our recovery plan but were carrying forward a 8,000 backlog of appeals in all methods. This was due to an increase in workload due to a surge of written representation (WR) appeals and pressure on Inspector resources. 10+ housing appeals were a Government priority so this could have an effect on other types of casework.
On Rights of Way we had met targets for both written representations and inquiries and just missed the hearings target.
Concerns were expressed about the effect that DPDs would have on Inspectorate resources.
Fixing of inquiries remains an issue for both the Inspectorate and parties. To try to resolve this, the Inspectorate was encouraging parties to give various dates to encourage a more proactive approach from appellants.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
BWEA flagged up issues concerned with renewable energy appeals and in particular training, use of assessors and Pre-inquiry Meetings (PIM). The Inspectorate was training Inspectors on renewable energy and working with institutions in order to have panels to draw on when assessors were needed. Institutions could also provide quality assurance and RICS could provide expertise on a range of specialist areas. The Offshore Maritime and Fisheries Agency were also able to provide training. Each request from the parties for a PIM was considered on its own merits; information from the applicant before the appeal was submitted was also useful.
RIGHTS OF WAY ISSUES
Rights of Way Rules were due to be finalised in June with commencement in October 2007. The Inspectorate was hoping to hold a seminar in September/October with representatives of user groups and order making authorities. Some user groups felt that local authorities were not facing up to Rights of Way issues.
It would be useful for Definitive Map Modification Orders (DMMO) to be available on line as they were of wider interest than to solely their local area. When the rules came into force there would be a notice on the website giving the start date and details about procedures so that the public were kept informed.
It was suggested that Inspectors were taking different approaches to Defra advice notes. The Inspectorate should be informed of specific cases where this was happening.
The Inspectorate was looking into the possibility of transcripts of High Court judgments being made more easily accessible and put on either the Defra or the Inspectorate website so that lessons could be learnt from them.
It would be useful if modification details could be at the beginning of On ROW decision letters. Order making authorities found it difficult to find venues when dates were imposed and there was inconsistency. Spatial planning did not always cover access issues.
Concern was expressed as to whether there were sufficient Inspectors for the workload with the right specialisms. The Inspectorate was coping with the current work and the situation is monitored by PINS and Defra. Meeting the CROW deadline of 2026 for ROW orders was alos discussed regularly at meetings between the Inspectorate and Defra.
At Rights of Way inquries barristers sometimes seemed to prolong the length of an inquiry and some volunteers felt they were being grilled by them. Their involvement also seemed to lead to an increased amount of paperwork on DMMOs when others were trying to cut down.
TRAINING
Inspectors were given specialist training according to business need and personal development needs, with a strong emphasis on CPD. The Inspectorate worked with outside organisations on training and was keen to share knowledge with statutory bodies. The Inspectorate would be happy to participate in a CABE study of training in specialist areas such as design policies. A general review of specialisms was being undertaken.
STATUTORY BODIES AND PRINCIPAL PARTIES
Statutory Bodies were having problems with not being informed about appeals at the same time as principal parties. They asked to be made principal parties to enable them to work to the same timetable. The delay meant that they did not have sufficient time to prepare their Rule 6 statement and could also lead to problems with finding representatives to attend inquiries due to short notice. The Inspectorate agreed to raise this with Government Offices.
MEDIATION
There was no significant progress on proportionate dispute resolution/mediation to report.
LISTED BUILDING CONSENT APPLICATIONS
One organisation found that their comments on these applications were sent to order making authorities. They do not always get a response and were not informed of progress in order to continue their objections at inquiry. The Inspectorate would raise the matter with the particular Government Office and the Chief Executive of the authorities concerned.
FEEDBACK AND FOLLOW UP
If you would like to be included as a stakeholder in our annual meetings, please notify Sheila Rice on Sheila.Rice@pins.gsi.gov.uk. We also welcome all forms of customer feedback and would particularly value specific examples of areas where you feel our procedures and practices could be improved. Again, please contact Sheila Rice on Sheila.Rice@pins.gsi.gov.uk
Sheila Rice
Appendix A
PINS STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS 2007
GROUP |
ORGANISATIONS INVITED |
MEETING DATE 2007 |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
Development Community |
Home Builders Federation |
11 June |
Oversight bodies |
Advisory Panel on Standards |
18 June |
Interest Groups |
Campaign to Protect Rural England |
25 June |
Professional Bodies |
Royal Town Planning Institute |
26 June |
Public Bodies |
Environment Agency |
4 July |
Legal Group |
Planning and Environmental Bar Association* |
1 October |
*Separate meetings were held with both of these bodies –
Law Society - 10 May/PEBA - 2 July
