Planning Inspectorate Newsletter - Issue 7
Site Visits in Written Representation Appeals 
Inspectors’ work programmes are carefully prepared to make the most efficient use of their time. This means that when a programme of Written Representation appeals is set up, the Charting officer identifies a set of sites that are geographically located to enable the Inspector to make as many visits as possible within a working day.
An Inspector’s site visit programme normally contains a mix of accompanied (ASVs) and unaccompanied (USVs) visits. A route around the sites is planned beforehand, and each ASV is allocated a precise time for the Inspector to be met. Inspectors time their ASVs carefully to ensure that they arrive punctually at the site, since a delay in arriving at one site would not only inconvenience the parties to that appeal, but may also cause delay to the ensuing site visits which are to be completed within the day’s programme.
Where it is necessary to hold an ASV, the parties are informed beforehand of the time and date of the Inspector’s visit, and asked to send a representative to meet the Inspector at the site. Since the visit does not provide an opportunity to make any representations to the Inspector, it is not necessary for the planning officer who dealt with the case to attend, or for the appellant or his agent to be there. It is however necessary for both parties to send a representative to meet the Inspector, and for the appellant’s representative to have the means to enable the Inspector to gain access to the site.
There have recently been an increasing number of occasions when one of the parties has failed to attend the ASV, or the appellant’s representative has not been able to provide access to the site because of having the wrong or no key. There have also been occasions where one of the parties has arrived late, but the Inspector has been obliged to abort the visit because of the delay that the late arrival is likely to cause to the remainder of the day’s programme.
Inspectors will always take whatever steps they can to complete a site visit, but this is not always possible and the Inspector must abort the site visit. This results in a significant cost to the public purse as well as a delay in the processing of the appeal. It means that the Inspector has not only wasted time in preparing for and attending the visit, but the week or fortnight’s casework cannot be completed, and one fewer case is determined overall. Furthermore, it is not often possible for that Inspector to be able to visit the site for a second time within a reasonable time, so the case has to be reallocated to a different Inspector. In one case four different Inspectors visited the same site before the ASV could take place. A further consequence of having to rearrange an ASV is that other cases may be delayed.
Where an Inspector is obliged to abort a visit because of the failure of one of the parties to attend, there may be sufficient evidence on the file and from what was seen at the aborted visit to determine the case. Alternatively, where it is the appellant who fails to attend without any good reason, the Secretary of State has the power under S79(6A) of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act to dismiss an appeal under S78 where it appears to the SoS that the appellant is responsible for unreasonable delay in the progress of the appeal. In such cases notice will be served on the appellant to the effect that a further site visit will be arranged, but any failure of the appellant to attend or to provide the Inspector with access to the site, could result in the Inspector dismissing the appeal for undue delay by the appellant. Where the LPA fails to attend Inspectors will decide whether they can carry out the SV if the appellant is prepared to allow unaccompanied access to the site.
It is in the interests of all the parties to an appeal that the process is not subject to unnecessary delay. The failure of the appellant or the local planning authority to send a representative to meet the Inspector at the appointed time and for the appellant to provide access to the site is a cause of unnecessary delay both to the particular case and in the determination of other cases. However, the solution to this problem is straight forward: where the need for an ASV has been identified, the parties should take responsibility for sending a representative to meet the Inspector, with the appropriate key to let the Inspector into the site, and at the due time, making allowances for local travel conditions where appropriate.
Wendy Burden
Inspector Manager
