Business and Corporate Plan 2003-2004
Future Workloads
Planning Work in England
Planning Appeals
The intake of planning appeals in England during the corporate plan years
is forecast to be as follows:
- 2004-2005 – in the range of 18,550 to 19,500
- 2005-2006 – in the range of 18,600 to 19,850
Ministers will need to establish fresh targets for the corporate plan period.
Enforcement Notice Appeals
Intake for 2004-2005 is expected to be about 3,200 appeals. Timelinesstargets
for the Corporate Planning period have yet to be decided by Ministers.
Advertisement Appeals
In England indications are that there is unlikely to be an increase in
the number of appeals being received in the early part of 2003-2004.
But it is anticipated that the implementation of new regulations, currently
expected later in 2003, will lead to an increase in intake towards
the end of 2003-2004. Intake is expected to be around 2,000 for 2003-2004,
with a rise to around 2,200 in 2004-2005.
Development Plans
Development plans must be reviewed and updated regularly, with
Inspectors continuing to hold inquiries into alterations and reviews.We
will continue to hold regular surveys of local authority intentions
to ensure that sufficient numbers of trained and experienced Inspectors
are available for this complex and demanding work, and to assign Planning
Officers (POs) and Higher Planning Officers (HPOs) to provide support
on professional tasks. On the basis of survey responses and analysis
of new requirements, we expect demand to run at an average of up to 70
cases a year of all types. We face uncertainties during the transitional
period, following the enactment of current legislation, during which
authorities and regional planning bodies will be moving from Regional
Planning Guidance and Structure, Unitary Development and Local Plans
to Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs), Sub-Regional Spatial Strategies
and Local DevelopmentFrameworks.
Local Development Frameworks
Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) offer the opportunity to approach
development plan casework in a new and effective way. Two elements
in particular lend themselves to a pro-active and timesaving approach.
The Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) is a vital prerequisite for a successful LDF. We therefore propose that the SCI, and the subsequent statement of compliance, should be the subject of a very early examination by an Inspector, who will need to be satisfied that all necessary standards have been met before any Local Development Documents (LDDs) based upon them can proceed to formal examination.
The Strategic Environmental Sustainability Appraisal (SA) can likewise
be tested at an early stage. They will of course need to be reviewed
during the examination of the plan as a whole, and any
modifications to the plan, whether by addition or deletion, will also
need to be assessed. But there would be a clear advantage in having the
main SEA/SA examined by an Inspector ahead of the main examination. If
the SEA/SA is held to be inadequate in any way, it could be reviewed
by the LPA and resubmitted before the documents based upon it proceed
to formal examination.
These steps alone could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
the process because they would avoid the Inspector having to recommend
withdrawal of the LDD because of deficiencies within the SCI or SEA/SA.
These early processes might be undertaken not by the lead Inspector,
but by
specialist Assistant Inspectors or Planning Officers.
We might also consider other innovative practice. Parallel sessions,
whereby different elements of the LDF could be examined at the same
time by different Inspectors, is one possibility. The deployment of specialist
Inspectors on particular topics, reporting to lead Inspectors who would
not themselves hear the evidence, is another. By a combination of such
methods, supported by high quality accredited Programme Officers, and
qualified Planning Officers, we see major gains in the effective deployment
of scarce
Inspector resources, and an overall saving in the time taken to process
LDFs to adoption.
Different local authorities adopt different approaches to the recording
and processing of objections, and to the structure of reports. Inspectors
typically spend a considerable amount of time in routine tasks, ensuring
that all objections have been properly recorded and responded to, and
the length and detail of reports varies greatly from one plan to another.
There are potentially very large savings for local authorities, for the
Inspectorate, and for the public, in developing a standard electronic
system for submitting, recording, processing and responding to objections,
and in a shorter,
more focussed type of report. Considerable work has already been done
by the Inspectorate on both of these projects; further progress will
depend on the availability of funding, and on successful partnership
with local planning authorities.
Planning work in Wales
Planning Appeals
Intake is expected to rise slightly to about 760 appeals each year.Timeliness
targets have yet to be agreed by the Welsh Assembly Government but are
likely to match those in England.
Enforcement Notice Appeals
The anticipated intake is expected to remain steady at around 200 appeals
per year. As above timeliness targets have yet to be agreed by the Welsh
Assembly Government but are likely to match those in England.
Advertisement Appeals
In Wales the picture regarding new regulations is not clear, but appeals
are likely to remain steady at around 100 per year for the foreseeable
future.
Development Plans
The policy of the Welsh Assembly Government is that authorities should
complete their UDPs before moving on to WDP preparation. Over the period
2003-2004, steady progress on UDP examinations is anticipated.
Ten Year Transport Plan
We expect a significant increase in the number of road and light rail schemes coming to inquiry in the next few years, and we expect to recruit further specialist Inspectors to deal with them.The growing experience of the LINK team (Large INquiries Knowledge) should continue to bear fruit in handling these and other large cases.
![]()