Graham Stallwood, Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate, reflects on some of the questions currently being asked about appeals, local plans and how we are preparing for the demands ahead.
I recently joined Have We Got Planning News For You for a wide-ranging conversation about the work of the Planning Inspectorate.
We covered everything from appeal timetables and the choice between hearings and inquiries to the changes to written representations and the significant number of local plans we are expecting over the coming months.
They were challenging questions, but important ones.
Planning works best when organisations across the system are open about the pressures they face, listen to different perspectives and work together to find practical solutions. So, I wanted to reflect on some of the issues raised and explain how we're approaching them.
Getting the balance right on appeal timetables
I know there is concern in parts of the sector about the time being taken to schedule some appeal events.
Most events happen within the windows we're aiming for, but there are currently some hearings and inquiries being scheduled later than I would like.
There are several reasons behind that. Sometimes we need an inspector with specialist knowledge. There can also be complex circumstances involving the parties to an appeal.
We're also preparing for an exceptional amount of local plan work. We're expecting the equivalent of around two-and-a-half to three years' worth of local plans to be submitted in December.
We've recruited around 35 additional inspectors to help us meet that challenge. Those colleagues need to be properly trained and given experience of examinations before taking on cases themselves. That has required some of our experienced inspectors to support their development, with a short-term impact on the resource available elsewhere.
It is a challenge, and I don't want to underplay the effect that delays can have on people using our services. But we're building capacity so that we're better placed to meet the demands ahead.
Predictability shouldn't mean inflexibility
Another concern raised with me was whether the drive to decide appeals within predictable timescales can lead to hearing and inquiry dates being imposed too rigidly.
Government is clear about the importance of greater certainty and predictability in the planning system. That's important not only for appellants, but for local authorities, communities and everyone else affected by a proposal.
There will be occasions when there are good reasons to change an event date. Equally, there will be occasions when delaying it isn't justified. We make those judgements carefully and fairly.
We're looking at how we can develop a clearer, more shared understanding with the sector about how those situations should be approached.
There is a role for all of us here. If we want a quicker and more predictable system, the Inspectorate and the organisations and professionals working with us need to help make that possible.
Fairness sits at the heart of what we do
During the discussion, my weekend role as a grassroots football referee cropped up.
There are, perhaps surprisingly, some similarities. Whether you're on a football pitch or working within the planning system, people want to know they've been heard, that the rules have been applied consistently and that decisions have been reached fairly, even when they don't agree with the outcome.
For me, a fair process isn't simply one where everyone receives the same treatment. People's circumstances differ, and sometimes treating people differently is precisely what's needed to achieve fairness.
What matters is whether people can answer some fundamental questions positively:
Was I listened to? Was the decision-making transparent? Was I treated with respect?
Those principles are fundamental to the legitimacy of the Planning Inspectorate.
They matter whether we're considering a planning appeal, examining a local plan or dealing with one of the many other types of casework that come to us.
Choosing the right procedure for an appeal
We also discussed concerns about some cases being dealt with through hearings rather than inquiries.
The starting point for us isn't how large or valuable a development is. It is what an inspector needs to find out to reach their decision.
If the evidence can be properly assessed through written representations, an oral event shouldn't be necessary. Where evidence needs to be explored further, the inspector will consider whether a hearing or inquiry is the appropriate way to do that.
The important thing is matching the complexity of the case, the inspector's experience and the process.
That principle also applies to the new Part 1 written representations process.
Part 1 does not change the criteria for deciding whether an appeal needs a hearing or inquiry. Where an inspector needs a hearing or inquiry to properly test and understand the evidence, that remains available.
Quality is about much more than the outcome
One question I am regularly asked is whether we look at the proportion of appeals individual inspectors allow or dismiss.
We can see that information, but looking at an inspector's performance simply through an allowed or dismissed percentage would be far too simplistic.
Different types of casework can produce very different patterns. Multiple appeals on one site, enforcement cases and other specialist areas can quickly change the proportion of appeals an Inspector allows or dismisses.
What matters is the quality of the decision.
Our quality assurance therefore looks much more deeply at areas such as the reasoning behind decisions, the way issues have been addressed and the clarity and tone of our work.
I don't want inspectors worrying about whether their next decision will increase or decrease an allowance rate. I want them concentrating on making the right decision based on the evidence in front of them in a consistently timely way.
Preparing for what's ahead
The Planning Inspectorate's work extends much further than the planning appeals most people are familiar with.
We deal with more than 40 different types of casework, from planning and enforcement appeals and local plan examinations to nationally significant infrastructure projects, rights of way, compulsory purchase orders and a range of other applications and decisions.
That breadth means we constantly need to think about where our expertise and resources are needed most.
The forthcoming influx of local plans will undoubtedly be a challenge. But we've been preparing for it.
Our new inspectors come from a range of built-environment professions, and they're already gaining experience alongside established inspectors. That's important not only for the immediate challenge but for developing the capability we'll need in the years ahead.
Working together
One thing my career in planning has taught me is that no single organisation or profession can make the planning system work on its own.
Local authorities, applicants, communities, developers, planning professionals, government and the Planning Inspectorate all see the system from slightly different perspectives.
Understanding those perspectives doesn't mean we will always agree. But being curious about them, listening to concerns and being prepared to work across organisational and professional boundaries gives us a much better chance of improving the system.
We want a Planning Inspectorate that makes high-quality decisions, treats people fairly and provides greater certainty about how long processes will take.
Those objectives aren't alternatives.
The challenge for us, and for the wider planning sector, is delivering them together.
Graham Stallwood
Chief Executive, Planning Inspectorate
Leave a comment