According to the Commons Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee the inspectorate is, in the main, "doing an excellent job".
The all-party committee, though, does lob some brickbats along with the bouquets. The inspectorate's complaints handling is pilloried as "outmoded and inappropriate".
Its culture is criticised for excessive secrecy. The MPs call for an overhaul of the inspectorate's recruitment policy. The committee voices concern at the length of time being taken on enforcement appeals. The MPs are also worried about timeliness of decisions particularly in respect of development plans.
There is, after all, often a long wait between hearing objections to plan policies and receiving the inspector's report, by which time the recommendation on a particular site may have been overtaken by events, such as the decision on a planning application.
What the select committee would like to see is early indications of an inspector's recommendations. And more use of "instant" decisions after simpler inquiries.
As importantly, the MPs have some important things to say about the way the inspectorate handles government policy when it is still in draft.
The committee was not pleased to learn during the course of its deliberations that the inspectorate currently gives "relatively little weight" to draft PPGs, for instance.
The MPs, rightly in my view, say this is just not good enough. "When policy is in flux, it is undoubtedly important that the inspectorate are given guidance as to how to interpret policy". The MPs suggest that ministers should issue a guidance note alongside draft planning policy guidance. That may be easier said than done.
When the courts come to consider government policy they often find it difficult to decide exactly what ministers had in mind. Throw in "guidance notes" when policy is in transition and the scope for lengthy legal dispute about exactly what is meant could bring the whole thing to a grinding halt.
When ministers get round to responding to the MPs' report, later this autumn, they will need to think long and hard how to improve the position. They will also have to grasp the nettle in respect of "call-in and recovered" decisions which have a habit of "disappearing" into in-trays of the Government offices in the regions and emerging very belatedly. Inquiries which end up here take a lot longer to process. Undoubtedly these are the more complex cases and those which require more input from other departments or from more strands of the department but the fact that these take on average 121 weeks to resolve suggests either constipation or serious furring of the administration's decision-making arteries.
After all, 121 weeks translates into two years, give or take a day or two. That is wholly unacceptable. The MPs argued that ministers should publish timetabling targets for the Government offices' handling of call-in decisions.
It turned out that Whitehall has internal targets for these cases: that 80% of decisions should be made within 13 weeks of receipt of the inspector's report and 100% within 20 weeks. If ever there was something more honoured in the breach, this is it!
One other issue requires an airing. The report from the MPs is unequivocal that ministers will have to address the question of third party rights of appeal, particularly in the context of the Human Rights Act 1998. That is the piece of legislation which formally incorporates the European Human Rights Convention into UK law. It comes into force in England on 2 October.
The select committee is adamant that regardless of the direct consequences of this act, the absence of a right [of third party appeal] goes against the spirit of greater public involvement in planning.
The MPs opine: "We are worried and disappointed that the Government does not appear to be giving active consideration to introducing a third party right of appeal".
The select committee recognises that the prospect of more delays in the planning process could loom but argues, echoing the CPRE, that a limited right would not be such a big deal.
It could, after all, be restricted to applications contrary to the development plan or on land in which the local authority has an interest. And there could be a strict time limit for lodging appeals.
Will ministers bite the bullet? Perhaps, now that the opposition is making waves on this front. Watch this space.
Source
Building Homes
