I was curious about the extent to which DPEA are exercising the new power to decide appeals without any further procedure other than the appeal paperwork. So I checked using the information on their website. To my surprise, of 307 appeals submitted since the new system took effect on 3rd August 2009, only one case has been set down for a public inquiry, five for a hearing, and eight for further written submissions. Of the remainder, almost all are to be determined with only a site visit.
Almost half of the appeals since 3 August have been determined. So it looks like the new system is contributing to speedier determinations. However, the decisions are made apparently with less information before the reporter. So is there an element of rough justice?
_subscribe to email alerts
_subscribe to our RSS feed
The question of when reporters will have enough information is an intriguing one. In December I did a hearing for a small housing development in the Green Belt. The hearing lasted for a full day, and the reporter asked lots of questions – my feeling was that the hearing was productive. It was the appellants who had opted for the hearing – the appeal was submitted prior to the new rules taking effect. Would the reporter have opted for a hearing if the new rules applied? The appeal was submitted with a full set of supporting studies, so I do wonder if she would have opted for limited written submissions, or even no further procedure other than the site visit.
I am currently dealing with a case where we have asked to be heard, but there seems to be an extreme reluctanceat the DPEA, in line with the new regulations, to allow this even where a detailed case has been submitted to support this.
I did a similar exercise looking at the statistics of appeals under the new system being heard and came up with the same results. Also even in respect of those appeals that were heard, most of the evidence seems to have been dealt with by written submissions.
This whole scenario is not new to me as it occurred down south a few years ago when the Inspectorate started to dictate the procedure to be followed. It lasted a year or so, but then petered out once someone challenged it I recall. I wonder whether the same thing will happen here once appeal numbers increase again and developers realise the implications of the new system.
The other intereeting thing that has happened to me is that DPEA seem to be more willing to do unaccompanied site visits. In a case I am involved in they did this without even informaing me of when the site visit was to take place. This never happened, in my expperience, under the old system and as I commented to the DPEA, if this becomes a regular occurence there is every chance that the first you hear about your appeal is a decision arriving in the post unless you carefully monitor the website.
We had a discussion with the DPEA on choice of procedure and have a copy of their internal guidance – I believe they’re intending to publish it. I’ll do a blog entry on this. Although parties have the right to request a certain type of procedure, reporters do not formally issue any decision on procedure or give reasons for their choice.
That would be great. I would certainly appreciate knowing the basis for them making a decision.
Robert, a slightly different thought but still relating to the question of the new approach to appeals, reviews etc. I was recently asked by Neil to speak at a conference and my topic was the new appeals and LRB process. In the interest of research I attended the first LRB undertaken by a particular council to see how it in action. I was astonished that the review took less than 13 minutes from start to finish! Whilst I think that the council in question did follow the correct procedure, I was taken aback at the speed of the process and was really left wondering whether it could be considered a fair and proper review of the case. I would be interested to know if you or your colleagues have had experience of other LRBs?
I’ve not been to an LRB meeting, though I’ve heard back about meetings in a couple of the planning authorities we’ve trained. One officer said that the members took a model decision, almost demonstratively reviewing policy and deciding how it should be interpreted and whether it applied! The procedure is meant to be summary, so I suppose if members have read the papers in advance and the issues are simple, there’s no particular reason why they should take more than 10 to 15 minutes.
Another issue that’s coming up is the standard of appointed officers’ decisions. We’ve seen some very ropey reports on handling recently – I think democratic scrutiny often makes for better decision-making.