- Email: [email protected]
The local plan inquiry: Its role in local plan preparation
The Local Plan Inquiry: Its Role in Local Plan Preparation GEOFFREYMARSH Research Department, 103 Mount Street,
Jones Lang Wootton, London WIY GAS
Acknowledgements This stud\; was originally prepared as a thesis for the M.Phil in Town Planning. ;~t the Bartlett School of Architecture and Planning. University College London. in the summer of 1980. I should like to express my appreciation for all the help given b> the l!Cl. staff and students in preparing that thesis, and in its subsequent updating and re\i\ion. Many planning officers up and down the countr>J have kindly gi\,en of their time and expertise to assist me. A particular word of thanks is due to my former colleagues in the Department of the Environment, for their candid advice and in\~aluablc guidance
92
0305-9006/83/020091-77~38.50/0 Copyright 0 1983 Pergamon Pres\ Ltd.
Vol. 19. pp. 91-167. 1983. Britain. All rights rcaer\ed.
Pr0,yre.s~ in Hnnnrng.
Printed
in Great
1.
Introduction 1.1. Introduction 1.2. The Anal,viical Framtw~ork 1.3. The Wider Context of Public Administration 1.4. The Research
95 95 96 98 100
2.
The Legislative Context - The Function 2. I. rntrod~efio~z 2.2. ‘The Fz~~ction qf Local Plans 2.3. The Statutory Adoption Process 2.4. The Evofving Role sf Local Plans 2.5. Combsion
101 IO1 101 105 108 111
3.
The Terms of Reference
3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6.
of Local Plans
of the Local Plan Inquiry
Introduction What is a Relevant Objection? - The DOE Interpretation The Terms of’liqferencr in Practice ‘ Wands~~,orth’ A ~v~o~o~~. of ~bje~tion,~ Conc~z~s~on
112 112 112 113 115 117 121
4.
Administrative and Procedural Aspects of the Local Plan Inquiry 4.1. Introduction 4.2. Alternative Procedzrral Mod& 4.3. Pre-lnquitys Activities 4.4. Procedure in Practice 4.5. The ‘LeM>esModel’ 4.6. Conclusion
122 122 122 125 130 134 136
5.
Outcomes of Local Plan Inquiries 5. I. In f t-~~l~~f~ot~ 5.2. Pre-Inquiry ~~l~uen~e.~ and Uutc0n~e.S
137 137 13x
93
6.
The Local
Plan
Inquiry
-
An Integral
Part
of Plan
Preparation
and implementation? 6. I.
6.2. fi.3. 6.4. 6.5.
7.
Future
Bihliograph)
Intt~~tluc~tiorr The Ilircct C‘m t.y uttd Brnqfrt.r Is tlir ltiqliit~~~~ 0 CrcwtiIYl IL.\-rwi.w ? The Kclutiorl.vhip c!f’ the Inquit.!, to Pddic Pnlitiurl I)(,(,i.siotl-Mrrl\irlg C‘onchisiori
Directions?
Par~tic,ipatinn rrrrrl IX I67
I 67
CHAPTER
1
Introduction 1.1.
INTRODUCTION
In the final analysis, there is only one sensible criterion by which to evaluate the role of the local plan inquiry. Quite simply, is it a device which can significantly influence what happens on the ground? If it cannot, then the local plan inquiry must be presumed wasteful of public and private endeavour. Equally, if some other process could secure equivalent results more quickly, cheaply or reliably, then the inquiry is again redundant. Thus, our basic criterion is subsumed in the question: what unique and worthwhile contribution does the local plan inquiry have to offer Britain in the 1980’s? In March 1976, the Coventry City Council earned the distinction of holding the first local plan inquiry under the ‘new’ development planning system. Since then, the preparation of statutory local plans has become a major activity for many local planning authorities, particularly district councils. By June 1982, 161 local plans had been to inquiry, and a further 30 plans had been adopted without an inquiry being necessary-. (The statutory adoption procedures are explained subsequently.) As many as six hundred local plans are currently in preparation, according to recent DOE estimates. Clearly, with so many local plans still in the pipeline, there is a pressing need to review the local plan inquiry system in operation, highlight any serious difficulties which have emerged, and if possible, suggest improvements. The system has indeed attracted strong criticism, in particular from local authority planners, but also from a wider audience. Such criticisms are broad ranging, but tend to fall into one of several distinct categories. Firstly, there are commentators who accept the principles which underpin the statutory provisions relating to the inquiry, but who dispute specific aspects of procedure. For example, it has been argued that the ‘quasi-judicial’ procedural format discriminates against those private objectors unable to afford legal or professional representation. Secondly, there is disquiet about the status of the inquiry. The inspector makes his recommendations directly to the local planning authority, and it is for them to decide whether to accept or reject those recommendations. Many objectors share McAuslan’s (1975) suspicion that this arrangement will tempt planning authorities to abuse their privileged position as ‘judge in their own cause’. Finally, and more generally, the whole local plan inquiry system is condemned as being unnecessarily elaborate, time consuming and expensive; in short, a potential obstacle to private sector investment and a 95
96
Progress
misdirection Environment
1.2.
of scarce has said
‘I’llI.:
This
in Planning
A[\Al.Y’I
stud!
emphasises
I(‘:tI.
pragmatic
to IOcus
of local
In this respect. making acti\rity. administrative.
in outlook.
firmI>
The
on current
political
and
usefully
precedents characterises
technical
develop
should What will
arc
in ~‘ssencc
three
third.
the whole
this
approach
w3ithin
perspccti\-e
client
groups:
ai-ra>
first.
g authorities of‘ potential
which
there
by, shifting which
have
central
to promote
into parallel of’ structure
engaged objectors
are inherent
the emphasis a direct
away
interest
govcrnmcnt
an eff’ecti,c
areas of planplans a\ an
in the
(primarily
devctopmcnt
the
plans
in their 5tatiitory planning to the loc;~l plan. What
each of these client groups legitimateI! seek from the local plan inquiry’? does each get’? Those two i\sws, in a nutshell. define the scope of this study.
help to 5et the scuic
concerns
1.2.1.
01’ the sub.iect
Nevertheless.
from studies the approval
process. that
DOE) M,ith its o~crall responsibility system; second. the local plannin and
topicatity
practice.
tl-om processes. and towards the ‘client gi-oups’ operation of the local plan inquiry system.
duties:
the
plans.
there are useful Longdon (1977)
We can
There
for
a coherent analvtical framework within which to evaluate the of‘ the local plan inquir\. to the preparation, adoption. and
imptementatioi~
conllicts.
of‘ State
I~KA\lI~:WOKh
is essentially the riced
still requires contribution
local authorit! res~~~~rccs. T‘he Secretar! ;I\ much himself (Hexeltine, 1979).
of cach
of these
The Department
Although plans. the system.
the DoI: Department
Not
the system instance. constitute
least. ma!
ii‘. at this juncture. client
is only indirectI> retains important or thll
more
closets
appoints
(DOE) inwl\ed in the approval (adoption) rcsponsibilitiea for the Ioc;~I plan
the inspectors.
according
houaer. the I)oE must ;i credible decision-making
to the calibre
ensure that process.
IIltimately. of these
procedural to promote
issues. ‘good
of local inytiiry
the et‘lectivcncss inspectors.
the procedural aspect\ and that the inspector
task to perform. Since there arc no statiitor\ rules go\ei-ning the conduct of local planning authorities and objectors look to the DOE for authoritati\c guidance on basic Department seek\
It
on the respectice
groups.
qf the Environment
the DOE
stand
wc‘ t‘ocus
of
In the first
of the inquir> has ;I realistic plan inquiries. and impartial
l‘hrough a C‘ocic of Practice (DoF:. 1977). the inquiry practice’ . such that all partics to the
inquiry will ha\e confidence in the integrit! 01‘ the proceu. This implies that the DOE. has to undertake a balancing act: ob.jcctors must be able to esercisc their rights l‘ully. but at the same time. and in trrirness to local planning authoritic\. the system has to be as speed! plan inquiry administi-ati~e
and economical system cxtcnds and proccdilral
as possible. Howaer. the DOE’S interest beyond the smooth trunning of‘ the inquiq terms.
in the local in
The Local Plan inquiry
97
The DOE retains ultimate responsibility for the quality and efficiency of the statutory town-planning service. At the very least, the DOE must keep a watchful eye on all the various statutory tasks undertaken by local planning authorities. Development control remains the preeminent function and responsibility of the town-planning service. Without a sound basis for decision-making in the form of the development plan, development control must inevitably become more nd hoc, unreliable and discredited. There is still relatively limited experience of local planning under the two-tier system of structure and local plans, and during this formative period, the DOE must be concerned with the contribution of local plan inquiries, either singly or en bfoc, to the evolution of the development plans system. The role and scope of local plans is, in practice, not at all well defined. Evidence from a number of early local plan inquiries suggests that uncertainty about the wider role of local plans is creating confusion over the remit of the local plan inquiry itself. Against such a background, no inquiry system is likely to work satisfactorily. Should this uncertainty become too disruptive, the onus will be firmly on the DOE to issue advice. or even promote legislation to restore order and direction to the process of local plan-making. 1.2.2. Z’fzeLocal ~la~~i~g Aurboviries At a time when local government is searching for expenditure cuts and greater efficiency, local planning authorities must increasingly explore ways to reduce their non-essential workload. They may well be tempted to see the local plan inquiry in these terms. To many critics of the development plans system, greater efficiency demands a more streamlined process of plan preparation and adoption. The statutory adoption procedure, including the inquiry if necessary, is likely to delay adoption by at least a year. Consequently, local planning authorities may become increasingly attracted to the idea of ‘making-do’ with informal local plans, and thereby dispensing with the local plan inquiry altogether. A local plan is of little consequence unless it can be implemented. The prospects of successful implementation will be greatly enhanced if the plan can secure broad public and political support, and a commitment from the implementing agencies to invest in line with the plan’s policies and proposals. If it transpires that the local plan inquiry has an important contribution to make in securing such support, planning authorities may conclude that the inquiry is a reasonable price to pay for establishing the plan’s underlying credibility. 1.2.3. The Objecrovs Perhaps the first point to make about the objectors is that they may as easily be in conflict with each other as they are with the local planning authority. The local plan inquiry can provide the forum by which competing groups, amenity societies and developers, for example, seek to promote incompatible vested interests. It would be misleading therefore to see the objectors’ role in terms of a two-cornered fight with the planning authority.
Progress
98
in Planning
However. regardless of their diverse backgrounds and motivation. all objectors would doubtless endorse the view of’ the ‘Franks Committee’ (Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Enquiries. 1957) that an inquiry should ot’f’er “fair I’or the citizen
which
is both
the citizen’s
right
to expect
and
the duty
play
of’ good
administration to provide”. Set up in the wake of the so-called ‘C’richcl Do\vn affair’. the Franks Committee established the now hallowed doctrine that a public incluir! should
be conducted
impartiality”. Whilst it must such
according
be a pre-requisite
as to convince
outcome inquiry
prime
is not
and
a deposited
local
It will bl; now abstract
to defend
be evident
debates
is both
that
about
the delight
what it is that in the exercise zealous their must
and
\isible
socially
unjust
regard
and
which
private
considerations
which
should
an injurious
be
plan ;I gcnuinc proposal
in
does
exercises.
That
control for private
as an agent
directI>
to the
for creating
their professional decisions. the natut-c
responsibilities. property
01‘
planners
interests
have
(Harrison.
an ovct-197s).
In
control responsibilities. planners day. The local plan inquiry is one \er!
the planning
the immediacy
machine
seeks
to resolve
the inherent
of’ the problem\
in itself’ is all the more its statutory tasks to have confidence
in that present
system. controversy
inquiries is no more I.amb (1971). in their underling problems and which now find foremost is the issue
than a variation on exhaustive review and conflicts which ready expression in which so intrigued a judicial
brought
before
a local
the direction taken by this stud!. We cannot but of society which provides the backdrop to all
processes embodied In many respects.
fulfils
not seek to contribute
of’ town-planning
interests. -
making system which pursues the planners and the planned
inquiry
against
change. Elected members and as a matter of course to take
plan inquiry - which has shaped accept the imperfect understanding
a public
the inquirk
are it ih the
and the despair of’ academics. Sociologists agonise OVCI“the public interest” (e.g. Simmie. 1974): others claim that
through
of’ public
plan-making
upon
his interests
this study
the nature
constitutes of‘ their development
mechanism
It is these
the proccdurcs of the whip’.
needs to be assured that the local but that it does of’fer the ob.jcctor
local plans and through their development like with and make such decisions every
conflict
that
and
plan.
social. political and economic planning advisors are required which
consequent
exercise.
least.
system
fairness
he has had a ‘fair crack
The public
a cosmetic
at the very
of’ ” openness,
of any inquiry that
the actions
concern.
mcrcly
opportunity.
more
the objector
of’ the inquiry
the objectors’
to the principles
reason
to establish
a local
plan-
in a manner- which encourages in the integrit! of the \,arious
OVCI- the role and
conduct
of local
both
plan
a number of familiar themes. Wraith and of’ public inquiries in Britain. highlight are characteristic of’ many types of’ inquiry. the context of local plan inquiries. First and the Franks Committee: the extent to which
or an administrative
role.
I
D,,,r,ct
Newham
I <>ndon Borouph
BC‘k,“”
Of
Plan
TABLE
,nno\at,on\ Ile\,ble
-
h,ghl>
I month 122 OhJeClor~
I month 108 ObJcctor,
42 da)\ 471 oh,rclwn\
2 ueck\ 91 ohjcc’orc
I da\ X ob,cilor\
for selection
procedural
criteria
,mporm,
1.1. The study inquiries -
100
Progress
in Planning
Amongst objectors at local plan inquiries. there is often conl‘usion on thy\ xorc. The proceedings have all the appearance of at least a quasi-judicial process, and !?I at the end of the day. the inspector’s recommendations local planning authority. Objectors may find this hard
can bc o~crritldcn both to undcrhtand
b! the and
to
accept.
Other long-standing problems with public inquiries in gcncral impinge on the 1oc;iI plan inquiry. There is the perpetual conflict bet\veen the pressure\ I’or spced~ decision-making. a goal which inquiries are seen to impede. and the nectl to sat‘eguard reference
individual rights against arbitrary go\ ernmcnt action. ‘I’hc broad of public inquiries have always been problen~atical. II the inquir!
administrative entiret! that
in nature.
a political
political
alternative Should Should
decision? scheme
should
policy
an objector
decision,
Similarly.
to that
under
be alloyed
and not merely should objectors consideration?
terms i\
to USC it to challenge
01.
in It\
the manner 01’ Implementation bc allowed to promote an
What
al-c the right\
01‘ ‘third
01‘ partics”!
procedure be tormaI or informal‘? Is legal representation to be enuouragcd? costs bc awarded to ob.jectors? Are the pr~~cedurcs bet’orc. during anti al‘tcl
the inquiry in accordance with the requircmcnts of’ natur;ll juaticc’.’ These broad issues have been around for so Iong that thcrc k no reason suppose
they
can be resolved
to e\,eryone’s
complete
satisi’action
to
in the t‘icld 01 local
plan inquiries. That does not mean that there can bc an> groom I’or complacency it difficulties do emerge , and that there \tiould not bc constant enclca~c~ur to inipro\c the system.
The
research
has been
undertaken
in two stages.
During
1979 and curl>
19X0 the
study focused on the eight local plan inquiries detailed in Table I. 1. This sample inquiries was selected to reflect the diversity ot‘ circumstances v,hich had alread> become apparent within the system b) that time. In effect. these eight inquiries represent amongst
the earliest phase in the evolution the first twenty local plan inquiries
The second
stage
of the research
ha5 been
01‘ the svstem. to be held. undertaken
\ince primarily
which down.
time it is reasonable to expect that the system will ha\c Some of the early problems may have been ironed out.
occur
art‘ likely
to reflect
has bccomc apparent that problems. over and above
more
f’undamental
the borough-wide those encountaed
difficulties.
the\
(11’
~CI-c all
during
lYX3. b!
had time to \ettlc but those which still
As the s~5tcm
has c~ol\~d.
London local plans prc\ent special elseMSherc. C‘onscqucntl!. thi\ Iattcl
stage of- the research has concentrated on IAondon, and in particular. the incluirie~ into the Westminster, Wandsworth, and Hammersmith and I’ulham District Plan\. Whilst these inquiries do raise certain problems which arc largeI\ conl‘inctl to London. broader themes emerge which ha\-e direct and important implications 1.~11 the local plan inquiry system at large.
it
CHAPTER
2
The Legislative 2.1.
Context
-
The Function
of Local
Plans
INTRODUCTION
Town and country planning legislation rarely makes for exciting reading. Furthermore, legislative complexity does not necessarily eliminate ambiguity and uncertainty. Indeed, a cynical observer of the current ‘planning scene’ might even conclude that the main beneficiary is the legal profession. Be that as it may, a study of local plan inquiries cannot proceed without a thorough understanding of the legislative framework, both as it applies to the preparation of local plans in global terms, and to the inquiry specifically. Perhaps the key characteristic of the legislation is that the scope of the local plan is left in significant measure to the discretion of the individual local planning authority. Against this background, there has been a continuing, but somewhat inconclusive debate over which matters may properly or usefully be tackled in local plans. The ensuing uncertainty often finds expression in the local plan inquiry itself. The DOE defines the role of local plans in straightforward land-use terms, the emphasis being firmly on “the development and other use of land”. In contrast, Healey (1979) finds a tendency for the public to view the local plan as ‘&ageneral vehicle for solving local problems”, regardless of whether such problems relate directly to land-use matters. The local planning authorities have an unenviable task seeking to reconcile these opposing views.
2.2. THE
FUNCTION
2.2.1. Legislative
OF LOCAL
PLANS
Provisions
The ‘two-tier’ system of structure and local plans was introduced by the 1968 Town and Country Planning Act, largely in response to the recommendations of the Planning Advisory Group (PAG) in 1965. We are not here concerned with the merits of the PAG Report, only its legacy. PAG envisaged that in place of the ‘old style’ unitary development plans, strategic (structure) plans would establish a “coherent framework of planning policy” which tactical (local) plans would translate into site specific land-use proposals. The provisions of the 1968 Act were consolidated in the 1971 Town and Country Planning Act, which remains the basis of the legislation for the preparation and 101
102
Progress
adoption
in Planning
of local plans.
important
bearing
Amending legislation to the 1971 Act which has an on the preparation 01‘ local plans derives from the 1972 Local
Government 4ct. the Inner Planning and Land Act. As ii direct result anticipate. structure for the preparation does plan
Urban
Areas
Act
1978. and
the
19X0 I.~xal
C;o\ernmcnt
of‘ local government reorganiaation in 1974. uhich PA<; did not plans are prepared by the county council. M hityt responsibitil\ of tocat plans generally falts to the district cc)uncil. Thexc ‘who
Lvhat’ arrangements for local plan preparation arc formaliaect in ;I ‘development scheme’ (Section 1Oc of the 1971 Act as inserted by the I972 Act). prepared and
kept under review by the county. in consultation with the districts. Lintit Ma! 1982. the 1971 Act was supplemented by “the 1974 Regulations” (S.I. 14236. 1974). e\ccpr in Greater. London. where different Regulations apply (S.1. 1481. 1974). The 1973 Regulations arc fully esplained in the “Memorandum on Structut-c and I.ocal Plan>” accompan\ing DOE circular 4/79 recently. the DoE has issued Circular preparation possible taken
of local by the
place
plans.
19X0 Act.
although again excepting London. More 23/X t which provides general advice on the
and explains Att the local
\+:ithin this I‘ramwork
Regulations were introduced wilt bc examined in this test
the changes plan
in adoplion
inquiries
of‘ legislation
reLicwed
proccdure~ in this stud!
and supplemcntar\
ad\ ice. Ne\l
in May 1982 (S.I. 555. 1982). the implications 01‘ \\hich as and where appropriate. At the time of’ v riting. the
DoE \vas in the proccss of drafting 19X0 Act and ~CM Regulations.
a revised
Memorandum.
to tithe account
At (his juncture. wc are concerned esctusivel) with the statutol.! I-egarding the I‘unctions of local plans, and the i‘ormat supptcmentar! contained in c~rcuiars. The 197 t Act states onlv that:I.1 I(‘,1
made ha\e
01‘ the
pro\,i\ic)n\ advice
i\ IIGII plx1 \tlall ~(ln\l\t (II ;I ,,I;,,’ ;illil ;I 1\11111‘11 \I‘llc‘lll~Ill ;iliil \11‘111 117 \uctl dclail :k\ ltlc JU~IIOII~J 1h1nk ;kt~t>~~~t>~nalc Ltw du11101~1~‘\ (iI1 IOI.II~~I~;I~C t~lotx)wt\ 101 the Jc\~loprilent a1111 rllt1c.l ,l\C ill 1‘111d 11, ih‘ll ,>a11 (II ltlcll ‘IIi’.i 111 lOI ATI> dc\ci-lptl~~n of de\ctI ltlc t>h\\u_;11 cl1\‘IIoI1n1cllt ;LIld IhC m‘lllagcmcnt 01 11.1111~I.
(t>1
c~lrlt;lln\uct1matlcl-\ A\ ,,,a\ lx, t~rc\crltwl (II ‘I\ \cclcr;ll\ ot state 111,1\ ,,, a,,, p’:rrlicillar c;,\c d1recr.”
In recognition the
of the diversity 1974 Regulations provide
plans and sub.ject plans. envisaged for each:
The
of planning problems to be found at the tocat tc\,el. for- three types of local plan: districl plans. action ;IK;I Memorandum
“A tti\ll-let plan (rep. 15 (I 1)ma! hc :,I c;i \?.tw.l c the clec~i~led .. \\ a>
ptnnnq
pt-epad m<~ttcrs need
(pal-as.
3. t 2-3. 14) ctaborates
loi. the \\ tlolc LO he \tucl~cti
on the role
OI ,>;,I, 01 (hi, tdannlny and \<‘I 0~11 I,, ;I cimtxd~n\~\
,tt1thot11\‘\ c
“411 act~~m dri’;i plan (ref. I5 (2)) I\ IN dn d~u md~;r~cd II, 111~ I~ILIC~~IIC ptrm ;I’ 41, ~LILOII ;IIC.~, an ar-ca untended 1.01 compt-ehen\l\~ de\ elopmerl~, re~ic~cl~~pn~c~~~ ;rnd/i~r irnptcl\ cmenl. 10 hc c~~rr~rnenc~d \\lchln 10 ycan ol \uhml\\lon 01 the \,,,,c,~,rc ptal> ” (N.B. Subsequent to [he 19X0 Act, an action irrespective 01‘ the structure plan designation.)
area
plan
may bc preparcd
1.i’
for an> artx
The Local Plan Inquiry "A subject plan (reg. 15(3)) is designed to enable detailed treatment description
of development
or land use
103
to be given to a particular
.”
In the 1982 Regulations (Reg II), the term “district plan” is no longer used. Local planning authorities clearly have a considerable choice both of what type or types of plan to produce, and which geographical areas they wish the plans to cover. For example, some London Boroughs (e.g. Westminster) have prepared a single borough-wlide plan; others (e.g. Lambeth) have concentrated their statutory local plan work on smaller areas vvith urgent plal~ning problems, the Waterloo District Plan being an example. Outside London, planning authorities tend to favour this latter ‘patchwork’ or ‘mosaic’ approach. It should however be noted that planning authorities do not have a statutory obligation to prepare local plans at all. Indeed, in Circular 23/81 (para. lo), the DOE stresses that a local plan should only be prepared where there is a “clear need” for that plan. With regard to the content of local plans, Section 1l(5) of the 1971 Act requires that:“‘A local plan for any area shall contain, or be accompanied by. \uch diagrams. Illustrations and descriptive matter as the local planning authority think appropriate for the purpose of ercplainmg or iilustratlng the proposals in the plan. or as may be prexribed, or as may in any particular c3e he specified in directions given by the Secretary of State: and any such diagrams. Illustrations and descriptive matter shall be treated as forming part of the plan.” Both the I974 and the 1982 Regulations require that the proposals contained in the written statement must be “set out so as to be readily distinguishable from the other content thereof’; i.e. the “reasoned justification” for the proposals and other supporting material (1974 Reg. 16; 1982 Reg. 12). The proposals map has to be presented on an ordnance survey base. The 1974 Regulations (16(l)) made provision that the proposals formulated in the local plan shall relate to such of the following matters as the local planning authority thinks appropriate:“(I) (pi) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (\iii) (ix) (A) (\i)
Distribution of population and employment Housing Industry and Commerce Tr~nsp~)rt~ti(~n Shopping Education Other social and community services Rccrcation and leiwrc Conservation. townscape and landscape lltility services An? other relevant matters.”
In the 1982 Regulations, this ‘shopping list’ of appropriate local plan matters is omitted entirely. Also omitted is the earlier requirement (1974 Reg. 17) that proposals should be set in the context of social and economic considerations. Whatever policies and proposals are included in the local plan, Section 1 l(9) of the 1971 Act requires that it must “conform generally” with the structure plan “as it stands for the time being”. A local plan prepared by a district council cannot be placed on deposit with a view to adoption until the county council issues a certificate
104
Progress
in ~l~~~~~~g
of general conformity with the approved structure pian. has been issued, as has become abundantly cicar at a number of local plan inquiries.
The Local
and a source of especial difficulties examined in depth in Chapter 3.
2.3.
THE
STATUTORY
ADOPTION
at local plan inquiries.
Plan inquiry
105
This whole issue will be
PROCESS
2.3.1. The Sequence t$ Events IJnder the old system, development plans were approved by central government, and inordinate delays were common. The PAG Report (para. 1.30) was vitally concerned to secure a more streamlined process. Consequently, the new system is based on the principle that there should be a clear division of responsibility between central and local government for the approval of development plans, to reflect the nature of the issues at stake. Since local plans must operate within the strategic framework established by the structure plan and approved by the DOE, responsibility for adopting the local plan is placed full square with the local planning authority. Although the DOE does have reserve ‘call-in’ powers for local plans, these powers had nt’v~r been exercised prior to June 1982. The DOE is however required to approve the (Section 12(3)) public participation statement for each local plan. In Fig. 2.1 each step in the process of local plan adoption is attributed to the relevant provision in the statutes. The process depicted represents all the stages through which a local plan must pass to secure full statutory status. The plan is formally placed “on deposit”, and if a valid objection is made during the 6-week objection period and not subsequently withdrawn, a public inquiry will be necessary. (Since the 1980 Act. the inquiry may be dispensed with if all objectors agree to a written representations procedure.) Six weeks notice of inquiry must be given to objectors once the date of the inquiry is fixed. After the inquiry, the inspector sends his report to the local planning authority. They are required to consider the report and. having done so, publish a statement of what action, if any, they propose to take in response to each of the inspector’s recomlnendations. Prior to the 1980 Act, the planning authority could only make a modification to the deposited plan in direct response to an objection which had been considered at the inquiry. Schedule 14 of the 1980 Act relaxes this provision. and a local planning authority may now “modif> a local ;~ccord~ncc with {Ii‘: (a) (b)
plan
before adoption to take account not only of objections duly made in the regulations and matters arising nut of such objections (as formerly) but also
Iatc objections made to the plan: and an) other considerations which appear 23/8 I).
to the authority
to be m;lterial”
(UoE
Circular
If the planning authority does determine to modify the plan, it must publish a list of the proposed nlodjfications, which are then subject to a further 6-week objection period. The ~em(~randum (para. 3.75) indicates that an inquiry into the proposed n~odi~cations will be necessary where:-
106
Progress
in Pianning
FIG. 2.1. The statutory
process of local plan adoption.
Assuming the local plan eventually surmounts these various obstacles. the way is clear for the planning authority to adopt the plan by council resolution, subject to the Secretary of State being notified and not exercising his ‘call-in’ powers, and adoption notices being advertised locally.
The Local Plan inquiry
107
Local planning authorities also have the option of preparing non-statutory or ‘informal’ local plans, which do not comply with the full statutory requirements of the plan-making and adoption process. For example, the planning authority may decide to adopt the plan by council resolution without putting it on deposit. By this means. the prospect of a statutory local plan inquiry is removed.
2.3.2.
The Conduct of the Inquiry
The local plan inquiry is held under Section to note the precise wording of the Section:-
13(l) of the 1971 Act. It is important
“For the purpose of considering
objections made to a local plan the local planning authority may, and hhall in the case of objections so made in accordance with regulations under this Part of this Act. cause a local Inquiry or other hearing to be held by a person appolnted by the Sect-etar) of State or. in such cases as may be prescribed by regulations under this Part of this Act, by the Authorit> themselves .”
That the inquiry is held to consider “objections made to a local plan” highlights the issue of what exactly constitutes “a local plan” in statutory terms. There are no statutory rules governing the conduct of local plan inquiries. Nevertheless, Purdue (1977) implies that the statutory Inquiries Procedures Rules (S.I. 1419, 1976), which apply for example to inquiries into (Section 36) planning appeals, have a significant bearing on the conduct of local plan inquiries:“uhere no detailed procedures (for an inquiry Into a development plan) are laid down. administt-ativr practice normally follows the existing rules by analogy. and in any case. the court\ ha\t. nlwn><, even before statutory rules were created. required the conduct of lnquirles to be according to the rules of natural ,justice.“
It is the concept of natural justice - “that no man should be judge in his own cause, and that no man should suffer without first being given a fair hearing” (Wade, 1977) - which provides the bedrock upon which all public inquiry procedure is founded, and the local plan inquiry is no exception. By virtue of Section 13(l)(b) of the 1971 Act, procedural matters relating to local plan inquiries f-all within the jurisdiction of the Council on Tribunals (Hoffman. 1981). Guidance from the DOE on the conduct of local plan inquiries is provided by the 1977 Code of Practice “Local Plans: Public Local Inquiries - A guide to procedure”. Whilst this Code lacks statutory force, it is authoritative insofar as it has the support of the Council on Tribunals, which was closely involved in its drafting. The existence of this Code of Practice does not preclude the possibility of introducing statutory rules subsequently. Sub.ject. of course, to the dictates of openness, fairness and impartiality, the Code of Practice (para. 3.28) leaves it to the inspector to “decide how to conduct the proceedings”. Although seeking to encourage informality, the procedural format favoured by the Code is the traditional ‘adversarial’ approach, which is based on, but dots not necessarily resemble, court-room practice. The objector, who may be legally or professionally represented and call witnesses if he wishes, presents his case by reading a proof of evidence. He is then cross-examined by the advocate for the
108
Progress
in ?i~~~~i~~
Technical difficulties aside, there can be no presumption that loc;rl politici;tn\ itnci local planning authority. The local planning authority then prescnt~ its counterc~idoncc. which is subject to cross-examination by the objector. The objector- ha\ ;I fin~~l right 01‘ reply. Within this broad proced~~ral framework, many \:tri;ttion\ can and quite properly do occur.
The Local Plan Inquiry
109
members of the public involved in the preparation of the local plan will readily accept structure plan policies. As Caddy (1981) points out, “the longer a plan takes to come to fruition. the greater the chance there is that political changes will alter the direction of the plan”. Nor can it be assumed that potential conflict between the structure and the local plans can be resolved, de facto, by the requirement for general conformity, which in practice is a vague and malleable concept. Nowhere is this more evident than in London. The so-called ‘Coin Street Inquiry’ provides a vivid illustration of the problem. Very briefly, the Coin Street sites are on the South Bank of the Thames. within the area of the Waterloo District Plan, a location which is defined as a “preferred office location” in the GLDP (para. 4.14). However, in the Waterloo District Plan, the sites are designated primarily for housing devel(~p~nent. After the plan had been adopted (without an inquiry being necessary), developers applied for planning permission to build nearly a million square feet of offices at Coin Street. The application was ‘called-in,’ and two public inquiries have since been held. A major issue at both was whether the local plan does conform generally with the GLDP; the developers claim it does not; local community groups argue the reverse. The outcome is still awaited, (at the time of writing), but the general message would appear to be that the interpretation of the structure plan in the local plan is still a potential source of confusion. Another major issue to consider is the effectiveness of local plans as vehicles for ‘positive planning’. In particular. we are concerned with areas of decay requiring substantial public sector investment; e.g. an inner city location where an action area plan might be expected to play a guiding role in the regeneration of that area, A number of commentators are uncompromising in criticising the development plans system in this type of situation. According to Hambleton (1978):-
Booth and Edwards (1981), referring to the experience of the Barnsley Metropolitan District are less pessimistic. but concede the difficulties. The essence of the dilemma for the planning authority is that, in the final analysis, the local plan is no more than an advocacy document in respect of the allocation of public and private sector resources. Planning departments do not actually spend money; they have to persuade others what to spend, where. and in what order of priority. Central government has done very little to advance the cause of the local plan as an important arbiter of resource allocation at the local level. For example, the relationship between local plans and the Housing Investment Programme (HIPS) is at best tenuous. DOE circulars on the annual HIPS submission mention development plans only in passing, if at all (see DOE Circulars 63177, 38/78). There are of course real difficulties in coordinating an annual investment cycle for a whole borough, with a development plans system which operates on irregular time-horizons. and in which the ‘cover’ of local plans may be incomplete. Likewise. there is effectively no
As things stand at present. the Iocal plan is playing an increasingly bringing forn,ard
proposals
for dc\,elopment.
Uic
proposals
map
relied upon to depict all the public scctor schemes with a reasonable iliiplementatioli. In Lond~~ii. road safeguarding lines are frequentI\ proposals
maps
of the borough
(pun. 3X). Pinall!. wc‘ must
curnine
plans.
despite
Ihe response
the contrary
of‘ the general
there is increasing widcnce of disillusionment.
I.PN
to Ioc;iI
Local plan inquiries
c\c‘n bc
chance 01‘ oniittcd l’i-oni the
advice‘in public
Iimitcd trolc in
cannot
l/75
pkinh.
highlight
~IIJL‘C the
various wubs in \Ihich the public. and indeed dcvclopcrs. pcrcci\c shortcoming\ uithin the local plans system. ‘l’he nature of‘ objections lodged to local plans \vill 1-x examined in depth in the nest chapter. For the time being. it is sufficient broad term\ c\II> IocaI the general public. in
At the simplest buyer
OI- elisting
appear to hare
plans
level. the local
plan
cannot
home-owncl- OI- tenant
an ‘identit\ problem
upon b>, the intcncling IIOIIW~
bc relied
to provide
:o Illu\tr;rtc,
it] the c‘\c’\ 01
;I reasonable
dcgrec
of‘ ccrtaint!
that his propert> is sal’c I‘i-om any cataclysmic planning change. I‘hc pIanning tcstbooks might tell us that flexibilit>, in development plans is esential. but t’or the householder OI- purch~~scr. ccrtainty is undoubtedly a virtue. At the other cxtrcmc. and back in the rt‘;llmh 01‘ ‘positive planning’, the local plan appeal-\ tc, ha\c OHI\ limited rclcvancc to the immediate problems of‘ everyday life. If local planning i\ to gain the confidence and support of‘ the general public. II must ad&es4 itself consti-ilcti\rl> to those problems which a local cc)mniunit\ \ces falling
within
to physical land-use cannot be expecttxl other
iisc
is scai-cely
land” surprising.
of
;I\
of town planning. even if such matter\ trclatc onl! IndirectI> The ‘ordinar\ man iii the strci‘t’ plannin, (J as strictly defined.
the ambit
to understand the fine distinction “other related but non-planning
and
Di4trict
chapters entitled ‘Housing’.
plans
and
action
‘1Jducation’. ‘Social
area
between the “dc~elopment anti activities”. Public conl‘uGc)n plans
Services’
c~~ninionl~ and so forth.
contain I\ not
Ihc
man in the street cntitlcd to c\pcct to find the full range of‘ his council’\ housing policies in that plan? When he finds that the plan cannot include firm policio on those aspects of housing management or health service proCsion I\ hich al‘l’cc~ him most. is it any ~\oiiciei- that he feels perplerd? Individual ob.jections to ;I local plan will tr the most part display es\cntiall> ‘parochial’ concerns and ambitions. l‘here is however a pattern and consistcnc! to
The Local Plan Inquiry
111
many of the problems raised at local plan inquiries, and seen in global terms. these recurrent themes and issues reflect more deepseated shortcomings within the local plans system at large. This brief review of emergent problems within the local plans system has not been in any sense exhaustive. Rather, it has been designed to highlight those issues which impinge most directly on the day to day operation of the local plans inquiry system.
2.5.
(‘ONC‘LUSION
The legislative framework is one of contrasts. On the one hand, the function and content of local plans is defined in broad and indicative terms, in keeping with the premise that responsibility for local plans must rest at the local level. Yet it would seem that the DOE finds this unsatisfactory. The whole tenor of DOE advice to local planning authorities has been progressively to seek to restrict the role of local plans to a narrowly defined concept of land use. In other words, the DOE is guided primarily by a commitment to administrative propriety. How far the man in the street can understand, let alone subscribe to the DOE line, will be discussed more fully in Chapter 3. If the role of local plans continues to give cause for uncertainty, the statutory adoption process leaves very little to chance. The intricacy of the process reflects the attention to detail required to ensure that the proper ‘checks and balances’ operate throughout. Whether or not the statutory adoption process can justify its complexity and duration must depend on the relevance and usefulness of local plans in tackling the urgent planning problems at the local level.
CHAPTER
3
The Terms 3.1.
IU’lrKoDt
No
inquiry
that
or
on
is held
its entiret\. constitutes authorit>
local lo
l‘hus.
‘rclwant
in
this
Plan
Inquiry
1980). It is 5oniewhat \vhat
inquiries.
We
but
wr\‘c
onI\,
7’he
DoI;
without to
can ha\c
niade
“ob_jections
IO hut-.
it‘ the
any
highlight
tcrma
01 retcrencc
tr-unk road inciuiries
the turn< of rei’crence objection’: being
ob,jection’.
direction
smoothly
to impost
plan
consider
;I ‘relevant
operate
acrimc)nious
(McAuslan.
is obliged
of
to The
has wught
Dok
inqirirv
c\pected
dispute.
in point
reference
onI>
be regarded seen
that
to (the)
IocaI
plan”.
v+idet-
are
either
recent
~t‘ars
therei‘orc
terms
in statutor>
terms.
and
the plan
not
depend on what the Ioc;iI planning
to I‘ind an acceptable ~ucct’ss. (‘ontinuing unccrtaintic4
o\cr-
the
is
to I‘ind
;IS contr.o\‘et-sial
already
has struggled conspicuous
of
hut-prisins
ol‘the inquir! Cll an ob~jcction \f hich
the
saga
the in
euactl!
definition difficulties roIc
of
local
in general.
plans
3.2.
lx
in
cast the
of
of the Local
(‘I’lOh
can
uncertain ;I vivid
of Reference
MII.\‘I’
The
IS
LIoE’s
the Code
,\ KI,.I.I~:\
intcrpt-etation
of‘ I’ractiw-
\YI
OI~.II~:(‘l’IOU?
of ‘relaant
-
objection
I III:
I)ol.:
I[\
I I,.Kl’KI~
. is to bc t’outid
I’ZI
IO\
in paragraph
3.5 01‘
The Local
Plan
Inquiry
113
exclude from the inquiry objections which were in effect alternative proposals for development. The DOE feared that to permit objections of this nature would create endless opportunities for delay in the consideration of the planning authority’s proposals. However, in its anxiety to restrict the terms of reference, the DOE appears to have overstepped the mark. There is nothing in the 1971 Act to support (para. 3.5) the Code of Practice in its assertion that “objections should relate to particular policies or proposals in a local plan . .“. The Act is only concerned with “objections made to a local plan”, and Section 1 l(5) of the Act makes it quite clear that the local plan comprises everything between the covers of the written statement (see p. 103). That being so, there is no reason why an objection to an aspect of the reasoned justification or supporting material should not be considered valid. Whether such an objection serves any useful purpose is altogether another matter, to be examined subsequently. Dexter (1979), from the DOE, concedes that the Code of Practice definition of ‘relevant objection’ is problematical;
“It ma) be difficult to decide which are the relevant objections. only in the Code of Practice
particularly
since this term appears
and not in the Act.”
Despite the difficulties, it is instructive to accept ‘para. 3.5’ at face value, and examine its possible implications. Let us assume that the local planning authority complies with the Regulations in presenting its proposals in a visually distinct manner, and that it also follows the advice of LPN l/78 with regard to the nature of proposals. In other words, only strictly defined proposals for the development and other use of land would appear in bold type or upper-case. Everything else in the plan. except the proposals map, has the status of reasoned justification or supporting material. Thus. if the Code of Practice was to be rigidly applied, the only objections which the planning authority would be obliged to hear would be those specifically directed at the (upper-case) land-use proposals. To sum up. we can begin to identify the DOE’S ‘ideal objection’ in the following terms. The objection will relate to a specific property or land holding, the owner of which is aggrieved by a policy or proposal for the future use of that site in the local plan. The objector will seek complete or partial relief from the injurious effects of the proposal, but in so doing, he will not seek to promote either alternative policies or indeed alternative uses of his land or property.
3.3.
TIIE
TEKMS
OF
REFERENCE
IN PRACTICE
The evidence from many local plan inquiries suggests that the DOE’S preferred terms of reference have rarely been strictly observed in practice. Rather. local plan inquiries have displayed a marked tendency to stray ‘off course’ by hearing objections which:(i) (ii)
challenge both the need for and the implementation are vitally concerned with “related but non-planning
of structure activities”,
plan policies,
114
Progress
(iii)
seek
in Planning
to promote
omissions That
is not
future the
new or alternative
policies
in response
to percei\cd
in the plan.
to sa!; that
prominently
‘straightt’orM,ard’
at local
ob.jections
plan
inquiries
theory
and
-
they
to land-use do -
pi-opouls
but the\
do not
arc by no
mc;iii~
star!
whole
The discrepancy aignil‘icancc.
between
On the one
worthwhile
hand.
contribution
prxtice
if the locnl
to the resolution
is of potentially inquiry
plan
01‘ these
t’ai.-rcachinf
is incapable
broader
ot‘ making
problems.
an!
the \.;ll-iou\
participants to the inquiry are either u,asting their time. or enter-taining tlilse hope\. or both. Ho\ve\,cr, if the inquiry does achieve positive results outside it\ strictI> defined terms of reference. begins to look Iess secure. plan
inquiry
may diverge
The problems highlighted Hampshire proposed
the whole basis of the tuo-tier dewlopment plans \~stcm Some examples will illustrate the cstcnt to \\hich the local from
inherent
at the Farcham Structure Plan that
some
6.000
land
allocation
commensi~rate
the notional
in the structure Western (approved homes
quo’.
local
plan
relationship
~berc
Wards local plan incluir!. Hrictly. the South in 1976 but prepared in the carI> 1970’\)
be built
for
‘status plan:
111the Watern
employmen
Ward\.
\\ith
:I and 40 I or111.
groL4Th. inl’raslrtlctilw
The Action Area plan duly made proposals to implement structure plan polic>. hur to growth on such ;I SGIIC. c\cn ttio local plan inquiry then heard stron g objections though matters.
the objections In the c\cnt.
could have been interpreted as reopening \t ructure plan the inspector found that thei-c was substantial mei-il in these
objections. and the Hampshire t’a~our- 0I‘ a more modest lewl The likelihood ‘i-t‘tc\ant’ alturnatiw I‘recluentl~
of‘ the local
Countv Council of growth. plan
inquiry
accepled
mo\,ing
his rcconimencl~l(l~~i~~
conspicuously
away
to bc tountt
urging
platitudes.
70 counter
this.
to commit
the council
to more
compuIsor> ~xxupation
II-om
land-use issues can only increase if‘ objectors arc fret2 to ad\~oc;tie policies. Public sector housing polio is one area where objector\ the inclusion
of additional
policies
objectors
purchase powers b\ locat authoritv
hn\e
positive to acquire tenants.
sought
action: l)r Ion g-term
for inclusion
ncu 01 arc
in the plan.
;irc;i\ of suere housing stress, such as the inner I.ondon Boroughs. criticised the housing policies contained in thu local plans ;I\ being
in
In
objector\ tla\e no moi-c than
in the plan.
;I polic!
cwmple. through the USC’01‘ want pribate hous~a t’or
One 01’ the mosl important aspects of the ‘non-i-clc\.anl’ objoctic~n problem i5 thal \\ hen objections do not just happen by del’ault. There x1-c. ot cotii-SC, occ;iGon\ what ;III objcctcjr uitl neither ttic inspector nor the planning authorit) can anticipate
SLIC~I
may then strav of‘l‘ course through gcnuinc w>. and the proceedings misunderstanding. More often than not. howwx, local planning authoritic\ deliberately hear and respond to objections which they noncthctess contend arc not relevant in the strict land-use sense. Various considerations may pcl-waclc planning authorities
to
By
large.
and
objector.
act
Elected
in
they
this
way.
are reluctant
members
to force
are especiallv
a confrontation loath
to appear
wilh
an intending
intransigent
c\t‘n
10 the
The Local
Plan
Inquiry
115
point of refusing the objector the opportunity to have his say, particularly if the objector is an established and well supported community or amenity group. Before the inquiry opens, planning authorities usually undertake extensive consultations with objectors, where the problem of any ‘non-relevant’ objections can be considered. It appears that very few objectors are prepared to drop an objection on the grounds of non-relevance as a result of these discussions, and perhaps the determination of the objector to proceed is sufficient to persuade the planning authority that discretion is the better part of valour. At least by allowing a doubtful objection to be heard, the planning authority avoids any possibility of a legal action, in what is a hazy area of the law. Planning authorities may also have a problem in differentiating between the relevant and ‘non-relevant’ parts of an objection covering a number of matters. Broad-ranging objections of this type are common from community groups and similar bodies and, in these circumstances, it may be easier to hear the whole lot. Notwithstanding these various pressures on the local planning authority to hear ‘non-relevant’ objections, there is, of course, always the possibility that the planners and councillors actually sympathise with the objector and, in fact, see some purpose in letting him have his say. Why should objectors be so keen to pursue a ‘hopeless’ cause, once the (supposed) litnitations of the local plan inquiry have been properly explained? Part of the explanation must lie with the unique role of the inquiry. Either directly or indirectly, local plans touch on many aspects of public administration which vitally affect the individual, but which are effectively closed to constructive forms of public participation. (The ballot box can hardly be relied on to ensure local authority accountability!) When the local plan inquiry comes along, it offers the committed individual or group a chance to present their case to a forum which at the very least demands the respect of the council. It is too good an opportunity to let slip, regardless of the prospects of ‘success’. The upshot of all this is that, at the end of the day, the local planning authorities have attached little credence to the DOE’S interpretation of ‘relevant objection’. They have made no systematic attempt to exclude ‘non-relevant’ objections according to any explicit criteria along the lines of para. 3.5 of the Code of Practice. The inspectors have also been notably reluctant to curtail the proceedings on the grounds of ‘non-relevance’. Whether this state of affairs will continue. in the wake of the recent events surrounding the Wandsworth Borough Plan remains to be seen.
3.4.
‘WANDSWORTH’
The Wandsworth Borough Plan inquiry, more than any other, has highlighted the problems over the terms of reference of local plan inquiries. It is important to examine the background to the inquiry, and the immediate outcome, which led to an adjournment debate in the House of Commons. The Borough Plan covers many matters of an explicitly party-political nature, which do not accord with a strict
Progress
116
definition
in Planning
of the “development
council houses. Substantial which the Council accepted
and
story (L.B. Wandsworth. 1982). At the pre-inquiry procedural this turn
of‘ events,
and
other
use of land”,
numbers of objections were to be heard. The Inspector’s
advised
meeting.
the inspector
the Council
and
including
received Report express4
the sale of
to these politics. then takes up the his misgivings
at
that
“IO aprnd tlmc on rn;lttcr\ \hll~cI>LICIT’ es\ent~all> tllc Icgldntion.
Nonetheless. the inspector forthright
uould
~n\oI\c
a haste
ot the oblcxtor\’
whyxt
the Council still decided that all the objections should be heard. duly did. In so doing. he defined his own role in the I‘ollowing
Mhich
terms:
“111i;~~rnc\\ 10 obyctor\. and in an effort to cIImin;ltc or mltlgatc an! cIcmcn~\ 01 \\a\tclulnc\\
that
the sale of‘ council
housing
“must be likeI\ 10 preludtce the supply o( aatislactor\ home 10 ;I Iatgc number lamilie\ now li\ine ~n.h~gh level Ilat5, or in other- unutldactclr~ hcJu\lng:“.
and
taking
the bull right
The Borough
Council
the leader
01 ~l~wd\;~nt,~~c~i
by the horns:
“I hnve 110doubt that ,t vvi~uld he ,n the w&al he relinquished. until \uch time ;I\ the problem\ \hortage ha\c hcen sr~lved.”
records.
compelling.
the policy:
cried
‘foul’,
of the Council
Interc\t\ o( the Iwal comrn~~n~t> 101 thl\ pd~c> 10 pt-wntccl h> the Horcnls$‘\ gcnc,al IUILI\II+
and as Hansard
(House
01‘ Commons
2X.4.82)
The Local Plan Inquiry
117
(There is as yet (June 1982) no intimation of just what ‘steps’ the Minister intends to take.) Bearing in mind the warnings and advice the inspector gave the Council at the outset, their reaction to his report and the Minister’s subsequent criticism seems harsh indeed. Clearly, the pitfalls which may lie in wait for inspectors at local plan inquiries are enormous. It would, however, be potentially misleading to draw any immediate conclusions from the Wandsworth episode, since the overt party-political dimension to the plan is untypical. To obtain a more realistic view of the type of issues which are likely to confront the inspector, a ‘typology of objections’ has been devised, based on all the inquiries reviewed in this study.
3.5.
A TYPOLOCY
OF OBJECTIONS
This typology of objections at local plan inquiries includes both ‘relevant’ ‘non-relevant’ objections. In the first instance, objections may be considered correspond to one of two basic categories:-
and to
(l)
Property Objections:an objection which is concerned with the impact on a specific property or land holding of a policy or proposal in the local plan. The objector has a direct financial or tenant interest in the property or site in question.
(2)
Policy Objections:an objection which may or may not identify a specific site, but is concerned with the wider implications of a policy or proposal for the community at large. The objector does not have a direct financial interest resting on the outcome of the objections.
There is of course overlap between these two basic categories. This is particularly true of objections which seek an alternative designation for a site to the use proposed in the plan. For example, a developer may object if his site is not earmarked for commercial development. However, if that same site had been designated for commercial uses, a community group might well have objected that the site was more appropriate for housing. or for some other defined community need. Indeed, it is not unusual for objections to be made to proposals for which planning permission has already been granted. A single objection may very well embrace the characteristics of several of the categories outlined below. The ensuing typology cannot claim to be in any sense precise or comprehensive, but simply indicative of the potential variety of issues liable to confront the inspector.
3.5.1. Property
Objections
3.5. I. I. Householder/Small
Business Property
Objection
This type of objection might equally be called a ‘small-scale’ property objection. It will typically involve the occupiers of a small group of dwellings, perhaps a dozen or so, who will either be displaced as a consequence of a proposal, or whose residential
118
Progress
amenit> this
suCf.er. Small.
will
relocation
in Planning
alw
type of objection
authoriry.
Almost
i\ significant
ot’ the
built-up
in the ovr:rnll
Kedtxfopmcnt
e\Gitc w0~1ld also f‘it this commonly
in the locality, of‘ at1 alternative Also
t‘alling
who object5
of a run-down
he simply
within
this
fi>r- ;I x2lc
ot’ ~~~\~~l~~~~~~~~~~t
Agricttltitr~tl ;t m;tior
arc;f for 01‘ this
want wot~lii
land on the ft-iny duvtlopment
housing
t!pc
ix a
or an industri:tl
01‘ ob,jcction
i5 that
tlo\~elopmcnt
it on or aci.iaccnl to his patch.
;I kcv consideration
category
to the omission
to the planning
the neud f’or the proposltd
doesn’t
site is thu
with
of‘ the plan.
to bc lel‘t alone.
proposc
urban
A charxteristic
~hrcatenucl context
conscqucncc wants
of the plan.
the local authority
category.
axtil:tbilitv ohjcctic>n.
simply
industries
In the wider
marginal
conte\t
does not dispute
sornc~\h~‘rc
land-o\vnct-
01‘ only
the ob.jcctor
arca on which
in point.
Ihe ob,jcctor
type of objection.
is generally
invariably,
w%ich cast
this
of this t> pe cc3ncet-ns ;t site dcsignatcd
ol+tion
Ail
backyard
‘nclii-conlorming’
characterisc
in the resolution
The
of’ the
bc kllc ob.jccticm f‘rc,m ~1 majot
01‘ :t proposal
in the pl;m
to de\~el~~phis hitc.
The Local Plan Inquiry 3.52.
119
PoIk_v Ubject~o~s
Objections falling within this category exhibit immense diversity, but have in common a desire by the objector to insert in the plan an entirely new policy, proposal or commitment. Despite the endless possibilities which the ‘sin of omission’ presents, objections of this type can usually be further classified according to whether they represent a ‘sin of outright omission’ or only ‘partial omission’. In the case of the former. the policy being sought by the objector does not relate directly to any existing policy in the plan. That being so, the merits of the suggested poiict cannot be evaluated by reference to the local ptan written statement. Such ob_iections tend to focus on ‘related but non-pl~~nnjn~ activities’. With the sin of partial omission, which is much more common, the objector contends that the policy or proposal in question is dealt with inadequately, and must be supplemented in some m:ay. This in turn will often involve the designation of a site for a use other than that shown on the proposals map. The further categories of policy objection outlined below refect variations on this latter theme of the sin of partial omission. (According to para. 3.5 of the Code of Practice, the sin of outright omission would definitely be a non-relevant objection, but partial omission might be considered acceptable.)
Objections in this category are usually lodged by persons or organ~sat~ons familiar with the planning system, and who appreciate the nuances of the precise wording of policies. The objection often focuses on the degree of flexibility buitt into the policy. Thus. a developer confronted by a policy that “the local planning authority will not allow office development” will argue that such a policy is unreasonable and too rigid. He will argue that the word “normally” should be inserted, and specific exceptions to the generality of the policy position stated. Conversely, a community group may seek to have an existing “normally” taken out. (This example again illustrates the overlap of policy and property objections.)
3.5.2.X
HiA
fur Rcrourccs
This type of objection seeks a commitment in the plan that more money be spent for some defined purpose. The expenditure may fall either on the local authority promoting the local plan, or on some other public agency. As such, these objections may be moving into the arena of overt political decision-making, if they seek to reorder existing priorities. Objections within this broad category generally correspond to one of three distinct patterns. Firstly, there is the type of resources bid which overlaps with the ‘question of emphasis’ outlined above. If the objector supports a policy in principle, but feels that it is unlikely to be implemented to any worthwhile degree, he may urge the planning authority to reinforce the policy with firm commitments in the local plan. Thus.
120
Progress
in Planning
instead of a policy that “the council will encourage tree planting”. the objector will seek a policy comnitment that the “council will plant 1,000 trees a year”, and so forth, The provision of’ children’s da!-care l’xilitics is one issue which very commonI> attracts ‘l’hu swond type
objections of‘ this type. of‘ resources bid might best
bc called the ‘quid
pro quo’
obJection.
in that the ob.jection is first and I‘oremost ;I response to a dcvcloptnent proposed in the local plan. In this case, the ot7icctor opposes the development in principle. but
argues
that if‘ it does
proceed, it must he accompanied by increased espenditurc effects on It~;tl residents or businesses. For example, before
to
a major new housing estate is built. the inadcyuatc provision of local shops, play space or whatever in ad,ioining residential neigkbotlrhoclds shc-ruld be made good. mitigate
Objections negotiating
its ad\wsc
which
urge
‘planning
the council gain’
to make
f‘rom cornmerci;tl
more
vigorous
de\.elopment
use of the practice may also
oi’
in this Propert)
t’eature
context - a particularly topical issue in Cew ot‘ the recent contr’oversial Ad\,isory Group Report (198 1) on the sub,icct. Finally. thcrc is the tape of resources bid which does not relate to any specific development proposed in the local plan. Rather it is aimed at an aspect ot community c)t- welf‘arc provision, to which the land-use planning aspects are of only incidental concern to the objector. The local plan is not of‘ prime concern to the objector. but the inquiry does provide a ti>rum to pursue the particular cansc in question.
In the more attracti\,e towns and villages and urban areas, amenity societies arc often anxious to promote their own ideas for preserving or enhancing the character and quality of the environment. The problem of traffic congestion is interesting in this context. Both the planning authorit! and the local groups may agree that ‘something must be done’ to alleviate congestion and improve conditions fat pedestrians, but they disagree on what. Amenity societies are quite prepared to challenge the technical ,jilstifi~ati~~n titr a proposed traffic rnanager~l~nt scheme, and put forward their own alternative scheme. Thus. the ~~rg~~rn~~~ti> primarily about means, not ends.
An objection of this kind challenges the basic assumptions which underpin the development strategy of the plan. In so doing, the objection effectively challenges structure plan policy. and tho example from Fareham referred to earlier (p. 114) could be seen as falling into this category. Similarly. in Sutton Coldfield, objectors opposed the principle of large-scale housing development to help relieve housing stress in the inner city in ~irrnitlgllarn. They argued that new devcl(~ptil~r~t should be concentrated in the inner city.
The Local Plan Inquiry
121
3.6. CONCLUSION
Any expectations which the DoE may once have had that the terms of reference of the local plan inquiry could be largely confined to strictly defined land-use matters must surely by now have disappeared. Perhaps the DOE should be thankful that its advice regarding ‘relevant objections’ has to an overwhelming extent been observed only in the breach; at least the DOE has not had to defend an i~lterpr~t~ti~~l~ of the legislation which is, to say the least, suspect. The in~plications of the terms of reference being so widely drawn in practice are potentially far reaching. In the immediate context of the local plan inquiry, it is clear that the inspector may have an extremely onerous task. At the more complicated and controversial inquiries, the inspector may well be faced with an immense variety of objections and objectors. His all round abilities to comprehend and then find realistic solutions to problems great and small will be tested to the utmost. Thus, it is all the more important that the procedural and administrative arrangements for the inquiry are appropriate to the task facing the inspector. (Chapter 4 focuses on these aspects of the local plan inquiry system.) Taking a broader perspective, the Wandsworth episode highlights the fundamental issue which the local plan inquiry system has had to live with from the outset; what useful purpose is served by hearing objections into non-land use matters? (Chapter 5 examines the outcomes of local plan inquiries in detail.) It is clearly too early to know what, if any, the longer-term repercussions of Wandsworth may be. In the meantime, it is important to appreciate that the difficulties surrounding the Wandsworth inquiry are, first and foremost, symptomatic of the continuing difficulties local planning authorities face in identifying a role for local plans which meets the aspirations of politicians, public and planners alike,
CHAPTER
4
Ad~j~jstr~tive Plan lnquir y
and procedural
The local
is essentially
advisory embodied
plan
inyuir!
Aspects
a decision-making
capacit). ‘I’liat hcin g so, the quality in the inqttir\ ;~ssumcs a paramount
of the Local
process.
albeit
of the decision-making importance. Planning
only
in art
prows:, authorities
arc
only likely to accept the inspector’\ t-ecorllmendations if they believe the proccdttr;tI format enables him to make properly informed. soundly bawd decisions. H> the same token. public oonfrdcncc in the system relies on the objector he has had a full and fair hearing. and the opportL~~~it~ to present manner
tvhich
objcctivc which making process The conduct
suited
him bat.
Implicit
in these
considerations
the procedural fortnat should seek to achieve; which commands the confidence of all parties of local
plan
inquiries
became
a controversial
being satisfied th;it his case in ~hc
is the underlying ‘to secure ;I dccisionto rhc inquire’. issue
large11
;;s ;I twult
of the ekcnts
A wc haw or ‘ad\cr4,tri,tl’ L L prwxdural fratnet~~ork. although it does not seek to impose any rigid proc~dttral straight-jacket. The I.t_wcc District Council sought to dispense with the ndwt-s:tri;tl approach in public
altogether. and adopt a process more akin to a structttrc (EiP). ~Ir~f~~rtttIi~ltcl~. the inspcctctr at Lewes was reluctant
plan to
cxtmination aclt~pt
tlic
inyllisit~)i.i~l role which the p]~~Iinitl~T h authorit> envisagfd f;)r him. :inii tfic procedural format clevisccf by the District Council was not properly rested. Nevertheless. the ‘Leues model‘ deserves serious attention as an innovatiw approach
to the conduct
is to establish
whcthcr
of the local conventional
by the inspector, and whether significant improvements.
plan
inquiry.
practice
the Lcwcs
The
main
is conducive
model
purpose
LO sound
or any other
tbrmula
of this chaptcl decision-m;tkin~ could
ot’f’ct
It is important at this juncture to emphasiso in general tel-ms the distjIlcti~)tl between the ‘,~udicial view’ and the ‘~~~l?iinistr~tive view’ of the role of the public inquiry.
The judicial
Cew.
as charactcrised
by Telling 122
(19771:
The Local
Plan
Inquiry
123
“regards a planmng inquiry as a dispute between the local planning authority and the individual: the ensuing decision should be judicial in the sense that it should be based wholly and dit-cctll upon evidence presented at the inquiry”.
In contrast, the administrative view places the inquiry in an essentially advisory role. Thus, if an inquiry is held on behalf of the Secretary of State, with whom the final decision rests, he will have regard to but will not be bound by the recommendations of the inspector, and other considerations may quite properly influence the Secretary of State’s eventual decision. Quite clearly. the role of the local plan inquiry corresponds to the administrative view. It is a process designed to advise the decision-making body, the local planning authority. At the same time, the machinery at the disposal of the inspector accords with the judicial view, since he relies exclusively on the inquiry to formulate his recommendations. The proceedings at the local plan inquiry may also resemble a .judicial process, at least in outward appearance. It is not altogether surprising therefore, that Bruton et al. (1982) have found “a good deal of public misunderstanding” about the status of the inquiry and the role of the inspector. The traditional ingredients of the adversarial town planning inquiry, conducted in accordance with the principles of the judicial view, are succintly described by Sir Desmond Heap. Addressing a Law Society conference in 1974, he spoke of: “the three roles without which no town-planning inquiry can be complete - the lawyer (whether barrister or solicitor) to do the advocacy. the professional witness to give the evldencc (whether- for the appellant or for the planmng authority) and, of course, the inspector to mark, inwardly d&t. and later report upon the whole proceedings”. (Heap, 1974).
Against this background, the introduction of the structure plan EiP must be seen as a radical break with convention. The structure plan EiP was something of an afterthought in the new development plans system, being brought into statute by the 1972 Town and County Planning (Amendment) Act. As Dunlop (1976) recounts, the EiP owes its existence specifically to the alarm created in the Ministry by the two-year long GLDP inquiry. More significantly, the advent of the EiP can be seen as confirmation of a general principle; that inquiry procedure should reflect the nature of the matters in dispute, and, of course, the terms of reference of the inquiry. In dispensing with the adversarial approach for the EiP, the DOE reasoned that: “the traditional form of inquiry which has come to involve many formalities of a kind apt foldealing with detailed property matters has only rarely proved suitable for exploring also the policy ~\sucs Inherent in major development plan submissions”. (DOE, 1973).
By implication, the DOE did not expect the local plan inquiry, with its essentially traditional procedural format, to have to deal with “policy issues inherent in major development plan submissions”. We might also note Wade’s general comment in respect of public inquiries, that: “inquiries ‘into objections’ are apparently designed xheme can be reasonably taken for granted”.
for special situations
where the policy of the
124
Progress
The wording this category There
ot‘ Section 13( 1) of the (see p. 107).
1971 Act
would
inquiry
with
&al
primarily
two processes
strategic
to resolve
w.outd
policy
bc complementary
potentially strategic implications. It is important to re-emphasisc
plan
inquir\
inlo
indeed.
prior
structure
to the
plans
for the London
in London. local and controversial inquit-?.
would
framework
London
1971 Amendment
appear
Act.
boroughs.
plans throughout poliq questions.
the con\~cntional
consideratioti~,
t‘unction
and
IOC;II
In hhorI.
procedure.
The
the 1)of.
As we saw in Chapter 3. Ioca1 plan with highly compek potic\ i\suc\. \\ith ;I local
that
The borough-wide
leaving
property
in both
clearl!; misguided in its cspectations. inquiries mav \crv well become involved
document.
issues,
site specific
was
4.2.2.
the local
put
an impeccable logic in the DoE’s overall conception 01‘ the of the EiP and the local plan inquiry. The IziP, with its hpccial
roles
procedures.
policy
would
is 01‘ course.
respective plan
in Planning
plan
may
local
plans
in e\et->
it was the intention Whilst
the country That being
to be at an immediate
there
\cnx
hc ;t mqot‘
arc the oh\ ious examplc5 to product
are esccptional
may be required so. the inspector disadvantage
-
urban
cit.cum\t;tncc\
to t;tcklc \uh\tantial at ;I local plan
with
the proccdutxl
at his disposal.
Pvocedurul
Innovations
for the EiP
It will be helpl‘ul to outline the administrative and procedural innovations \\hich distinguish the FiP t’rom the conventional inquiry format. Firstly. the Sect-ctar! of State
selects
both
the matters
to be examined
at the EiP and
the participants.
proceedings arc conducted b> a panel, comprising an independent eminent) chairman and two others. normally ;I \ery senior officer Regional “probing
Office and a senior planning discussion” into the selected
(and
f‘rom the I)ol-
inspector. Their responsibilit! is to Icad matters. and subsequentli trcport to the
Secretary of State. The type of issues which particularly concern the panel the ‘internal cohcrcncc’ of the plan. the i’easibility of’ policies and proposal\ of resource
implications.
The panel
Extensive
beilinct-the-scenes
fut1y briet‘ed probing
and
is not entit-cl>
by DOE officers
discussion.
not least.
atone
matters
precedes
on the subject
All the relevant
ot’ substantial
in its endeavours.
activity
I‘hc
ol’tcn
documents
and matter.
Gwilliani
follows
each
include in tcrnn\
contt-o\er\\. (1978)
has commented:
session.
so as to bc able
arc (supposed
;I
I’he panel
I\
to lead the
to be) a\ailabte
in
advance. and the exatnination proceeds on the understanding that ;tII participants have read them. That \$:a\‘. it is hoped the discussion will be cogent. and get htrxight to the heart of the matter. The proceedings are strictly timetabled. and in no \cnx: arc the discussions ‘open-ended’. The crucial difti-rence between the EiP and the traditional inquitg thu\ lie\ tn the respective roles ascribed to the panel on the one hand. and the inspcclor on the
The Local Plan Inquiry
125
other. We have in effect two quite distinct decision-making models to choose from. In the conventional inquiry, where the inspector adopts a largely non-interventionist role - “to mark and inwardly digest” - it is assumed that the inquiry alone, plus a site visit, is sufficient to enable the inspector to make a fully informed recommendation or binding decision. The inspector must, of course, reach his conclusion entirely independently. In complete contrast, the EiP model rests on the assumption that the panel must play a leading inquisitorial role if the proceedings are to focus quickly and effectively on the principal issues for concern. Nor is the panel expected to be able to reach decisions without the benefit of ‘behind the scenes’ expert advice at every stage in the process. Whilst it would be premature to offer any definitive conclusions on administrative or procedural aspects of the local plan inquiry at this stage, certain anomalies are already apparent. At the more controversial local plan inquiries, the inspector may be required to examine policy issues every bit as complex as those which come before a structure plan EiP. He must rely on a procedural basis which is acknowledged to have shortcomings in a policy context, and he has none of the back-up facilities which are considered indispensable for the EiP panel. With these considerations in mind. we can now proceed to explore local plan inquiry procedure in practice, with a view to establishing whether it constitutes a sound decision-making process.
4.3.
PRE-INQUIRY
ACTIVITIES
A literal interpretation of the legislation and the Code of Practice might suggest that the pre-inquiry period would comprise largely routine administrative activities. The reality is markedly different. For many local planning authorities, it is an intensely busy time in which substantive issues are confronted, and even occasionally resolved. As such. the pre-inquiry period must be seen as an integral part of the local plan inquiry decision-making process. For the sake of clarity, the various activities undertaken during the pre-inquiry period will be examined below under separate headings. although in practice there is plenty of overlap.
4.3.1.
Appointment
of the Inspector
The process is set in motion by the planning authority approaching the DOE Inspectorate in Bristol as soon as it becomes apparent that a local plan inquiry will be necessary. The Inspectorate exercises great care in seeking to appoint an inspector whose temperament will be appropriate to the likely circumstances of the inquiry. If there is some prospect of it being highly charged, or even unruly, the ability of the inspector to maintain control in a hostile atmosphere will be a paramount concern to the Inspectorate. Only inspectors with at least 3 years experience and a professional qualification in town planning or a related subject have been appointed to local plan inquiries. About fifty inspectors have been used in this role to date, but none specialise in local plan inquiries. As a general rule, inspectors are not appointed to particular local plan
Progress
126
in Planning
inquiries on the basis of anv prominently at that inquiry. have the all-round ability to information and then arri\,c
specialist expertise in a subject which is likely to fcaturc Rather. by the very nature of their task. inspector? must control the proceedings, gather all the relevant at a well-reasoned recommendation. In effect. the\ arc
expected
M,ith virtually
to be able
to cope
Although the Code of Practice (para. an “independent assessor _, with expert technical
assessor
has been
appointed
of the Armthorpe/Edenthorpe/Kirk District Plan. The technical assessor land
for colliery
disposal.
waste
tipping,
At the Westminster
share
the workload.
4.3.2.
The Progvarntne
Immediately
the plan
goes
own ranks a “programme (para. 3.22) indicatoa:-
The programme reason followed number tact,
this advice. of objections,
administrative
in the light
-
on deposit,
is. and
and
up.
1982. That
of labour
be seen
a planner
not least
alternative
01
was in the C;I\C’
methods
two inspectors.
of.
the object
bclng
to
unequal.
was highly
of Objections
the local
authority
appoints
as the Code
the post.
an honourable role (Francis, a thorough
Most
from
\\ithin
it\
01‘ Practice
to be, ‘the inspector’s
filling
Westminster being it is a demanding flair.
were
His role is vital,
must
against
crops
in February
of possible
there
The Receipt
officer”.
officer
the DOE advise
to date.
the division
Qfficev
which
SandalVBarnby Dun and Adjoining Area5 examined objections to proposals to allocate
inquiry,
although
anything
3.14) makes provision for the appointment knowledge in a specialist field”. only one
man’
and
authorities
for this
ha\,c
exception. If there ~I-c‘ a large 1979), which requires integrity.
working
knowledge
of the plan.
Objectors are encouraged to submit their objection on a standard form (see Fig. 4.1). and most comply. The wording of question 4 on the form is significant.
in that
it seeks
Code of‘ Practice definition. elaborate on the substance the full scope authorities statutory
4.3.3.
of their
have &week
that
objections
A supplementary of the objection.
objection
at this stage.
there
to engage in formal very much standard take place between
Consultations is no obligation
are ‘relevant’
according
to the
sheet to the form provides space to but very often objectors do not re\cal Almost
been prepared to accept objections ob.jection period has expired.
Pre-Inquiry
Although
to ensure
without which
exception.
have
been
planning made
after
the
and ‘Modifications’ on either
the local
planning
authority
or obJector>
or informal consultations before the inquiry. this has become practice (Bruton et ni.. 1982). These consultations almost aIwx!\ planning officers and the objector: elected member involvement
The Local
c,ty
HOll
London
PO SWIE
BOX
240
“lctnrlo
Plan
Inquiry
127
street
60P
I:IG. 4.1. Town and Country Planning Act (1971) - City of Westminster or support for the plan.
District
Plan notice of objection to
tends to be minimal. Where political ratification of any agreements reached is required, this is usually done either through ‘chairman’s action’, or through a special sub-committee, which can be convened at short notice. A small minority of objectors, particularly those legally represented, may prefer not to get involved in any pre-inquiry consultations. Although the problem of ‘non-relevant objections’ is not usually resolved through this process (see p. 115) there are other potential benefits for both the planning authority and the objector. For the planning authority, pre-inquiry consultations
Progress
128
often prow regard
in Planning
to be a valuable
to individual
objections.
learning process. both in ;I general 1’0 put it crudely. the planning
s;c‘nx. and with authorit> is likel!
to
get a much better idea of what ground it will be fighting on . and L\hat tactic5 art’ likeI> to be tieplo>cd against it. F’or the objector. there is some prospect ot‘ more tangible proposals after
benefits. Objectors may ha\,e gcnttincl> niisunclerstood the poltctes or v+.hich are causing them anxiet>. and objections arc occasionally \\ ithdrawn claril‘ication 01‘ the matter. and perhaps ;I f’ortiial lettet01’ asstlt-aticc f-c~rn thC
planning authorit>. However. 01‘ greatot- signil’icance the phenomenon of ‘prc-inquiry modit‘ications’.
to the otttcomc
ot the inquiry
i\
1:ollowing consultations with objectors. man!’ planning L ,iitthot-ities ha\c seen t‘il thenisel~es to propose modil‘ic~ttions, which the in\pcctor i\ asked to endorse. Thcrc can bc no absolute presumption that the inspector will agt-cc \\ ith the\e ‘pre-inqttir! modifications’. nature.
Ilie\
but hc almost at-c commonly
there are examples Mhich Eagle Street. the C’o\entry improved
rather
than
in\jariabl\, matters
does.
of detail
I’rc-inclutr\ or minor
mc,dil’ic~rtions drafting
L;II’\ in
amcndmenls.
but
hare ;I substantial impact on the t.inal I’orm ot the plan. c’ity Council agt-cod that 759 dwclling5 ~houlci by
demolished
as proposccl
in the tlcpo\itcd
plan.
One particular problem The process can generate with
the statittor>
ob.jectors
ma\
J‘he local
planning
part! intercat\ niottification.
ha\.c
w:ith pre-inquiry tnodit’ication~ clock ncccl Itj be recognised. ;I \critable deluge 01‘ papet-. all 01‘ which gee\ on deposit documents. the proof’s of e~iclence and so lot-lh, and other the greatest authority
arc unwittingI!
ditl’icult!~
in kccpin g track
mmst also take threatened
cxtrcnic
arc
b> the ;tgrccmcnl
01’ Itt\t u hat is happt‘ntng, to cn\ut.c
that
no third
01‘ ;I pt.c-inquit-!
In
The
Locaf
Plan
inquiry
129
The whole issue of the early exchange of proofs is intimately bound up with the procedural format of the inquiry itself, and, in particular, the extent to which the inspector can play a prominent inquisitorial roie. As things stand at present, the inspector’s briefing is decidedly patchy. At best he will have only a day or two to familiarise himself with the plan area. The local planning authority will have sent him the various statutory and other documents associated with the local plan, the submitted objection forms, and such proofs of evidence from objectors and the planning authority that have become available. He will not discuss any substantive issues likely to arise at the inquiry either with the local planning authority or within the DOE. Obviously, in the absence of written statements from one side or the other. or both. the inspector’s briefing will be limited in scope. and potentially biased or unbalanced.
43.5.
The Procedural
Session
Paragraph 3.21 of the Code of Practice suggests that it may be worthwhile to arrange a procedural session at least 21 days before the inquiry opens; the purpose being “to arrange such matters as the provisional programme and the timetable as well as the way to deal with any specialised technical evidence”. Although the Birmingham Polytechnic research found that less than half the inquiries in their sample had incorporated a procedural session, it should offer certain unique opportunities to enhance the smooth running of the inquiry. It may very well be the only occasion when all or a majority of the objectors will meet together with the inspector and the planning authority. The inspector can thus take the opportunity to set the tone for the inquiry and explain procedure, which will hopefully save time and the tedium of repetition in the inquiry itself. There is a case for arguing that a procedural session presents the best opportunity to resolve the exchange of proofs problem. By this time, the planning authority’s consultations with objectors should have given it a good indication of which ob.jections will be straightforward, and which difficult. The planning authority could thus use the procedural session to state which objectors it feels should be required to submit their proofs of evidence in good time. Provided the authority’s request seemed reasonable, the inspector could lend his support by making it very clear that any of these objectors who withheld his proof until the last minute will incur his c(~nsiderable displeasure. This does not appear to happen very often, if at all. In certain other respects also, it appears that the full potential of the procedural session to contribute to the effectiveness of the inquiry is not being exploited. The whole question of ‘specialist technical evidence’ and the possible need for technical assessors has received scant attention. It might also be an appropriate occasion for the planning authority to issue a comprehensive list of all its proposed ‘pre-inquiry modifications’, which would greatly assist other objectors and avoid confusion in the inquiry itself. Hitherto, procedural sessions have focused primarily on timetabling issues, in which respect they have been notably unsuccessful. The Westminster inquiry was originally scheduled to last two months, it spanned five. At Fareham, the Hampshire
Progress
130
in Planning
County
Council estimate that a quarter of the total inquiry time was accounted by late objections accepted by the inspector after the inquiry had begun. Thct-c also be at least a suspicion that the need for evening sessions sets o\,erlooked.
iC11 mu\t
4.4. I. The Pursuit of Informality Flexibility date. Almost procedure
is undoubtedly the keynote of local plan inquiry procedural without exception. inspectors have shown themselves adept
to suit the circumstances
of the individual
objection.
practice to at guiding
In this respect.
the
Code of Practice appears to be working well. Within the basic adversarial f’rame\\.ork. the Code (para. 3.28) encourages the inspector to cxerci\c hia discretion on procedural
matters:
During the course ot‘ a single inquiry, it is possible to witness a tense icou~-t~-oom battlc’ one day. followed by a relaxed exchange of views on another. Varic)us tractor\ can contribute
to the level of informality
which
prevails.
including
the riced for
5ound amplification. the seating arrangements and. 01‘ course. the attitude of‘ objectors and the inspector’s personality. The crucial factor, howc\,cr. almost in\,ariably, is the presence the role played by lawyers largely
confirmed
or absence of‘ lawyers at the study inquiries.
(Lavers, Certain
by the subsequent
research
undertaken
authorities
rely on their
1979). J’ablc 3. I indicate\ patterns tmt‘t-go’ M hich al-c by Birmingham
Polytechnic. Local
planning
although author-it!
usually
own
solicitor
to conduct
their
a significant number brief counsel lor this purpose. When ;I planning adopts this latter course. it is a clear indication of their determination
fight as strongly as possible particular objections which a~-c percei\,ed threat to the plan. Farrow (1979) summarises the motives of Newham Council
in hiring
Bcckton
inyuiry:
In complete
counsel
contrast,
to conduct
the planning
their
case against
authorities
the Gas
at the Lc\vca and
to
;I\ ;I seriolls Borough
Corporation
Cialle!
GIX‘.
at the
C‘ommon
inquiries had no legal representation. By dividing objectors into the four broad categories shown in Table 4. I. ;I t-ea\onabl) consistent picture emerges of the type of objector who i\ likely to bc Icgall! or professionally represented and engage expert witncsscs. Not surprisingI>. govcrnmcnt agencies. developers and other commercial organisations t’a\,our (and can afford) legal representation. The most hostile proceedings at local plan inqulrlcs
Heard
Community or Amenity Organisations
of Objectors
in the inspector’s
l(1) (0) 1 (1) (0)
report
8 (3) (2) 6 (1) (1) 10(3) (0)
1 (1) (1) 1 (1) (1) 2 (2) (-74 12(9) (8) -
II 13 22 37(4’
257 97 122 126
Counsel Planners Council Solicitor Counsel
1 (1) (0)
-
15 (3) (1)
2 (0) (0) 3 (1) (0) 13 (2) (3) 2 (0, (0)
4 (3) (0) 6 (4) (3)
2 G(2)
12 (0) (1)
2 (2) (I)
1 (1) (1)
6 (4) (0)
1 (1) (1)
(a) legally or professionally represented (b) calling expert witnesses(3) (a) (b) (a) (b)
Industry and Commerce
1 (1) (0)
Bracket Bracket (a) (b)
Central/Local Government
Characteristics
and objectors
23 12 8 112 4 5
Objectors Heard*)
authorities
110 28 357 478 9 9
Recorded Objections
of local planning
Counsel Council Solicitor Council Solicitor Planners Council Solicitor
Counsel
Local Planning Authority Advocate/ Representation(‘)
of representation
Source: Local plan inquiry Inspector’s reports Notes: (“The planners handling the inquiries would not regard their role as one of advocacy. ‘*‘Either appeared in person or represented. “‘An expert witness is assumed to be one accredited ntth a professional quatiftcation (4J0nly 30 objectors can be identified from the inspector’s report.
Beckton Covent Garden Eagle Street Fareham W.W. Galley Common Groby Hammersmith and Fulham Lewes Sutton Coldfield Westminster
Local Plan Inquiry
TABLE 4.1 The manner
9 (2) (0) 2 (0) (0)
6 UN(0)
2 (0) (0)
91 (0) (0) 3 (0) (0) 1 (0) (0)
1 (0) (0)
9 (0) (0) 3 (0) (0)
(a) (b)
Individuals
W
132
Progress
in Piann~ng
invariabi~ occur when the advocate for. say. a developer or a statiilory undcrtakt‘r. chooses to subject the planning authority’s witness to a prolonged . aggressi\c cro\+ examination. At the Westminster inquiry, Sir Frank Layficld, on behalf of 111~ Grosvenor Estate, cross-examined one planning officer for 4 da! s on office pol~c!. Sir Frank has a reputation for thoroughness. The great majority of community or amenity groups, and almost a11 private individuals conduct their own case, and in these circumstances. the planning authority’s advocate is usually content to adopt a low-key manner him~clf‘. In ati! case. inspectors tend to take a particularlv benevolent attitude to the ‘~lonprofessional’ objector. the ordinary man in the street. who might otherwIse find thy proceedings oppressive or confusing. He can he assured of’ the illspcctor’s ‘protection’ if the planning authorities advocate becomes o\e~--~calou~ It ~~oulci be quite wrong to suggest that the qLI~~si-judic~~il format ncccssaril! crcatcs an intimiditating atmosphere; it need not and does not. The Birmingham Polytechnic research provides impresci\c evidence 01 ;I high Ic\~sl of satisfaction with procedural aspects of local plan inquiries:
There is perhaps just one caveat. The sample of ob,iectors examined by 13irminph;~m Polytechnic was found to contain only 4% unskiilcd mnnual \tc)rkers and r10 skillccf or semi-skilled manual KJorkers at all. It may be that it is only the ‘articulate midtilt~ classes’ who in fact have the courage or the resources to get in\ol\~d in local plan inquiries - objectors receive no expenses. The yucstion of \~%ethcr the Iocai plan inquiry system is failing to reach a vast section of. British co&t>. is bc~ond rhc XYI~C of this study, but is clearly an issue which demands further in\e\tigation.
4.4.2. Cross-examination as a Basis for Decision-making Procedural flexibility notwithstanding. the cross-cs;lminntion rrcmain~ the hahi\ trl local plan inquiry procedure. and the primary means of examining conilict and informing the inspector. Few inspectors have shown much inclination to take a leading inquisitoriaJ role in exploring substantive issues. Perhaps thi\ is only to bc expected. since their experience is still o~er~~~l~~lrningl~ founded in ~~~~~~~i-j~~~iic~~~l planning inquiries. governed by statutory rules of procedure. Given the general satisfaction which has been found to exist v,ith l~xxi plan inquiry procedure, it may seem churlish to seek to rccsamine the cff>cti\cnesy 01’ cross-examination as the basis for informing the inspector. Yet ccrrain important questions, which are potentially grounds for disquiet, remain unans\~~ercci. 7’111:crossexamination framework is, by its very nature, a process which Irelie\ on thrusl ;~nd counter thrust. Can this process possibly act in a rigorous and reliable manner it’ only one side is legally represented, notwithstanding the inspector’s bcncv~~lencc 10 ‘the little man? The unrepresented objector may feel satisfied w.ith the presentation of his own case. but few are capable of conducting a searching cro\s-cua~7li~l~~tior~ 01.
The Local Plan inquiry
133
the planning authority’s witnesses. The inspector’s benevolence usually takes the form of ‘protection’, and not assistance in asking the right questions. We must also come back to the issue of whether the cross-examination is an effective means of exploring complex policy issues. In fairness, the ‘great office policy debate’ at the Westminster inquiry did demonstrate the capacity of the cross-examination to get to the very heart of an extremely contentious, difficult policy area. Certainly, when all the evidence had been heard, the inspector lacked nothing in relevant material on which to base his recommendations. The advocates and the witnesses were of the highest calibre, the quality and manner of presentation of the various arguments outstanding. In short, this was the adversarial procedure operating at its very best. Any potential shortcomings in the cross-examination to provide a reliable basis for decision-making are more obvious when the two sides are unevenly matched. The main danger, however, lies not in the unrepresented objector being bamboozled by an over-aggressive advocate for the planning authority; rather, the problem is more subtle. Whatever a lawyer or an expert witness may proclaim about his own integrity, his primary role is to win the objection, and that does not necessarily mean presenting all the relevant evidence. As Waller (1981) so delicately puts it; “naturally, gratuitously
the expert cannot distort his main conclusions. harmful to his client’s case.”
but he can avold making
points
In theory, the EiP format should be able to avoid these dangers of hidden bias or disguised gaps in the evidence, but there is no convincing evidence that this is so in practice. Research by Bridges and Vielba (1976) highlights the somewhat arbitrary nature of the EiP in ‘hitting the right chord’. At the end of the day, the various arguments highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the adversarial approach are somewhat inconclusive in the local plan inquiry context. Whatever the nuts and bolts of the procedural framework, the role of the inspector is ultimately crucial in ensuring that all the relevant information is to hand. This simple conclusion raises the whole question of logistics; in short, can the inspector cope? The workload on the inspector at a major local plan inquiry is enormous. London poses special problems. Both the Westminster, and the Kensington and Chelsea inquiries lasted over four months. In each case the inspector’s report runs to over 200 closely typed pages. By comparison, the Hammersmith and Fulham inquiry was a tiddler, just one month and 70 pages. Despite the highly specialised and contentious policy issues confronting these inquiries, there were no technical assessors. Is it really within the competence of one man to absorb that amount of information and eventually make balanced recommendations? The DOE Inspectorate is likely to devote far more resources to a controversial ‘call-in’ inquiry such as ‘Coin Street’, where an architectural assessor and a social policy assessor sat with the inspector. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Inspectorate has seriously underestimated the demands made on the inspector at the major local plan inquiries in London. Of course, London is not typical of the rest of the country. Many local plan
Progress
134
inquiries
in Planning
last but a few days.
cannot cope entirely play as constructive ‘L-ewes model’
The events special
issues,
and
itself.
of attention.
surrounding
the Town
to the DoE,
and
came
from
exercise, was anxious
Thus.
and
with
local and
to suppose
of Lewes
even
aroused
District
that
the inspector
that
the inspector
and
in this respect.
Plan
the interest
inquiry
have
groups
sides.
the full agreement
hence more wcrc keenly
authority.
the inspector
had been
actively
as “an without
involved
was only They would
of the objectors.
one: aspect
rccognised be required
discussion. (Powell.
of the procedural
in the absence
to undertake
;I
demanding role than is conventionally the case. a\\are of the need to devise a procedural format
l‘he planning in the inquir> authorit! loosely 1979).
format
full well that
more
on
in the public
the planning
informal round table legal representation”
the
the on communit!
w)ere on good terms with the planners. to maintain this “rapport and mutual respect”
The desir-e l01- informality b! the planning
who
should
caused
of the Council
who
decided to conduct the inquiry on the structure plan EiP, and
both
is no reason
in their annual report 1978/9. It is important to understand to the inquiry. Objections to the plan focused primarily
participation authorit\
there
is worthy
concern
Tribunals background
and
adequately. Even so. it is important a role as possible in the proceedings.
based
envisagcd
of la\\!cr\
inquisitorial.
on
and
7%~ planners at L.e\\ t‘\; which would facilitate
the most effective use of the inquiry’s time and the inspector’s energies. It is worth quoting Po~vell. one of the planning officers most ctosel!; involved. at some length:
Clearly.
the success of the whole project was critically dependent upon these preand the inspector coming to the inquir) inquiry arrangements working smoothly, fully briefed and willing to play a leading inquisitorial I-olc. Ilnt‘ortunately, this was not the case. At the procedural session. Mr. Woodford. “surprised and perplexed” both the planners and the the appointed inspector objectors by stating that he felt the inquiry would be best served if the Council appointed an advocate to present its case. Neither the Council nor the inspector changed their positions as a result of the procedural session. and the inquiry itselt became something of a hybrid. There were no lawyers, but not all the objectors case in good time, and the inspector was unwilling expected of him. Instead, he sought to superimpose
had prcparcd their statements to undertake the inquisitorial the conventional quasi-legal
ot role
The Local
Plan
Inquiry
135
framework onto the proceedings, in which the ‘actors’ were unprepared for the roles of advocate and witness which were effectively thrust upon them. ‘Proofs of evidence’ had to be read out, and the inspector made no attempt to orchestrate a discussion around the acknowledged issues of real dispute between the planning authority and the objectors. Following the publication of the inspector’s report, there were acrimonious exchanges between the Lcwes District Council and the Inspectorate. In a letter accompanying his report, the inspector expressed his unreserved displeasure with the conduct of the planning authority, and also stated that, in his opinion, the objectors had been unknowingly disadvantaged by the absence of advocates. Both the planning authority and the objectors strenuously deny that this was so. In retrospect, it would seem that the attention focused on the Lewes inquiry has been somewhat misdirected in emphasis. The issue of informality assumes less importance now that the overwhelming evidence from local plan inquiries generally is that an appropriate level of informality can be achieved even within the conventional procedural framework. Similarly, the desire to exclude lawyers totally from the inquiry as an end itself would seem to be misconceived. Nonetheless. there are aspects of the Lewes model which deserve serious attention in terms of improving the rigour of the inspector’s decision-making process. Although it appears that the inspector at Lewes failed to make much use of the pre-inquiry statements of case, the planners still felt that particular element of the exercise to have been worthwhile. If nothing else, at least the objectors were better informed in presenting their case. The Lewes District Council have since undertaken an inquiry into the Newhaven District Plan, which in their view benefitted from the lessons learned at Lewes. A more flexible approach was taken to the use of lawyers; “the District Solicitor appeared on behalf of the Council on major issues when legal representation was fielded by the objector. leaving the planning officers to represent the Council’s views on other matters. particularly when community groups were involved”. (Powell. 1982).
The planners again prepared early statements of case for the inspector and the objectors, and on this occasion, this appears to have been a resounding success, Powell notes with evident satisfaction: “it was clear from the beginning the Distract Plan and the matters Council’s statements of case well acceptance that they be taken as
of the inquiry that the inspector had an extremely good grasp of at issue. It was apparent that the availability of the District before the inqutry had assisted him in thts respect. and hts read tended to confirm this assumption”.
The inspector particularly impressed the planners with his readiness and capacity to ask highly pertinent questions. The value of the Lewes approach, as it has now evolved at Newhaven, is the manner in which it seeks to draw on the particular strengths of both the adversarial format and the EiP style probing discussion. First and foremost it seeks to rectify the woeful inadequacy of the inspector’s briefing prior to the local plan inquiry, and thereby draw him more fully into the proceedings. At the end of the day, the inspector has only the submitted written evidence and his own notes to rely on in reaching his conclusions. Quite commonly, the inspector can be observed listening
133
Progress
in ~~ar~~~~~
for IiterafJy hours on end to exacting cross-examination. not intervening, scarcclv any notes. The eventual contribution of that cross-examination inspector’s decision is likely to be correspondingly negligible.
and taking to the
The introduction to this chapter suggested that the pracedLrra1 format must iSecurc a decjsj(3~l-rllakjn~ pmccss which commands the conEdence rrT all parties to the inquiry’. As far as objectors axe concrrncd. prncedurai aspects of the tocaf pfan inquiry have won widespread approvat, hSfXCf”J” are to be c~~y~~rat~~~~~ted for their skilifut handling of the proceedings. Not surprisingly they too lit& tt~e procedural framework broadly satisfactory. We must withhold judgement on the reactions of the foenl planning authorities. since their views will find expression in the way the> respond to inspectors’ recommerrd:~rivns, the subject of’ the next chapter.
The l,ewes approach offers a much hctter prospect than convcntiortaJ practice of the inspector arriving at the inquiry properly briefed, and thereby able to take a more active role in the proceedings. Giving the inspector every opportunity and encouragement to be more positively inv,olved can only enhance his own understanding of’ the situation, and indeed encourage all parties to the inyuiry to have confidence that he has fully grasped the issues.
5.1.
INTRODUCTION
If the local plan inquiry system is to function effectively, public confidence in the fairness of the system is essential. Many objectors find it wholly incongruous that the planning authority should have the final say in whether to accept or reject the inspector’s recommendations. One of the most important findings of the Birmingham Polytechnic research was that “the overwhelming view of objectors is that the Inspector’s recommendations should be binding on the local authority’*. The credibility of the system is clearly at stake. It is essential therefore to examine the outcomes of local plan inquiries, to determine whether planning authorities do respond to inspectors’ recommendations in a reasonable manner, and whether public disquiet over this fundamental issue is justified in practice. In short, does the inquiry offer the objector a genuine opportunity to safeguard his interests, or to influence the planning authority’s policies if he is so inclined? The logical way to assess how influential the inquiry can be in shaping the adopted plan, is to trace the progress of objections through the various stages of plan adoption. From an administrative standpoint, there are three hurdles which an objection has to clear to be successful:(i)
The planning authority must accept that the objection Very few objections fall at the first fence.
should
be heard.
(ii)
The inspector has to be persuaded that the objection merit to warrant a modification to the plan.
is of sufficient
(iii)
The planning authority has to accept the inspector’s and adopt the plan in that form.
recommendation
At the end of the day, of course, the modified plan has actually to be implemented if the objection is to be successful in real terms. Taking a broader perspective, an objector who fails to secure a formal modification to the plan may nonetheless achieve worthwhiie benetits through the inquiry process. These ‘indirect’ benefits are many and varied, and must be seen as an integral element of the capacity of the inquiry to effect change. Indirect benefits or outcomes are of particular interest in examining the wider possibilities of local plan inquiries to influence ‘related but non-planning activities’. 137
138 5.2.
Progress I”Kb:-INQI
Rcforc
in Plarmir~g IKk
IUI.‘I.IIfrNC’ES
examining
specific
ANI)
outcomes.
<)I!T(‘OhlI~:S
it is important
to recognise
other
cloments
01’
the capacity of thr inquiry to ctfect change. As Burton (‘1o/. (19X2) rmphasise. the local plan inquiry is highly unusual insofar a it takes place within a plan-making process which also embodies \tatutc)r\ the plan-making
public
process
participation.
which
may impinge
I:urthcrmorc,
on
one of the principal on Public
Participation
adduced
favour inquir!
~3~irti~ip~lti(~l~ in ~3~~li~-lnaki~l~ was the lin~itati~313s 01’ the the old-ct>lc ~~~~~loprn~nt plans:-
of’ public into
Lcvin (1976) takrs chance of intluencing None
Despite
1969)
in
t]-~~~it~(~~~~~l
this basic premise a step further. He maintains that the best ;I planning authority is at an early stage of plan-making, bet’orc
the decision-makers option.
by rhc
in Pl;tr~ning.
Committee
parallel) remains person.
(Committee
reasons
‘Skeffington
become
of this would
thr \xrious
too closely seem
opportunities
identified
with and
committed
LO a particular
to bode too well for the local plan inquiry. ibr public
participation
in the (sequential
01
c)f structure and local plan preparation, the local plan inyuir? the objector’s only guaranteed ~~pp~~rt~lnit~ tct he heard by an illd~pendent Yet that inquir\; ma\; very well take place some S-10 years after work on the processes
development tocat
plans
commcnccd
(the development
plan). By IIO stretch of the imagination stage in plan-making”. Could it bc thcref’ore in the process
plan
being
can the inquiry that the inquiry
the structure be considered arrives i;impi!
and “an
too
the
earl!, late
to bc anything hut a cosmetic exercise? The possibility that a11 inspector’s recommendations would [‘ail to s\vac an intransigent planning authority “hell bent on getting its plans through” was rccvpnised during the Committee Stage of the 196X Act (Standing Committw 7.3.6X). An amendment was proposed, the efftct of which would have been to create a presumption in faictur of’ a ‘cali-in’ should the planning authority rcjcct the inspector’s r-~cc~mmcr~datio~~. The Minister, Mr. ~l~~~[~erm~~tt, reject4 the amendment on the grounds that a reserve ‘call-in’ power would deter a planning authority t‘rom acting in this manner through “sheer obstinacy and with no valid policy”. Whether the Minister’s optimism was well founded will become apparent. Plotting the progress 01‘ ob.iections in the strictly limited contest of the inquil-1 as a discrete and self~contained event is relatively straightforward. It is much more difficult to relate an> modifications arising out of the inquiry to the \jridcr procchses of plan preparation. We need to know not only why an objection is or is not successful. but why it \vas lodged at all. ‘I‘he relationship bctwccn public participation and the inquiry will be examined more fully in Chapter 6. but it is worth noting hcrc that a majority of ob.jectors had previously beun involved in public parti~ipati(~n, although developers tcmi INS to get involved before the inquiry stage. Perhaps the most noteworth> Feature of the local plan inyuir!, system which highlights the pr~bl~il3~iti~~ll relationship of the inquiry to public ~~~lrti~iF~~~ti(~~i. is the
The Local Plan Inquiry
139
propensity of planning authorities to negotiate ‘pre-inquiry modifications’ (see p. 128). This practice suggests that public participation is frequently unable to identify or secure all the inputs to the local plan which the public seeks, and which are in fact, acceptable to the planning authority. The most plausible explanation of this phenomenon lies in the fact that an impending inquiry puts the planning authority under much greater pressure than hitherto. An objector who has failed to make satisfactory progress during public participation, and who decides to pursue his case at the inquiry, may quite rightly perceive the pre-inquiry period as a good time to seek concessions from the planning authority. In the sterner context which now prevails, the planning authority is forced to reconsider, and not infrequently backs down where hitherto it had stood firm. Although pre-inquiry modifications tend to be of marginal consequence to the key policies and proposals of the plan, there are exceptions, the Eagle Street example described above (p. 128) being one such. Various forms of expediency, or even a change in political control, may prevail upon a local planning authority to agree preinquiry modifications. Whatever the precise reason, the capacity of the local plan inquiry to secure a change to the plan, even before the inspector hears a word uttered in anger, is beyond dispute.
5.3.
X3.1.
PERSUADING
The Inspector’s
THE
INSPECTOR
Options
It is important to recognise that the inspector’s task in determining an objection is not prescribed in any rigid black or white terms. In seeking to resolve an objection he has a good deal of room for manoeuvre - more so than would be usual in determining an appeal, where at the end of the day a planning permission has either to be granted or refused. At the two extremes of the range of options open to the inspector, he may either recommend a modification to meet the objector’s case in full, or reject the objection outright. In between these two positions, innumerable possibilities for a compromise outcome exist. For example, the inspector may recommend against making a formal modification to the plan, but urge the local authority to seek other ways to overcome the objector’s grievance. If he is uncertain of the merits of an objection and the council’s response, he can urge a period of further study and consultation, and so on and so forth. This broad spectrum of possible outcomes in fact reflects the highly robust terms of reference of local plan inquiries in practice. The individuality of the inspectors stand out prominently when reading their reports. They differ significantly in the interpretation of their role, and that of the inquiry. Some are exceedingly cautious, and scrupulously avoid making recommendations which do not accord with the strictures of LPN l/78 in respect of the function and content of local plans; others feel less constrained. Similarly, certain inspectors seem to reach almost instinctively for compromise in recommending a solution, leaving the precise manner of resolution of the objection to the planning authority; others are more decisive.
Beckton Covent Garden Eagle Street Fareham W.W. Galley Common Groby LeWeS Sutton Coldfield Hammersmith and Fulham Wesrminster
Local Plan 27(8) 6(3) 15(12) 2735I l(3) IO33 58(2X)
5 12 II 2 2 3 18 7
(b)
That a Modlflcatlon be made
(a)
That no Moditicatlon be made
Inspectol-c’Recomrnrndat~on\ ~
0 3 2 4
4 7 7 IO 51
1
3
-
-
(d)
Partial Acceptance
-
II 2s
27 6
(cl
.Accept in Full
I 3
I I 2 I 19 7
-
(e)
ReJect
Kecommcntiat~on that a modlflcarlon be made
I PA‘\ Ke\ponseto In\pector’\
1‘AHI.k: 5.1. The ‘outcomes‘ of the study inquiries
3 24 42 80 200
20 10 42 229 -
(fl
rota1 No. 01 modifications made tc \*ritten statement
b
2 5. co
b G-
5.
s
0’ ?
The Local
Plan
Inquiry
141
None of this is intended as a criticism of inspectors, who happen to have an extraordinarily difficult job. Rather it serves to demonstrate once again the latitude which exists within the local plan inquiry system for a range of possible outcomes. Thus, whilst certain patterns of outcome are apparent, an individual inquiry or objection is still quite capable of throwing up a surprise. Nor, it seems, has the passage of time and growing experience of local plan inquiries removed this possibility, as the Wandsworth case has amply demonstrated. It is only against this somewhat inconclusive background that we can begin to examine outcomes in a more systematic manner. Table 5.1 is a crude attempt to illustrate the ‘success rates’ of objections at local plan inquiries. The table must be interpreted with extreme caution as the footnotes indicate. Although the numbers do not mean a great deal in themselves, it is evident from columns c, d and e. that planning authorities are generally disposed to accept inspectors’ recommendations. Even so, it may take only one important recommendation to be rejected by the planning authority, for public confidence in the integrity of the local plan inquiry system to be undermined in that area. In order to remedy the qualitative defects of the table, the progress made by the various categories of property and policy objection presented in Chapter 3 will be explored in turn.
5.3.2. The Resolution
of Property
Objections
With regard to property objections generally (see pages 117- 118). the local plan inquiry is unlikely to present the inspector with any unique or special difficulties; which is not to say that such objections are necessarily straightforward. Nonetheless, property objections tend to resemble Section 36 appeal inquiries and compulsory purchase inquiries in terms of the issues to be resolved. In all these cases, the crux of the matter is to balance the benefit to the public interest, against the hardship to be suffered by the objector, be he a householder or a developer. Since inspectors for local plan inquiries have wide experience of appeals and compulsory purchase orders, the resolution of the property objection at the local plan inquiry is a ‘routine’ undertaking.
5.3.2.1.
Small-scale
Property
Objections
A consistent pattern emerges, of inspectors giving any benefit of the doubt to the objector. The Eagle Street inquiry provides an example which illustrates many of the characteristics of this type of objection, and the manner in which it may be successfuLly resolved. A proposal to improve playground facilities at a school required a row of adjoining houses to lose part of their back gardens. The householders objected, and the inspector’s report notes that “the extra strip of land to be added to the school site represents in the opinion authoritv the difference between conditions which are tolerable and intolerable”.
The inspector
was however
unconvinced.
He recommended
that
of the education
Progress in Planning
142
“consideration be given to an amendment to the plan to reduce the area to be taken gardens of Lexester Causeway houses for the school.”
The City Council
duly made a modification.
“under the original rear garden\“.
proposal
local r&dents
would
reasoning
from
the back
that:
habe suffered
hardshlp,
due to dlmlnutlon
ot
It would seem then that in circumstances such as these, the inquiry does provide the ordinary man in the street a genuine opportunity to safeguard his interests. If the inspector is unable to lend total support to the objector, he will at least seek ways to minimise the hardship to be suffered.
5.3.2.2.
Substantial
Site Objections
Not surprisingly. this type of objection tends to be strongly contested by both sides. Throughout plan preparation, the planners are likely to keep a weather eye open to major controversy erupting at the inquiry. They will think long and hard, for example, before including a proposal which involves a significant loss of agricultural land; the man from MAFF will see to that. Likewise community groups are eminently capable of mounting a strong challenge to proposals for large-scale urban redevelopment. In these and similar circumstances, the planning authority’s justification for the proposed development is likely to be soundly based. The planning authority may also seek to demonstrate why alternative sites for the proposed development arc unsuitable. Inspectors have shown a marked tendency to support the planning authority against this category of objection. There are however exceptions. usually when the planning authority has failed convincingly to demonstrate the need for the scheme in question. If this happens. inspectors tend to favour a compromise solution. Rather than recommend outright deletion of the proposal from the plan. the inspector may suggest a further study to re-evaluate its merits. 5.3.2.3.
Objections
to a Key Development
Proposal
In dealing with objections of this nature, the inspector can only realistically exercise his duties if he starts with a firm presumption in favour of the plan. If the inspector was to uphold such an objection, he would in effect be ‘inviting’ the planning authority to rewrite the plan from first principles, which would be a matter of the utmost seriousness. It would however be most extraordinary if the inspector was to find himself having to contemplate such a drastic outcome. Any planning authority which found itself unable to defend a policy or proposal on which the success of the whole plan depended could, at the very least, be accused of carelessness. Certainly, at both the Beckton and Westminster inquiries, the inspector upheld the key proposals within the plans which the objectors had sought to overthrow. There have however been a handful of comparable cases where the outcome has been less clearcut, most notably the ‘Hammersmith Island Site’ which will be detailed subsequently in this chapter.
The Local Plan fnquiry
143
5.3.3. The Resolution of Poticy Objections The typology of policy objections presented in Chapter 3 demonstrated the extent to which objectors have sought to use local plan inquiries to secure ‘non-planning’ goals. In hearing and seeking to resolve policy objections, inspectors frequently find they have a very delicate path to tread. On the one hand, if the local planning authority has knowingly accepted a ‘non-relevant’ objection, he has a duty to both the planning authority and the objector to consider the objection on merit. Yet by so doing, he risks taking both the inquiry and, perhaps more importantly, the adopted local plan, out of the realms of statutory local planning as defined by his ultimate employer, the DOE. The inspector must also be wary of objections which introduce overtly political considerations and which thereby encroach on the exclusive decisionmaking responsibilities of elected members. In short, the resolution of policy objections highlights a number of crucial issues concerning the role and scope of local plan in general, and the local plan inquiry in particular.
Inspectors are rarely sympathetic to objections which seek to introduce an entirely new policy or proposal. A less consistent pattern emerges in respect of objections which advocate supplementary policies to subjects which are dealt with in the plan; i.e. ‘sins of partial omission’. The recommendations of inspectors in response to objections concerned with aspects of local authority housing management are particularly interesting and instructive. For example, at the Lewes inquiry, a local pressure group sought the inclusion of a policy to protect public sector tenancies for single persons and those in voluntary multi-occupation. The local planning authority claimed that “the issue was not capable of resolution within the District Plan”, but the inspector disagreed. He recommended a modification explicitly addressed to this matter. Similar problems confronted Gillian Pain, the inspector at Beckton. Her inquiry report concisely illustrates the inspector’s dilemma: “the borderline is difficult to define between matters which should be included in the Council’s policies and proposals for Beckton and those which are outside the scope of a land use plan. Normally I regard housing allocation and tenure policies as going beyond the purposes of a local plan. but because of the special local circumstances, it seems logical and necessary for the plan to provide broad guidelines.”
Inspectors at local plan inquiries frequently find that pragmatism is the better part of common sense in arriving at their decisions. Whilst pragmatism is undoubtedly a virtue in the context of the individual inquiry, it is unlikely to be conducive to consistency within the local plan inquiry system as a whole. Once again, the differing but entirely reasonable approaches which individual inspectors have taken to problems of this kind only serves to highlight the unresolved arguments about the proper role and scope of local plans.
The guiding
principle
which
inspectors
follow
in these
circumstances
implications for the local plan as a lool for implcmcntation. familiar with the development control system. ‘l‘hcy dislike
as unrealistic:
in other
are inclined
to support
rather
rigidit!.
than
Objections a formal
coming
words,
unlikely
objections
of iniplcnieiit~~t~(~n
obviously
vital.
t:tkc
at
appeal.
;i policy
arc ahvaqs
in all respects.
Iic will not recommend
the inspector
the a\xilabilit\:
a modification
Consequently, demonstrably
objector\ responaiblc
\vill need case
to present
belorc
they
This
may ho,we~w
be
helpful
to
ob_jectors,
through
plan
hc feels
is
i\
it ix entircl!,
at lea5t ttic tacit ;yrecment could indeed be met.
a ihoroughl~
\vill c\incc
inspector at all. F.wn then. the inspector is onl! the adequacy of‘ resources provision in the plan.
to rec~~~~nl~~i~i
01‘ trcso~trces
unlcas
realistic in resource terms. in which case he may rcquirc of the planning authority that the obJector’s reqrtiremcnts
the!
01‘ Ho\ihilit!
to L’I~II-~‘ that the
anxious
and
C‘onscqttcntl!~.
in the direction
thii; headin g rarelv _ persttadc
under
tn~)~ji~c~~ti(~t~. Inspectors
capable
upheld
to be
which
is the
Inspector\ arc intimately; policies which ~btey tcgard
and
coherent
an!’ sytnp;tth>
i’t-om the
likcl!, to of‘t’er a gcencralcomment on and
not recommend 8 modification. the procc\x 01 ‘indirect benefits
described in the next section. The ‘quid pro quo’ type of ~CSO~II-ccsbid is the mclst likely
to attract
the
inspector‘s support. perhaps because the re~l~tirctlierit for ~~d~iiti~)ii~tl rcsourccs is usually incidental to rather than the tnain thrust of the ob.jection. ‘I bus,. it‘ the objection
is seeking
to mitigate
the adverse
en\~ironmental
cficcta
of a clcvclop~~xt~t
on an adjoining are:t. the resources bid clement of‘ the objection could he wmc\~.ltat disguised as a design aspect of the wider proposal, which the i~ispcclot~ \\ilt not feel constrained
This
in examining
on merit.
is a category of objection
where
objectors
have on occaaitx~
been
able
it)
enlist the support of the inspector. At the I,ewes inquiry. the insprctotsl~~~~)~)rt~~i objections to the ~Iitrodtlctj(~tl of a traffic ~li~in~~~~t~~etlt rchcme, in tr~\wttr of. retaining the status quo, whilht at the Sutton Coldfield favour of an alternative traffic management
inquiry. the inspector atid road construction
rccommcnded scheme put
in
forward bl; objectors. Roth these examples arc significant. since they sho\v that inspector\ may bo willing to rc_jcct the expert technical e\,idencc of the Council in :I highl! \pecialised I‘ield. To arrive at any conclusion on a matter as complex as 21 maJor traffic management scheme may require ;I substantial amount of statistical e\:idence to be un1-aveltcd. In the two casus cited above. the inspectors evidently felt it WIS within their capabilities to do so. and
override
the expert
courttcr-argtltnents.
The Local Plan inquiry
5.3.3.5.
O~ie~~ion.~ of PCtciple
145
to Key Policies
The capacity of the inquiry to secure change to the local plan is nowhere better demonstrated than at the Western Wards of Fareham inquiry. In effect, the inspector found that the proposals to build 6,000 houses, in line with the structure plan, were no longer feasible. Instead, he recommended a reduced housing allocation of 4,000 and the plan was modified accordingly. The outcome of this particular objection is notable for the bold and decisive quality of the inspector’s findings and recommendations, to which extent it is exceptional.
X3.3.6.
‘Countev-objections’
Finally, in this section, we must recognise the role of the counter objector, for whom a successful outcome is a recommendation from the inspector that no modification be made. Hitherto, the focus of attention has frequently been on amenity societies and community groups who oppose the local planning authority. This is not always the case. Such organisations do sometimes appear at the inquiry to support the plan, particularly if policies or proposals for which they have campaigned successfully during public participation are now objected to by other parties, developers for example. It is difficult to establish a success rate for counter objections, since they usually take the form of an adjunct to the planning authority’s own case. but inspectors insist that their views are fully taken into account.
5.4.
‘INDIRECT
OUTCOMES’
To reiterate, an indirect outcome is defined as any aspect of the local plan inquiry process which benefits the objector, but which does not result in a formal modification to the plan. Indeed, a good many of the more sophisticated objectors know full well that they are unlikely to secure a modification to the plan. For the community group which is seeking to influence public sector agencies on a range of issues, the local plan inquiry may present a useful opportunity for advocacy of their case. but the inquiry is not an end in itself. In various ways, the indirect outcomes of the inquiry may be every bit as useful and important to the objector and the planning authority as the actual modifications to the plan. The most significant of these indirect outcomes is the ‘consolation prize’. Not uncommonly, the inspector finds substantial merit in an objection, yet he is unable to recommend a modification. He can, however, offer an observation to the effect that the local planning authority should look outside its immediate responsibilities for the local plan and explore alternative means to provide relief for the objector. The Groby inquiry provides a good example. The parish council from nearby Ratby objected to the Groby district plan, claiming that traffic problems in their village would be aggravated by the population growth in Groby. The inspector agreed, but did not find this sufficient cause to
146
Progress
in Planning
prevent development at Groby. Still. reluctant to send the parish council away empty-handed, he urged the Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council to pursue vigorously with the County Council the need for a new western bypass to Leicester which would bring immense benefit to Ratby. In its Statement of Decisions on the Inspector’s Recommendations, the Borough Council committed itself to make “every effort to press for the bypass”. Long-term resource allocation is another important issue which is susceptible to influence through the indirect outcomes of the local plan inquiry. Although inspectors are reluctant to recommend increased allocation of resources for the reasons discussed, they may be willing to identify or acknowledge a resource deficiency when an objector presents a convincing case. By so doing, the inspector lends legitimacy to any subsequent efforts the objector may make to influence the spending priorities of the agency in question. Similarly. local authority planners are also in a stronger position to influence the allocation of resources if they can draw on the support of the inspector’s finding that a deficiency exists, which should be remedied as and when the resources are available. This question of resources introduces a related issue - the longer-term involvement of the public in the implementation of the plan. Amenity groups, public participation forums and committed individuals who have doggedly lasted the long haul of public participation and then the inquiry, become sufficiently well educated in planning practice to recognise that the battle is not lost and won when the plan is adopted. They wish to retain some influence over the implementation of the plan, and a number of inspectors have stressed the need for public involvement in subsequent monitoring activities. If. for example, the inspector has given the benefit of the doubt to the planning authority on a major policy issue, he may urge a review of that matter after a certain period of time. The more contentious the issue, the more likely the inspector is to seek to ensure that the public are involved in plan implementation. At Sutton Coldfield. for example, the inspector stated in his report that
It would be naive to pretend that some planning authorities do not see the adoption of the local plan as a welcome opportunity to reduce public involvement in day to day planning to the very minimum. That being so, the inspector’s support for continuing public involvement is important. One other indirect benefit of the local plan inquiry deserves a mention. and that is its therapeutic effect. ‘Letting off steam’ in front of a polite and attentive inspector is a traditional function of inquiries, which defies objective measurement, but is real enough for all that. The satisfaction of having ‘had your say’ may also be enhanced if the local press is covering the inquiry, as it often does. and it is surprising just how influential the local paper can be on vote-minded councillors.
The Local 5.5. THE RESPONSE OF LOCAL INSPECTORS’ RECOMMENDATIONS
PLANNING
AUTHORITIES
Plan
Inquiry
147
TO
Table 5.1 indicated a strong likelihood in favour of the local planning authority accepting the inspector’s recommendations. Subsequent preliminary research by the Birmingham Polytechnic broadly confirms this finding; they record an ‘acceptance rate’ in excess of 85%. Unfortunately, crude statistics such as these do not necessarily tell the whole story. Thus, it is important to examine the implications for the local plan inquiry system of those recommended modifications which are rejected. Firstly however, we need to establish why the acceptance rate is as high as it is. The explanation appears to be threefold. Firstly, the inspector carries sufficient status in the eyes of the planning authority decision-makers to create a strong presumption in favour of accepting his recommendations, unless there are overwhelming contrary arguments. Secondly, and more tentatively, inspectors strive to avoid making recommendations which the planning authority could interpret as encroaching unnecessarily into areas of decision-making which are the legitimate sole preserve of the politicians - Wandsworth being very much the exception which proves the rule. To that extent, the inspector eases the way for the planning authority to concur with his findings, which by no means indicates that his recommendations are inconsequential - quite clearly many are not. (The issue of the relationship of the inspector’s role to political decision-making in the context of the local plan is examined more closely in the next chapter.) Finally, and at the risk of sounding trite, planning authorities frequently agree with the inspector’s findings. Without doubt, the most celebrated example of an inspector’s recommendation being rejected concerns the so-called ‘Hammersmith Island Site’. Hammersmith town centre is identified as a ‘preferred office location’ in the GLDP, and the District Plan made proposals for a substantial amount of new office development in the town centre. By far the most important development proposed for the town centre was ‘site 93’, the island site: “Site 93 is to be developed as a new public transport interchange development of some 600.000 sq. ft., shopping, a new bus garage. and a car park.”
incorporating a major office leisure facilltles for public use,
The site already had a planning permission for an office development on this scale, but by the time of the inquiry (June, 1980), a new and even bigger office scheme was under consideration by the Borough Council. A local community organisation called ‘People Before Profit’ objected to the proposal in the local plan, enlisting the aid of some very knowledgeable expert witnesses in the process. They argued that the whole scheme was essentially misconceived; that the office component was far too large; that the bus garage could be more appropriately sited elsewhere; the car parking provision was unjustified; and that the ‘package’ of planning benefits for local people was wholly inadequate. Although the planning authority strongly defended the proposal, and in so doing stressed that the financial viability of the whole scheme required the size of office development proposed, the inspector’s conclusions were largely sympathetic to
Progress
148
in Planning
Profit. Without being numerically bpecil‘ic. hc rccommencled that the c’ amount of‘ oft‘ice floorspace on site 93 be reviewed. and that the other 11x5 advocated b\, People Before Profit be reconsidered in a t’avourable light. flammersmith Borough Council rejected these recommendationa outright. .l’hih People
H~‘OIT
‘esces
waq hardly surprising, since in the period between the end of the incluir! issuing of the inspector’s report, the planning poiiq committee trc\ol~ed permission
for the revised.
ol‘l‘ices. So aggrieved
wcrc
larger
scheme.
People
Bcforc
m,hich included Profit
sonic
at this turn
700.000
of e\cnts.
and the to grant xl. ft. 01’
that
the!
\\ciit
to the High Court to challenge the Council’s decision to reject the inspector’s recommendations and grunt the planning permission. The GISC is e\tensi\el\ repot-ted in the ./o~/x~/ q/‘P/~tz/zi~zg La\l, (Dee 19X1. pp. X69-874). People I3ei’ore Prolit \\crc unsuccessl‘ul.
did score
but the?
something
of‘ a moral
\,ictor\.
l‘he judge had strong words to sa> about the system outcome to obtain: “the! (the local planning authorities) an
e\tcnt
might
that
Borough
Council.
the inspector’s particularl!
recommendations
reappraisal it might
case.
plan
in such
immense
amount
together.
l‘hc
incidental.
\vould
be misleading
‘l’he\
the reality
;I situation
is certainI!
simply
take
the \ ie\\ that
of‘ the \itiiation.
gcncral important
is ambiguou\.
local
plan
A theme
political
in pi-omotin,
it must
be considered
any real chance
of’ persuading
hi&l!
under
of‘this
” the
require\
cc~mmitmcnl. \\a\
I10
IllOl~C
than
that the IOLXI plan
to go
hack
to
xluarc
a11
to piece
Inquit’\
otit~.
t‘accd \vith highl! ~p~cialid at the t~;lmmcl.zlnith inquit.!
I‘or the inspector to be able to support his t.ccc)mnic‘ncl~ltion~ \\ ith ;I of’ the options. And finally, if. the Dot: i\ not prepartxl to ‘call-in thcsc
circumstances.
will it e\,cr?
iZ more typical example 01‘ an inspector’s recomtncndation being trejectccl iy provided by the Sutton Coldfield inquiry. In response to the objectIon ret’errcti abo\ c (p. 144). concerned the inspector
that
mincledncu’.
maynitudc
scheme
unlikeI>
c\‘eryone
IO supposes
hlo~d~
con~met-LXII
and
inspectors can get out of their depth when on this scale. The decision-rnakiI1~ procea
plan
reason
conclusion\ tram thi\ rather ~ssuc’s. l.ir\t1!, the role 01’ the
any
several
of time and etl’ort.
no good
actin, ~7out of’ ‘sheer
to draw
highlight
roIe of‘ the
\vas not adequate thorough analysis ii local
Ile
unrepentant.
to reflect
There
were indeed
it does
and thus
stand
Secondly. problems
failed
of‘ the scheme.
Council
exceptional local
incredulous”.
remains
In their
the Borough Whilst
nonetheless
alloned such an had the 1;t\v on their side to also had harsh \VOI-ds IOr the
the complex financial aspects 01‘ what is ;I huge cie\elopment b? an! opinion. the inquir\ produced no neu t31dencc to \\arrant ;I
standards.
radical
make individuals
which
which
with
rccommcnded
traffic
~~la~l;~gcr~lctlt
and
road
construction
to
prop~~sal~.
that:-
“\pcUtK I.cIeI.cIIcctx 111‘Icle t1111> (II hllnplnfi 101-\\;11-d ~Ol,\llllillOll 01
t)l\rrlbulol- Koad \t1011tc1 It ,““LC to he nccc\\ar>:toyttw \\11t1a,, apt”“,” i;llc ;IlllcnllillcI1l I,1lllC t)l\rr-tcl Il~agr-am10 IIKIIUIC cc>n\ldcr;lrion ot the IIW
relccted
the recommendation
‘. \tru 113,I\C;ItI#rrnWl\ 101 tl1c dl\tIlcl the t,mc (11 Ltlc Puhllc ,,,
Inqu~r\.
dl\lllbuli,l 7‘11~ conctu\ion
on the t’ollowing
ground\:-
Io:L
SLII!C!OI :I, I\ \I111 lt>c
The Local Plan Inquiry
149
What the planning authority is saying, in the politest possible way, is that the inspector has attempted to make a technical decision and got it wrong. Local planning authorities do not reject an inspector’s recommendation lightly rather it is a question of having to. That is to say, in the opinion of the planning authority, the inspector had not fully appreciated the implications of his suggested modification, and to have accepted it would require the planning authority to adopt an inferior or unworkable policy or proposal. After all, the planning authority does presumably have an obligation to adopt what it regards as its ‘best plan’, having taken full account of the inspector’s findings. There are then occasions when the local planning authority does doubt the thoroughness and reliability of the inspector’s decision-making process, although these reservations are only expressed in the most muted terms. There is one other factor which may persuade a planning authority to reject the inspector’s recommendations; the desire to get the plan adopted with all possible haste. The Nuneaton Borough Council rejected the inspector’s recommendations for three very minor modifications to the Galley Common District Plan, on the grounds that no useful purpose would be served by the whole modifications procedure; an entirely reasonable course of action. What might be worrying is the possibility of a planning authority rejecting an important modification because it could necessitate a modifications inquiry. Six such inquiries have been held to date, including those at Westminster and Sutton Coldfield, and there is no evidence of planning authorities deliberately rejecting inspectors’ recommendations to avoid this possibility.
5.6.
CONCLUSION
There are so many facets to a local plan inquiry, and such a variety of possible outcomes that all-embracing and definitive conclusions are elusive. In seeking any overall assessment of how well objectors are served by the local plan inquiry system, we must return to basics. For those most directly affected by a local plan, the ultimate credibility of the system rests not on the role of the inquiry as a forum to debate sophisticated policy matters, but on its effectiveness as a property safeguard. It is this particular aspect of the system which gives the greatest grounds for satisfaction. The objector receives a full and fair hearing; the procedural format enables the inspector to arrive at a decision which both the objector and the planning authority respect, and the inquiry thus offers the objector a genuine opportunity to secure relief. Even in respect of policy issues, there is little evidence of local planning authorities wantonly abusing their position as judge in their own cause. Nor does the ‘call-in’ threat appear to play much part in influencing local planning authorities. Rather. it is the almost reverential attitude of local planning authorities (including the members) towards the inspector which creates such a firm presumption in favour of his recommendations being accepted. This is without doubt one of the major strengths of the system, which relies a great deal more on good-will than statutory
150
Progress
in Planning
to be able to function in a manner which will secure public confidence. The inquiry is a good formula for getting the Council to change its collective mind, perhaps because it provides a face-saving opportunity to reverse an earlier decision. So much for the accolades - in other respects the outcomes of local plan inquiries highlight underlying problems with local plans. In particular, we are back to the problem of objections concerned with ‘related but non-planning matters’. To theil credit, inspectors have sought to treat such objections in a practical, common-sense manner, so that it is by no means a foregone conclusion that the objector’s efforts will be in vain. The price which the system pays for this often bold approach by inspectors is an inconsistency of outcome and purpose. This is bound to create uncertainty for objectors and planning authorities alike. However, the alternative is for inspectors to adopt a much more rigid interpretation of the scope and content of local plans, which in turn would create its own difficulties. The inevitable price of conformity would be the lowest common denominator of caution. powers
CHAPTER
The Local
6
Plan
Preparation 6.1.
Inquiry
-
An Integral
Part
of Plan
and Implementation
INTRODUCTION
Let us recall the words of the Secretary
of State in December
1979:
“the average time taken to prepare and adopt a local plan is between 3-4 years.. I believe it is expensive, wasteful and totally unnecessary to spend so much time to prepare plans.” (DOE Press Notice 576)
Many a local authority planner would agree, and in so doing, would identify the local plan inquiry as the principal cause of this supposed profligacy. There is however a reverse side of the coin, which may be all too easily ignored. It is important to determine whether the benefits which the planning authority may derive from the inquiry are in any way commensurate with the time and effort involved. We are primarily concerned with the contribution of the inquiry both to the quality of the plan-making process, and to the prospects for successful implementation of the plan thereafter. Of obvious concern to every local planning authority is the crucial question of whether a statutory local plan offers them direct and accountable advantages over informal plans or even no plans at all. A persistent criticism levelled by planners at the adoption process is that it is ‘uncreative’. Hardpressed forward planning teams suggest that the delay associated with the local plan inquiry is not only unfortunate in itself, it also imposes unacceptable opportunity costs. Would it not make more sense, so the argument goes, for professional planners to devote their energies to original work, rather than slogging over old ground at an inquiry into a plan which is becoming rapidly out of date as adoption is delayed. The clear inference from this line of reasoning is that the inquiry is not an integral part of the plan-making process, but an exercise largely peripheral to the real business of plan-making and implementation. A recent discussion paper by the District Planning Officers’ Society (DPOS, 1982) “Local Plans: The Need for Radical Change”, suggests a growing disenchantment amongst its members with the local plan inquiry system. The paper argues that the inquiry should be scrapped in all but exceptional cases, since the protracted nature of the adoption process actually discourages the preparation of statutory local plans in the first place. Thus, the fundamental protection which the inquiry is supposed to afford the public is obviously lost, as planning authorities come increasingly to rely 151
Progress
152
in Planning
on \,arioux forms of non-statutory deserw serious attuition.
‘I‘he Circular basis.
also states
The ad\,ont
that
of Circular
development
local 23/X1
plans
planning.
should
may come
Argument\
onl!,
of this nature
be prepared
on a statutor>
to be seen as a significant
landmark
in the c\olution of the local plans s>stcm. Gone are the halcyon days after- local (ro~~‘rnment reorganisation. when the making of local plans could even become &something unfamiliar
of an end in itselfa means to help establish the idcntit! of ;I new and district council (Fudge, 1976). The crude statistics alone indicate just ho\\
far the new planning authorittes have tcmpercd Mabq and Craig estimated that the preparation An equi\,alent figure of 7 or 8 hundred This increaaingl! cautious approach itnportant
implications
for the local
the import of Circular position in the process
their early ambitions. of 3.500 local plans
w0~1ld now seem to the preparation
plan
inquit->.
more realistic. of local plans
Whether
(see Table
authorities to deposit.
conslitutc is that
at least public
or othewisc.
23/X1 is to elevate the inquire to a much mot-c prominent of local plan preparation. This is largeI> because the Circulat
2. I). a ‘typical’
local
plan
has taken
I?- 18 months
reach deposit. and a further to suppox that the adoption planning inception
has
intentionall\
eff’ccti\cly seeks to downgrade the importance of sur\q uork and participation in formulating local plans. coupled with the emphasis rather than int’ormal plans.
1lither-to
In 1975. ~‘2s en\isagcd.
period
before final can be significantl>
the best
public on statutor! part
ot’ 3 years
arc able in t‘uturc to meet the DOE’S target of one year from the inquiry process (deposit - adoption) will in all likelihood half the total
participation
plan
will have
preparation
time.
to be significantly
The e\,idcncc curtaitcd
from
Table
closcl> \%hat the! seek In order to examine implementatiotl.
t‘rom the inquit-!. more adequately wc need
to identify
the potential the specific
contribution circumstances
2.1
it’ the timetable
envisaged bq Circular- 23/X1 is to be realistic. The enhanced importance of‘ the inquiry in local plan preparation should impel planning authorities to examine
plan
more
of the inquir! in which
the
statutory status of the plan will bc of greatest significance. The influential carlicr Socit.t\ in 197X suggested that a statutor> repot-t by the District Plannin g Officers’ local
plan
-
to
adoption. There is no reason shortened. Thus. if local
10
The Locai Plan tnquiry (b)
the issues arc complex
and/or
(CJ
thcrc are development plan policies.
pressures which
The cam IOr a local plan would
the decision
be further
(a)
a mide range of agencies 15 likely
Cb)
statutory status anticipated”.
is hkcly
to be made are interrelated
are inadequately
with
or too generally
153
each other:
covered
or
In structure
assisted where:
to be involved
to be beneficial.
in implementation:
particularly
when further
and/or statutory
action
can bc
These criteria remain entirely applicable today. Local planning aut~lorities should be looking to the inquiry and the statutory status of the plan to assist itnplementation in a variety of contexts. Firstly, the inyuiry should serve to Iegitimate land-use decisions which may encounter opposition from local people. In their 1978 report, the District Planning Officers’ Society stressed the paramount importance of the relationship between the professional planning service and the public. “WL bcliccc
the most Important reason for preparing (statutory) alternative? is the tormal opportunity piben to interested parties formulation of the plan. and. if the) disagree <h its proposals. local inquiry.”
local plans rather than the to ‘have their sat‘ during the to have their oblcctions heard at a
In practical terms, this means that planning authorities must be properly receptive to opposing views in formulating their policies and proposals, but if and when a policy has been adopted after a thorough testing at the inquiry. that policy should en.joy political and administrative support. Most obviously, planning authorities will look to the DOE and the Inspectorate to uphoId local plan policies at inquiries into appeals. ‘call-ins’. enforcement notices, and compulsory purchase notices. Tile onus clearly rests with the DOE to demonstrate that a statutory local plan does offer significant advantages over informal policies as a sound and sustainable basis for development control. The 1982 paper from the DPOS is sceptical about whether the DOE has any real commitment to local plans at all. Certainly. if the protracted and inconclusive course of the ‘Coin Street’ inquiries (see p. 109) is anything to go by, the omens are not particularly auspicious. In considering the effectiveness of the local plan as a basis for development control, it is important to recognise that the plan may constitute a material collsid~ration long befbre it is finally adopted. Planning authorities commonly treat the draft local plan as its policy framework in determining planning applications. Subject to certain provisos, this is perfectly proper. If a policy or proposal in the deposited, but as yet unadopted statutory local plan is not subject to objection. there is no logical reason why that policy has any less status than if the plan had been adopted. By the same token, policies which are subject to objection. either directly or implied, should clearly be held in abeyance. This issue of the status of the plan prior to adoption raises the complicated and somewhat vexed question of ‘prematurity’. Those planning authorities which are serious about local planning, will generally seek to refuse planning applications which are either contrary to the policies of the draft plan, or which they know touch on subjects which will arouse controversy at the forthcoming local plan inquiry. This is a common problem. Nothing is more likely to infuriate objectors to the Local plan
154
Progress
in Planmng
than the grant of a planning permission which is seen to preempt their case at the inquiry (Crispin, 1981). If the planning authority is genuinely concerned to have the whole issue examincd at and resolved through the local plan inquiry. it will refuse the application on the grounds of’ prematurity, and look to the DOE to dismiss an! appeal. The DoE’s attitude on this question is equivocal. Circular 2301 states that “the absence of a local plan. or the fact that one is in the offing, is not in itself sufficient reason for rel’using a planning application”. However, the various cases reported in the .Joun~crl of Pla~7~1it7 g Zmt, over the past two years of’ appeals being determined just prior to a local plan inquiry show an inconsistency of approach by the Secretary of State. In one case. in Tamivorth. WC find the Secretary of State allowing an appeal, against the rccommenjation of his inspector, and declaring that “the emergence of a local plan is not reason enough to withhold planning permission” (.J.P.L.. 19X1, p. 65). On another occasion however. the Secretary of State found that “to grant [,lanllln: IXIYII~\\I,~~ IIONtot dc\c‘l~+-~~llcnt OIIthe I-cmalning
\l:rturor?
p~-cxxuc~
in the adopllon
crf the
twxi
appeal \itc plan”. (J.P.1
uodd prejudice the . 19X1. p. 116)
On this tvhoie question of appeals and local plans. the DPOS 19X2 paper claims, provocatively and probably quite unfairly that. “the Department’s attitude invites the conclusion that it does not consider local plans, or inquiries into them. to be very important.” What is beyond dispute is that the adoption process is by no means a ‘sterile’ period of delay. Another main area in which the local planning authority (as distinct from the district or county council) will hope that the statutory status of the local plan will promote more cffectivc implementation, is in the coordination of public sector development programmea. 1Jnfortunately. in the current climate of public sector capital expenditure, characterised above all by uncertainty and relatively short time horizons, it would bc unrealistic to expect a local plan to be a major influence. Even so, it would he dcfcatist not to rccognise the potential influence of the plan in an advocacy- role. The inquiry can do much to bolster the status and credibility of the plan in this respect. The enhanced status which a plan achieves from having been to inquiry - and status in this context is both a matter of statute and perception - will work to the advantage of the planners in their efforts to secure the cooperation of other departments and agencies in the ~nlplern~ntati~)r~ of the plan. We have already seen that elected members arc wont to treat the inspector’s findings with the utmost respect. His imprint upon the plan lends weight to the efforts of the planners to ensure that implementation of’ the plan remains a high priority of the planning committee and the council at large. Furthermore, an inspector’s report which acknowledges deficiences in the provision of health or education facilities, OI inconsistencies in housing policy, should do much to iegitimise the interest of the local plan in these areas of ‘related but non-planning activities’, even if the inspector declines to make specific recommendations. Table 6. I presents a certain amount of encouraging evidence that departments other than planning arc prepared to provide senior witncssea at the local plan inquiry. and this in itself should help to consolidate
-
Principal Assistant
-
-
Covent Garden LPI Team engineer Treasurers’ department Housing ofticer
Eagle Street LPI Assistant director
education
-
Deputy director of engineering Deputy director of housing Director of education
Beckton LPI
admin. assistant administrator
-
Sutton Coldfield LPI Group leader social services Assistant city engineer Education officer Group engineer highways Principal engineer Assistant secretary
authority
Coventry
Greater Greater Greater
London London London
Council Council Council
of Newham of Newham of Newham
City Council
London London London
Borough Borough Borough
Birmingham City Council Birmingham City Council Birmingham City Council West Midlands County Council Severn Trent Water Authority West Midlands Regional Health Authority Btrmingham Area Health Authority Birmingham Family Practitioner Committee
‘TABLE 6.1. Local planning excluding planning officers
engineer’s
department
Lewes LPI Assistant architect Chief environmental Heaith officer Chief housing officer Representative Representative
County
Groby LPI
Fareham Western Wards LPI Treasurer’s department Social services department Assistant estates officer Assistant education officer County traffic engineer Representative
witnesses -
Lewes District Lewes District
Lewes District Council Southern Water Authority East Sussex County Council Surveyor’s Department
-
Council
-
Council Council
County
Hampshtre County Council Hampshire County Council Hampshire County Council Hampshire County Council Hampshire County Council Nature Conservancy
-. Leicestershire
-
3
156
Progress
the status
of
authorities
in Planning
the plan more widely
or agencies
m:ithin the authority. or indecd x\ ithin othct at the inquiry. Similarly. if‘ the inquir> put\
represented
prcssurc on the planners to cn
fancil‘ul
hot
T-he issue of whether the inquig turns of outwmcs and processes.
air.
i\ a creative ever&c must bc considcrd both Pre\ ions sections of thi\ study ha~c all-cad!
III
identified a range of‘ outcomes. which dcmonstratc the capacit! of the inquir! (0 secure important ctiangcs in the adopted plan. 7‘0 this cx~cnt. the inquir\ has ;I creative input to plan preparation. Furthermore, aen ;I ‘no-cl1angc’ olltcollle 111;1\ lx highly
significant.
against creating
potentially misleading
small proportion
relativcty of‘ the
it’ it means that
21ficrcc and ;I somewhat mow
In thi\ and that
run
an important
damaging impression
of highly
which
controversial
local
succe~st~utl~dcfc~~ricd
is hoMc\cr ;I danger 01’ too naI-roc\ I! on the plan
inquiries.
at (tic c\penw
ha\,e
the greatest
issue needs to be examined in 1crmx 01’ outcome. change’. On the face 01‘ it. the planning justification
for
wasto ot time and cl’fort art’ those Lvhich hale inqiiirie\. I‘roni which no nioi-c than marginal There are ekaniples to support this planners feet aggriwcd at the ci’fort
\iew required
perhaps
to blarnc.
they
has been
01‘ the milt.
latter context. one further is the \,aluc of’ ‘incremental
authorities
policy
attack. There b\, focusing
~;ILL‘ only
themsel\~es
claiming
that
the inquir>
\\;I\
;I
been required to hold short. Iowkq changes to the plan ha\c cnier~cd.
Galley Common of them to woe Grann>
should
i5 enc. I Io\vc\.cr. II ‘grannv’\ hack garden’. h:r~e
hccn
consul~ccl.
cajoled public
and caressed much earlier. and if she still refused to accept Iw lo\\ Ic)I- 1111’ good. then the planners should rither have capitulated to ;I grcalcr t’orcc. 01.
resigned planners
thenisel\es to the consqtienccs ol‘ their own intransigence. I)a\hing J oung target at their peril that granny’s back garden is not incrcmentat to grann!
We ina\ turn the inquiry undertaken
then
osercise.
it niu\t
the part 01. ideas
of the planning LXhich emeye.
inquiry genuine
to the wider
IS uncrcati\~e implic4 during earlier stags incorporate
issue
of‘ processes.
that it is no more in pIail-preparatic,n.
In general
terms.
than 3 duplication If the inquir-\
the chnryc
Ihat
01‘ t2tf’~~rt i\ 10 bc ;I irc;lli\c
;I learning process. which in turn to consider dispassionateI>
;authority
;iss1Imc5 ;I rcaciino\ on an\ ila inl’olwl:ttic)n appi~oactling Ihc of the planning authorit\ depends ~ipon ~1hcther It wc\ lhc inqiiir\ 25 ;I
The likelihood ‘open mind’ Lvith a reasclnably opportilnit\ to improve the plan.
oi- as no more
than
an :in~k\\ad
dctcn\i\
C‘
c\ercisc. There is quite commonly a reluctance amongst local authorit! planner\ 10 aiccpt that the inquiry can produce any new evidence or ideas t‘or them to be disp;l~\ionat~ it is instructive to accept thi\ line of ;ii-gumunt about. Whilst not entireI> convincing. at face ~atur. Why. if no ncu evidence is forthcoming. are the planner\ prepai-ai 10 and particularly dui-ing the pre-inquiry period’? One poh\iblc accept modifications.
The Local Plan Inquiry
157
explanation is that the inquiry - or the threat of the inquiry - forces the planners to evaluate policies and proposals from an entirely different standpoint. ILocal plans are largely shaped and assembled by planning officers who are essentially creatures of policy; their training and experience defies them to be otherwise. Quite commonly, they have only limited experience of the ‘nuts and bolts’ planning problems which daily confront their development control colleagues. Furthermore, it is only exceptionally that ward members will be sufficiently closely involved in the detailed drafting of the plan to be able at that stage to represent the interests of individual constituents. Thus, the local plan is drafted from a particular vision of the public interest, in which recognition of the emotional, if not financial. implications of a proposal on the individual may be unwittingly suppressed. So, when an aggrieved householder objects to the plan, and the planners come face to face with this angry or distressed individual, they are forced to entertain an entirely new perspective in evaluating their proposals. This different approach to plan evaluation is itself a creative exercise. albeit one which should perhaps have taken place earlier in plan preparation. One factor which is commonly supposed to militate against any sort of public inquiry achieving its full potential as a constructive learning process is an adversarial procedural format. No less an authority on the subject than Sir Frank Layfield has commented:“puxcdurc that relies on cross-esnmination and reply encourages the promoting authority to adopt a defensive attitude and discourages them from considering constructive altcrnattcc\“. (Layfield and Wh>brow. 1973)
That being so, the procedural flexibility which characterises the local plan inquiry must again be seen as a particular strength of the system. A planning authority genuinely concerned to use the inquiry as a constructive learning forum need not feel deterred by procedural constraints or inhibitions. Prior to the 1980 Act, the legislation itself provided a serious obstacle to planning authorities seeking a constructive role for the inquiry. As explained on page 105, a modification could only be made in response to an objection, but this impediment has now been removed by the 1980 Act. The importance of this change in legislation may only become apparant when the full impact of Circular 23181 is felt. If planning authorities follow the advice of the Circular, they are likely to find that the draft plans they place on deposit after twelve months or so are a good deal less ‘polished’ than their predecessors under the old regime. This need not matter. The legislation now enables the planning authority to continue to refine the plan after deposit. by using the inquiry process to promote post-deposit amendments. It is to be hoped that planning authorities do not use this opportunity in a gratuitous way, but use the inquiry to give new material proper exposure. Whether or not planning authorities will look to use the inquiry in this way remains to be seen. In the meantitne, it is possible to offer some general conclusions as to how far the inquiry constitutes a creative input into the plan-making process. On balance, the inquiry can be seen as the ‘quality control’ stage in plan-preparatio~l. It could be argued that quality control is achieved through public participation and
158
Progress
in Planning
the and so Count! Wards The p-son.
various consultations which take place with the DOES, statutory und~rtakcr~ forth. This argument lacks conviction. Why, for cuampte, did the ~lampshirc Council onI> concede the technical shortcomings of the Fareham Wcstcrn plan after the inquiry? essence 01‘ a quality control check is that it is undertaken by an indcpcndu~1 with no prior il~~~)I~,~l~i~n~along the production line. ami Wli<3 has not ixfll subject to the pressures which characterise the design and fabrication stages 01‘ that production process. A quality control process is essential for both producer and consumer confidence. E\sen if a local plan is adopted without an inquiry being necessary. the qualit,; control check has still operated; the public having declined the opportunity to insist upon an inquiry. all
6.4. TIf F: R It: LAY1 0 NSff 1 P 0 1: ‘f‘ff I< I NQ I! I R Y TO A N D f’ 0 1, I T I C’ .4 I> 11 1,;C‘ 1 S I 0 N - M A I( f K (;
I’ll
If I, I C’ I’,t KTI
(‘1 I’.& 1’10 h
That tticru is ;I close. if‘ not intimate relationship between public participaticln and the public inyuiry is not in doubt. The precise nature of that relationship. and whether it is ~[)lnpl~~l~nt~~r~ or contradictory is more pr~bicr~~ati~al. With the introduction of the politicians into the arena. we find something of a ‘m&nage :I trois‘: three distinct proccsscs, each seeking to influence the technical work 01‘ planmaking. To examine this intricate network of influences in an>’ depth is bqoncl the scope of this stud\:, which must of necessity rely on some general observation\. (‘I’hc Birmingham Pol?;tcchnic Research Papers provide much interesting dctailcd GIVstud! material.) Contrasting theories about the nature of the relationship of the inquir) to public participation may be characterised in the following terms; either that the inqulr-> i\ expressly designed to rcsolvc conflict as a discrete. self’-contained event in its own right: or that the inquiry represents the final stage of the participation pl-oce~, in which the loose ends are tied up. In support of the former int~rpr~t~~t~(~ll. the I>oIJ (1979) holds that public participation should take the form of a constructitc d~aloguc between the planners and the planned. in which the plannin, 0 authorit\ seeks to meet the aspirations of the public where possible - a bargaining process in fact. Thus. the inquiry is an acknowledgement that the dialogue has achicted all it can: thu variotlh parties are now involved in B contlict which can only be resolved through a11 ~iidepcnd~tit process of arbitrati~)n. The inyuiry is also likely to introduce ontirclh new issues. In so far as thu inquiry is a form of arbitration rather than bargaIning. public participation and the inquir! are distinct in purpose and practice. The alternative interpretation tends to find favour amongst ‘la\’ ob.jectori;. and amongst thox planners who see effective public participation as a possible means to defuse or avoid the inquir) altogether. Hollow (1978) suggests that “the inquir> should be used as a waq 01‘ resolving the odd question left over at’tei- the et’fccti\e participation exercises”. In support of this general principle. Hellos citca the (ii-oh> on both the (Leiccstcrshire) inquiry, arguing that because public participation structure plan and local plan was thorough and responsive. objections to the local plan wcrc of relatively minor significance. The attractions of this ‘tidying-up model’
The iocal Plan Inquiry
159
are obvious. for both planners and public alike, and of course there are success stories along these lines. Nonetheless, as a general principle, it has serious practical and theoretical flaws. Not least, it presupposes that the population of the local plan area are fully familiar with and accept the policies of the structure plan, even after the time lag between structure and local plan preparation. This was most definitely not the case in Fareham, for example. Perhaps, more important however, the validity of the tidying-up model rests upon the notion of public participation as a process which generates consensus, both amongst the public and between the public and the planners. This is reminiscent of the Skeffington Report, which entertains a vision of a largely altruistic public, in which intending participants are urged to “seek to altruism is not obtain what is best for the community as a whole”. Unfol-tunately, necessarily the dominant motive of the activists who engage in public participation. If public participation does not achieve consensus, two things can logically happen. Either the disappointed participant is content to abide by the combined will of the ‘victorious’ participant and the planning authority, or he can pursue his case at the inquiry. The latter course of action is often favoured, particularly it would seem, by community and amenity groups. Indeed, it is one of the ironies of the local plan inquiries system that groups deliberately fostered by local planning authorities to contribute to the participation programme, have subsequently emerged as determined and sophisticated objectors. This was most certainly the case at the Westminster and the Kensington and Chelsea inquiries. More generally, the Birmingham Polytechnic research has found that 67% of objectors appearing at their case study inquiries had previously been involved in participation. They conclude that “the chances of avoiding an inquiry through a comprehensive and drawn out programme of participation would thus appear to be slim.” In fact, the tidying-up model seems to have fallen steadily into disfavrour over the past two or three years. Hollox (Hollox and Biart, 1982) now concedes that “ho\h’evercomprehensive
are the opportunities provided fbr public may arise hetwen individuals and/or groups and the local planning rexlIved at the “‘consultations” or draft plan stages”.
participation. basic conflicts authority, which cannot he
We are still left with a substantiat minority of objectors who have not previously been involved in participation. The activities of developers (in this context) are of particL]larly interest. There is evidence from the Birmingllam Polytechnic research that developers are disposed to avoid public participations in favour of the inquiry. On the reasonable assumption that developers prosper only if they have the expertise to ‘get things done’, their preference for the inquiry - a medium they and their advisors understand intimately - must reflect a conviction that the inquiry is the most effective way to secure their aims. In their perception, the inquiry gets to the heart of the decision-making process on the local plan, which in their position is the only sensible place to be. There is nothing improper in developers or other ‘non-joiners’ adopting these tactics. It does however shed a new light on the relationship between participation and the inquiry in the wider process of plan preparation. The prospect emerges of
160
Progress
in Piannmg
the ‘new objector’ successfully using the inquiry to undermine tho arlit:r uchievement 01‘ the participation cxercisc. In this situation. the role of’ the cottnter-objrctot assutms ;I special importance.
The Atxkton inquiry providtz an cxccllent example 01‘ this phenomenon. with the response of the Newham Voluntar! Agencies Council to the objt’dion 01‘ the (ias Board
(as rccor-ded in the Inspector’s
Report):
The Local
Plan
fnguiry
161
the inquiry is at least in part quite simply bypassing the political process. The politicians do not control what goes into or what goes on at the inquiry, and they are disposed to treat what comes out as a,fuit accompli. If that is so, it does nothing to reinforce the conventional wisdom that planning is a political process - at least not the making of development plans. Any attempt to understand more fully the juxtaposition of the inquiry and the political influences on the formulation of the local plan must focus on the role of the planning officer giving evidence on behalf of the planning committee. MiltonWilkinson (1976) has examined the ‘identity problem’ of the officer giving evidence at appeals, and his views are pertinent in respect of local plan inquiries: “1 belioe
that it is well recognised that no constraint must he placed upon the planning officer in his giving evidence. To some extent one must recognise that his role changes. Whereas prior to the public Inquiry. the planning officer has been advisor to the planning authority on the plannlng proposals or planning decision, and that decision has been for elected reprcscntativcs to take. once he findr himself in the witness box the planning officer 1s an expert in hlh own right.”
It is nonetheless still his duty to explain to the inquiry the reasons why the Council decided to adopt the particular policies or proposals which are in dispute. In practice, the planning officer’s dual allegiances to his political masters on the one hand, and his professional status on the other, are not as irreconcilable as they might seem. “a local plan written statement shall contain a Ry virtue of the Regulations, reasoned justification of the proposaIs formulated therein” [I982 Reg. 12 (2)], and by convention, the reasoned justification must be couched in terms of ‘good planning practice’. It is not sufficient to give as the reasoned justification for a policy “because we the members say so”. Members who decide to flaunt this convention, as in Wandsworth, soon find how quickly things can go wrong. There are then. very real if unwritten constraints on the freedom for overt political decision-making in drafting a local plan. Policies must be presented in terms of good planning practice, and if they become the subject of debate at a local plan inquiry, there is nothing incongruous or theoretically impure about officers defending them on those grounds. It is also important to look at the role of the inspector within this context. At the best of times, the inspector treads a delicate path between what is properly his domain, and what is not. The essence of the inspector’s role, the bedrock upon which his status and influence is founded is his high profile neutrality. The introduction of politicians pursuing overtly political arguments would make it extremely difficult for the inspector to maintain the appearance of political neutrality and ob,jectivity. From long experience of appeals, planning authorities fully understand the unwritten ‘rules of the game’; that the inspector’s role is to establish facts. weigh the inferences drawn from the facts by both sides, and exercise his judgement on the basis of ‘good planning practice’ (Allen, 1974) and rational analysis. Subsequently his decision will be presented as far as possible in apolitical ternis. There is in a sense a gentlemans’ agreement between the planning authority and the inspector to exclude the political component - including the politicians from the visible decision-making process. Without this understanding, the inspector’s role may become rapidly untenable.
162
Progress
in Planning
Having now reviewed the interplay between the inquiry. public participation and political decision-making. some general conclusions are possible. Firatl!. no one process constitutes a dominant influence over the others. The politicans are clcarl! susceptible to any pressure which the inquiry may bring to bear. without relinquishing their ultimate responsibilities. In the other direction. the inquiry can do much to either undo or reinforce the previous achievements 01‘ public participation. and participants and planning authorities must recognisc this as both a threat and an opportunity. Within this unique mPnu,qc ci troi.s, public participation is without doubt the most vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the others as a dominant influence on the final shape 01’ the adopted plan.
There must bc at least a suspicion that a certain amount of crocodile tears a~-c being shed by those planners who criticise the local plan inquiry system most ficrcel! All too frequently the critics adopt a very one-sided accounting framework. The costs and alleged delays are emphasised, but the potential longer-term benefits ot‘ the inquiry for the planning authority arc all too easily dismissed. Perhaps the planners who find the s\‘stem broadly satisfactory. and there are many, tcol less 01‘ an urge to go into print than their colleagues who find so much cause for disenchantment. In particular, claims that the local plan inquiry system imposes intolerable delays must be treated with caution. It is misleading to suggest that the whole planning machincr\ is necessarily rendered inoperative until formal adoption of the local plan has been secured. In practical terms, the implementation 01‘ the local plan \tarta long before the technical end of the adoption process. SimilarI!. argument5 that the inquiry imposes an unjustifiable workload on the local planning author-it! lack conviction. It‘ the workload is heavy. it is usually because the incluir! highlights substantive problems which have to be resolved it‘ the plan is to secure the political and public commitment essential f’or its long-term prospects of succcsst‘ul implementation. In both direct and less obvious ways. the inquir> i\ an integl-al part of local plan preparation: to cut it off on the grounds of‘ adniinistrati\~c convenience \vould ha\e serious ‘side effects’ on the quality 01‘ the plan making process. which are not taken into Of course. local
account planning
by opponents of‘ the inquiry. authorities do ha\,e certain
legitimate grie\ antes. .l‘hc relationship between public participation and the incluir! highlight\ shortcomings in the formel-. which must be cause for frustration at the \‘er\ leaht. Potentially far mot-e worrying however is the widespread lack 01‘ conviction amonst planners that local plans are of any real consequence at all. ‘I’hc Dot has singularI> clumsy
I‘ailed to demonstrate its commitment to local plans. whate\,er it5 true position ma> be. and the consequent scepticism within local planning authorities is inevitable. Only when they are convinced of the lasting value of local plans \vitt the planning authorities
accept
the local
plan
inquiry
as a necessar>
burden
tu shoulder.
CHAPTER
Future
7
Directions?
The most intractable problems which now confront the local plan inquiry system are largely not of its own making. To that extent, immediate remedies are likely to be elusive. Its principal weakness, an ambiguity of purpose reflected in uncertain terms of rererence, derives directly from continuing public disenchantment with local plans constrained to a strictly defined ‘land-use’ role. Against this difficult background, it is important not to lose sight of the many solid achievements of the local plan inquiry system. The first question posed in this study was whether the inquiry can significantly influence what happens on the ground. That it most certainly can make a decisive contribution to the final shape of the adopted local plan is beyond dispute, and therein lies the principal strength of the system. It is more than a cosmetic exercise. The objector receives a fair hearing, the planning authority does not wantonly abuse its role as judge and jury and thus a soundly based objection stands a proper chance of being successfully resolved, at least in terms of the plan itself. Whether the plan can then make its mark in the real world outside is another matter. Local planning authorities should recognise the inquiry as an opportunity both to improve the quality of the plan, and consolidate its status with the various implementing agencies. The inquiry is, and should be seen as far more than a safeguard for property interests; it is an integral part of the plan-making process which is frequently undervalued by planning authorities. Criticism that the inquiry is unnecessary or counter-productive ring somewhat hollow when we see just how high a proportion of inspectors’ recommendations planning authorities accept. Perhaps it all boils down to this; if a local plan is worth doing at all, it is worth doing well, and the inquiry is an indispensable part of a rigorous and trustworthy plan-making process. There are of course weaknesses in the mechanics of the local plan inquiry system, when viewed in isolation. It is illogical to apply essentially the same decision-making process to a relatively straightforward two or three day inquiry such as Groby, as to a four-month long inquiry into a London borough plan. The practice of requiring one inspector to shoulder the entire burden of a major local plan inquiry threatens the reliability and credibility of the decision-making process in those circumstances, albeit they are exceptional. The disparity between the ‘decision-making resources’ devoted to a structure plan EiP on the one hand, and a local plan inquiry concerned with issues of an equivalent magnitude on the other. is little short of astonishing. 163
164
Progress
in Pia~~~~~~
As ;t general rule. the larger the inquiry, the n1ore time the inxpi’ctt~r sllo~llcl kl\C prepare beforehand, and the more important it is that written c\idencc i> ;I\ ailablc to him and all other parties in good time. The ‘Lcwcs model’ has much to ~ommcntf it in this respect. as it does in seeking to bring the inspxtor more l.uilv inlo the proceedings altogetht‘r. At the major inquiries, I’ar 11101’0use cc~lllcl IW n1adc 01 specialist lochnical asscssorb. in the same May as happens at ;I contrcj\ c’t-\1;11‘c~;lll-in’ or appeal such as Coin Street. For the time buing. it ~vould appc;tr Lhal the Inspectoratc CI~W not consider local plan inquiries to be a paI-ticul:trl> high priorir> in allocating its own. nclmittedly sciircc resource:,. 1211the more credit rhcn lil individual inspectors i‘or having achieved so much. ol‘tcn against the i)cl&. Ironically, one of’ the greatest strengths of‘ the s!‘stcm ma! !ct 1)1-o\c 10 hc it\ Achilles heel. Time and again. iocal pian incfuirics ha\x ~l~ill[~ll~~r~~~~[~ a capacit\ Ii) investigate in a critical and ~~llstrL]~t~~~ mannc’r. :i range ol‘ \ itai uiiial ;tnd environmental policies, which happen to fall oufsid~ a strict dcf‘in~tion ctf ‘Ian&use’. The inspector’s conclusions at the Wandsworth inquiry NYI-C01. proi~~nd importamx to many sectors of the community in that borough; !ct hc \v;ih ruled ‘c)rit ot’ cc~tl1.1’. E\,en so. the message will not be lost on the supporters and c~pponcnt~ ot that plan alike. ‘l’he opening paragraph of this study xuggested that the ultinl;ltc crilcI-l(ln b> \vhich to evaluate the elf‘ectiveness of thu local plan incluir\ 4)stt‘m \\ 3s \\ hcthcr it had a unique and worth\vhile contribution to ol‘l‘er. It did in M’ancls\\orth. Presumably, the question which the DOE will non be ashing i\: ho\+ can \\c prc\ent ;1 rcpe;lt performance of’ the Wandslvorth cpiactdc’l It i\ 10 lx 11~~1~~1 that the i]lsI~lr~~l v)lutIt>ti 01. D~partIll~rit’s response is not thr negative, adminiati-~rti\i’li seeking to confine local planning still more rigidly to h~tci-use nl;litcln. ~I’flc I)ol: must recogniae and accept the basic message 01’ whal happc‘nsd at the Vv~an&\\ orth inquiry and cl~where. lip and down the country. loc:il plan inquit-ICX highlight public disenchantment with the Mhole concq1 ot‘ local plan\ ;I\ I;~nd-u~ plan\ :~ncl nothing more. A plan which either ignores or brushes onl~ tangentialI> against Ihc‘ major and acknowledged social problems is unlikeI> to inspire an\onc. B’hat I\ it thal all rhc amenit! societies. welfare organisations and communit> group\ ;II-c‘%I! ins at t Ircsc inquiries. In essence. it is this: “you art‘ not proctiicin g the t\pc t11’pt;lns \\i’ \$allt: to
\vhere
is the
vision
which
\vc
haw
;I right
to
o\pect
ot‘ p1:rnIlcrx’i
b’tlci-c
I\. the
~(~~~init~~~iit to a better Cuturc which wc demand of‘ our po!itiui;inL’! - xollr ltlC;I/ plan is boring; it is nothing more than a bureaucratic dixumc‘nl iot ~~~l~iii~~l~~r~lli~~ l.ocal Pl~lJlnin~ needs broad public support il. ii i\ to \uI-\ i\f and con\.cniencc’.“ flourish. Hut can local planning break out of the shackles 01 “the rie\elopmcnt ;1nd ~Itllcr use of‘ Land”. without having to rcwritc the legislation and gc) bitch 10 \clu;~rc clnc and rethink the entire planning syhtem’l Quite simpl!. the answct- i\ and rnu>~ bu, !c\! If they arc to be Lvorthwhile and iniluential. local plans muy(t assume ii hlghcr protilu. and become a fbcus of public and political attention. f:\,cn if’ the range 01’ p(?licich which the plan can directly promote remains linritai. it can still geiieralc intcrcst arid commitment b? stating the key welf’arc problems in succinct and uncqui\ ocaI tL‘rms: ‘%Y have a thousand homeless families in oui- borr)iigh. !vc nccil 2 thou~antf C\tr;i
The Local Plan Inquiry
165
homes.” Having established the dimensions of the major problems - and the inquiry can play a key role in forcing the planning authority to ‘come clean’ - the plan can proceed in the conventional manner to set out the land-use policies designed to facilitate the various broader solutions chosen by the Council. Subsequently, a monitoring process must deliberately seek to keep the plan in the limelight. A systematic and dispassionate monitoring programme should provide the local plan with a role and an identity which can transcend the short-term vagaries of local politics and this year’s level of the rate support grant. It must ask all the embarrassing questions: “how many homeless families have we housed since the plan was adopted - why so few?” “ Are the land-use and other policies being pursued still justified?” In this way, it is to be hoped and expected that public and political interest in the plan and its consequences can be sustained. At the risk of sounding pretentious, the plan could evolve a role as the objective conscience of the Council and the community, and thereby become increasingly influential in generating debate and in determining priorities and allocating resources. The role of monitoring leads on to consideration of the eventual need for a formal review of the local plan, and the role of the inquiry in that process. It is important that the provision for an inquiry is kept. The threat as well as the actuality of an inquiry is an important discipline on the local planning authority, and it will ensure that monitoring and review is not given a low priority or undertaken in a halfhearted manner. There is no reason why the contribution of the inquiry in the original plan-making process should not apply equally at review. However, the time-scale of the full adoption process could present very real pl-oblems for planning authorities, since the review is likely to focus on immediate prcjblems requiring urgent attention. A modified adoption process might be appropriate in these circumstances. The inquiry itself could remain intact, held by an ind.:pendent inspector preferably appointed by the DOE, but much of the ‘paraphernalia’ either side of the inquiry could be dispensed with. Most usefully, the inquiry would follow shortly after a major public participation exercise, itself a response to an important monitoring report. The inquiry could be convened at short notice, and the planning authority would be able to make ‘instant’ modifications in response to the inspector’s recommendations. Without the option of a streamlined inquiry process along these lines, planning authorities are likely to be deterred from undertaking formal reviews at all, which would be one more step in consigning local plans to oblivion. In an ideal local plans system, the inquiry would indeed be no more than a safeguard, only required in exceptional circumstances. Of course it would be better if all the wide range of issues which come before local plan inquiries could be explored in a voluntary, systematic and constuctive dialogue between the planners and all the various groups and individuals with a genuine concern for their environment. Until that happy day, the local plan inquiry remains a vital outlet and opportunity for the citizen who is committed to the ideal of securing change through the medium of town and country planning.
Bibliography
The Local Plan Inquiry
167
HEAL.tY. P. (1979) ,Starutu,:v Locrrl PJatw their EvaJiuioi2 in LtyisJurion and Ad~~;~i~~~fr/;~~, ftrif,pic’raiiotr, Working Paper 36. Department of Town Planning, Oxford Polytechnic. Oxford. HEAP.
D. (1974) Planning inquiry Practice. Occasional Paper. .Jownml uff’lannit?,~ und Enviwnmcvrt i.w, Maxwell, London. HESELTINE. M. (1979) Streflmlining P/nnrlin,sy .Machiner:l~. Department of the Environment Pres+ Notice 576. 12th Ijecember, London. HOFFMAN. G. (1981) Procedural Issues Views from the Council on Tribunals, In: Z.ora/ Plnn Pub/it J.our/ Jnqurrie~. Working Paper 2, Department of Urban and Regional Planning. Lanchesret Polytechnic, Cowmy. HOLLOX. R. (I 97X) Locul /‘Jan fnqrrir-its - Kequiwmenlr cmd Procrdwev. Development Plan Inquiries C‘onferencc, April. Department of Urban and Regional Studies. Sheffield Potgechnic. HOLLOX. R. and BIART. S. (1982) Locai Plan Inquiries - A Case Study. .Jn~~mn/ off’lunnin,~ Nnd EniJirorrmenl Lw, .lanuary. pp. 17-23.
Sweetand
LEVIN. P. H. (1976) Goi~u~menr und [he f’lawning Procc:cs. Allan and linwin. London. LONGDON, P. (1977) The Administrative Xrrieu ~fS?ruc~urc Plans. CJnpubllshed M. Phil. Thesis, University College London. McAUSLAN. P. (1975) Land, I.an’ und Plannc/~,q. Weidenfccltl and Nicolson. London. McAUSLAN. P. (19X0) Tllc Jdeo/o,~ies of Plann/nr Lau Pergamon Press, Oxford. MABEY. R. and CRAIG. L (1976) Dcveloument Plan Schemes. 7%~ Wanner 62 (3). MILTON-WILKINSON, C. (1976) The Role of the Professional Witness for the Local Planning Authority, Occasional Paper, .Jnurtral of Pinnninby curd Enr+wmwnt JAI,, Sweer and Maxwell. LOlldOt?.
NARDECCHIA. T. .J. (197% O&wion hi, Lund Scc~uritie.s Invcwncnr of Westminster District Plan PLI. London.
7-ru.cr Llrf..
Proof of Evidence. Cit>
Department of Planning, Cheimer Institute of’ Higher Education,‘Chelmsford. POWELI.. T. E. (19X2) Locui P/am in the Lertxr Di.~/r-i~/. PTRC Seminar. Local Plan Inquiries 26-27 April. I.ondon. PROPERTY ADVISORY GROlJP (1981) Planninfi Gnin, HMSO. London. PURDUE, M. (1977) Cnscr and Marruialt on Plannin,s Law. Sweetand Maxwell. London. SIMMIE. .1. M. (1974) Citizens in Conflicr: the Sociolo,~~~ of Town Plnnnin~, Hutchinson. London. TELLING. A. E. (1977) Phnrng I,NII’ and Procedure. 5;h ‘edItion. Butterworth, London WADE, H. R. W. (1977) Adminirrrcrtive Lrnt,. 4th cditlon. Clarendon Press. Oxford. WALLfzR. R. A. (19x1) Expert Witnesses at Planning Inquiries, .iuurnn/ of. P/annmn,y ant/ ~n~~/ronm(~~~/ WRAITH, R. E. and LAMB. I:nwrn. London.
G. B. (1971) PEIMC Inquirks
o,t UN instr.ument
of Gowr-nmenr,
Allen and
Jones Lang Wootton, London WIY GAS
Acknowledgements This stud\; was originally prepared as a thesis for the M.Phil in Town Planning. ;~t the Bartlett School of Architecture and Planning. University College London. in the summer of 1980. I should like to express my appreciation for all the help given b> the l!Cl. staff and students in preparing that thesis, and in its subsequent updating and re\i\ion. Many planning officers up and down the countr>J have kindly gi\,en of their time and expertise to assist me. A particular word of thanks is due to my former colleagues in the Department of the Environment, for their candid advice and in\~aluablc guidance
92
0305-9006/83/020091-77~38.50/0 Copyright 0 1983 Pergamon Pres\ Ltd.
Vol. 19. pp. 91-167. 1983. Britain. All rights rcaer\ed.
Pr0,yre.s~ in Hnnnrng.
Printed
in Great
1.
Introduction 1.1. Introduction 1.2. The Anal,viical Framtw~ork 1.3. The Wider Context of Public Administration 1.4. The Research
95 95 96 98 100
2.
The Legislative Context - The Function 2. I. rntrod~efio~z 2.2. ‘The Fz~~ction qf Local Plans 2.3. The Statutory Adoption Process 2.4. The Evofving Role sf Local Plans 2.5. Combsion
101 IO1 101 105 108 111
3.
The Terms of Reference
3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6.
of Local Plans
of the Local Plan Inquiry
Introduction What is a Relevant Objection? - The DOE Interpretation The Terms of’liqferencr in Practice ‘ Wands~~,orth’ A ~v~o~o~~. of ~bje~tion,~ Conc~z~s~on
112 112 112 113 115 117 121
4.
Administrative and Procedural Aspects of the Local Plan Inquiry 4.1. Introduction 4.2. Alternative Procedzrral Mod& 4.3. Pre-lnquitys Activities 4.4. Procedure in Practice 4.5. The ‘LeM>esModel’ 4.6. Conclusion
122 122 122 125 130 134 136
5.
Outcomes of Local Plan Inquiries 5. I. In f t-~~l~~f~ot~ 5.2. Pre-Inquiry ~~l~uen~e.~ and Uutc0n~e.S
137 137 13x
93
6.
The Local
Plan
Inquiry
-
An Integral
Part
of Plan
Preparation
and implementation? 6. I.
6.2. fi.3. 6.4. 6.5.
7.
Future
Bihliograph)
Intt~~tluc~tiorr The Ilircct C‘m t.y uttd Brnqfrt.r Is tlir ltiqliit~~~~ 0 CrcwtiIYl IL.\-rwi.w ? The Kclutiorl.vhip c!f’ the Inquit.!, to Pddic Pnlitiurl I)(,(,i.siotl-Mrrl\irlg C‘onchisiori
Directions?
Par~tic,ipatinn rrrrrl IX I67
I 67
CHAPTER
1
Introduction 1.1.
INTRODUCTION
In the final analysis, there is only one sensible criterion by which to evaluate the role of the local plan inquiry. Quite simply, is it a device which can significantly influence what happens on the ground? If it cannot, then the local plan inquiry must be presumed wasteful of public and private endeavour. Equally, if some other process could secure equivalent results more quickly, cheaply or reliably, then the inquiry is again redundant. Thus, our basic criterion is subsumed in the question: what unique and worthwhile contribution does the local plan inquiry have to offer Britain in the 1980’s? In March 1976, the Coventry City Council earned the distinction of holding the first local plan inquiry under the ‘new’ development planning system. Since then, the preparation of statutory local plans has become a major activity for many local planning authorities, particularly district councils. By June 1982, 161 local plans had been to inquiry, and a further 30 plans had been adopted without an inquiry being necessary-. (The statutory adoption procedures are explained subsequently.) As many as six hundred local plans are currently in preparation, according to recent DOE estimates. Clearly, with so many local plans still in the pipeline, there is a pressing need to review the local plan inquiry system in operation, highlight any serious difficulties which have emerged, and if possible, suggest improvements. The system has indeed attracted strong criticism, in particular from local authority planners, but also from a wider audience. Such criticisms are broad ranging, but tend to fall into one of several distinct categories. Firstly, there are commentators who accept the principles which underpin the statutory provisions relating to the inquiry, but who dispute specific aspects of procedure. For example, it has been argued that the ‘quasi-judicial’ procedural format discriminates against those private objectors unable to afford legal or professional representation. Secondly, there is disquiet about the status of the inquiry. The inspector makes his recommendations directly to the local planning authority, and it is for them to decide whether to accept or reject those recommendations. Many objectors share McAuslan’s (1975) suspicion that this arrangement will tempt planning authorities to abuse their privileged position as ‘judge in their own cause’. Finally, and more generally, the whole local plan inquiry system is condemned as being unnecessarily elaborate, time consuming and expensive; in short, a potential obstacle to private sector investment and a 95
96
Progress
misdirection Environment
1.2.
of scarce has said
‘I’llI.:
This
in Planning
A[\Al.Y’I
stud!
emphasises
I(‘:tI.
pragmatic
to IOcus
of local
In this respect. making acti\rity. administrative.
in outlook.
firmI>
The
on current
political
and
usefully
precedents characterises
technical
develop
should What will
arc
in ~‘ssencc
three
third.
the whole
this
approach
w3ithin
perspccti\-e
client
groups:
ai-ra>
first.
g authorities of‘ potential
which
there
by, shifting which
have
central
to promote
into parallel of’ structure
engaged objectors
are inherent
the emphasis a direct
away
interest
govcrnmcnt
an eff’ecti,c
areas of planplans a\ an
in the
(primarily
devctopmcnt
the
plans
in their 5tatiitory planning to the loc;~l plan. What
each of these client groups legitimateI! seek from the local plan inquiry’? does each get’? Those two i\sws, in a nutshell. define the scope of this study.
help to 5et the scuic
concerns
1.2.1.
01’ the sub.iect
Nevertheless.
from studies the approval
process. that
DOE) M,ith its o~crall responsibility system; second. the local plannin and
topicatity
practice.
tl-om processes. and towards the ‘client gi-oups’ operation of the local plan inquiry system.
duties:
the
plans.
there are useful Longdon (1977)
We can
There
for
a coherent analvtical framework within which to evaluate the of‘ the local plan inquir\. to the preparation, adoption. and
imptementatioi~
conllicts.
of‘ State
I~KA\lI~:WOKh
is essentially the riced
still requires contribution
local authorit! res~~~~rccs. T‘he Secretar! ;I\ much himself (Hexeltine, 1979).
of cach
of these
The Department
Although plans. the system.
the DoI: Department
Not
the system instance. constitute
least. ma!
ii‘. at this juncture. client
is only indirectI> retains important or thll
more
closets
appoints
(DOE) inwl\ed in the approval (adoption) rcsponsibilitiea for the Ioc;~I plan
the inspectors.
according
houaer. the I)oE must ;i credible decision-making
to the calibre
ensure that process.
IIltimately. of these
procedural to promote
issues. ‘good
of local inytiiry
the et‘lectivcncss inspectors.
the procedural aspect\ and that the inspector
task to perform. Since there arc no statiitor\ rules go\ei-ning the conduct of local planning authorities and objectors look to the DOE for authoritati\c guidance on basic Department seek\
It
on the respectice
groups.
qf the Environment
the DOE
stand
wc‘ t‘ocus
of
In the first
of the inquir> has ;I realistic plan inquiries. and impartial
l‘hrough a C‘ocic of Practice (DoF:. 1977). the inquiry practice’ . such that all partics to the
inquiry will ha\e confidence in the integrit! 01‘ the proceu. This implies that the DOE. has to undertake a balancing act: ob.jcctors must be able to esercisc their rights l‘ully. but at the same time. and in trrirness to local planning authoritic\. the system has to be as speed! plan inquiry administi-ati~e
and economical system cxtcnds and proccdilral
as possible. Howaer. the DOE’S interest beyond the smooth trunning of‘ the inquiq terms.
in the local in
The Local Plan inquiry
97
The DOE retains ultimate responsibility for the quality and efficiency of the statutory town-planning service. At the very least, the DOE must keep a watchful eye on all the various statutory tasks undertaken by local planning authorities. Development control remains the preeminent function and responsibility of the town-planning service. Without a sound basis for decision-making in the form of the development plan, development control must inevitably become more nd hoc, unreliable and discredited. There is still relatively limited experience of local planning under the two-tier system of structure and local plans, and during this formative period, the DOE must be concerned with the contribution of local plan inquiries, either singly or en bfoc, to the evolution of the development plans system. The role and scope of local plans is, in practice, not at all well defined. Evidence from a number of early local plan inquiries suggests that uncertainty about the wider role of local plans is creating confusion over the remit of the local plan inquiry itself. Against such a background, no inquiry system is likely to work satisfactorily. Should this uncertainty become too disruptive, the onus will be firmly on the DOE to issue advice. or even promote legislation to restore order and direction to the process of local plan-making. 1.2.2. Z’fzeLocal ~la~~i~g Aurboviries At a time when local government is searching for expenditure cuts and greater efficiency, local planning authorities must increasingly explore ways to reduce their non-essential workload. They may well be tempted to see the local plan inquiry in these terms. To many critics of the development plans system, greater efficiency demands a more streamlined process of plan preparation and adoption. The statutory adoption procedure, including the inquiry if necessary, is likely to delay adoption by at least a year. Consequently, local planning authorities may become increasingly attracted to the idea of ‘making-do’ with informal local plans, and thereby dispensing with the local plan inquiry altogether. A local plan is of little consequence unless it can be implemented. The prospects of successful implementation will be greatly enhanced if the plan can secure broad public and political support, and a commitment from the implementing agencies to invest in line with the plan’s policies and proposals. If it transpires that the local plan inquiry has an important contribution to make in securing such support, planning authorities may conclude that the inquiry is a reasonable price to pay for establishing the plan’s underlying credibility. 1.2.3. The Objecrovs Perhaps the first point to make about the objectors is that they may as easily be in conflict with each other as they are with the local planning authority. The local plan inquiry can provide the forum by which competing groups, amenity societies and developers, for example, seek to promote incompatible vested interests. It would be misleading therefore to see the objectors’ role in terms of a two-cornered fight with the planning authority.
Progress
98
in Planning
However. regardless of their diverse backgrounds and motivation. all objectors would doubtless endorse the view of’ the ‘Franks Committee’ (Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Enquiries. 1957) that an inquiry should ot’f’er “fair I’or the citizen
which
is both
the citizen’s
right
to expect
and
the duty
play
of’ good
administration to provide”. Set up in the wake of the so-called ‘C’richcl Do\vn affair’. the Franks Committee established the now hallowed doctrine that a public incluir! should
be conducted
impartiality”. Whilst it must such
according
be a pre-requisite
as to convince
outcome inquiry
prime
is not
and
a deposited
local
It will bl; now abstract
to defend
be evident
debates
is both
that
about
the delight
what it is that in the exercise zealous their must
and
\isible
socially
unjust
regard
and
which
private
considerations
which
should
an injurious
be
plan ;I gcnuinc proposal
in
does
exercises.
That
control for private
as an agent
directI>
to the
for creating
their professional decisions. the natut-c
responsibilities. property
01‘
planners
interests
have
(Harrison.
an ovct-197s).
In
control responsibilities. planners day. The local plan inquiry is one \er!
the planning
the immediacy
machine
seeks
to resolve
the inherent
of’ the problem\
in itself’ is all the more its statutory tasks to have confidence
in that present
system. controversy
inquiries is no more I.amb (1971). in their underling problems and which now find foremost is the issue
than a variation on exhaustive review and conflicts which ready expression in which so intrigued a judicial
brought
before
a local
the direction taken by this stud!. We cannot but of society which provides the backdrop to all
processes embodied In many respects.
fulfils
not seek to contribute
of’ town-planning
interests. -
making system which pursues the planners and the planned
inquiry
against
change. Elected members and as a matter of course to take
plan inquiry - which has shaped accept the imperfect understanding
a public
the inquirk
are it ih the
and the despair of’ academics. Sociologists agonise OVCI“the public interest” (e.g. Simmie. 1974): others claim that
through
of’ public
plan-making
upon
his interests
this study
the nature
constitutes of‘ their development
mechanism
It is these
the proccdurcs of the whip’.
needs to be assured that the local but that it does of’fer the ob.jcctor
local plans and through their development like with and make such decisions every
conflict
that
and
plan.
social. political and economic planning advisors are required which
consequent
exercise.
least.
system
fairness
he has had a ‘fair crack
The public
a cosmetic
at the very
of’ ” openness,
of any inquiry that
the actions
concern.
mcrcly
opportunity.
more
the objector
of’ the inquiry
the objectors’
to the principles
reason
to establish
a local
plan-
in a manner- which encourages in the integrit! of the \,arious
OVCI- the role and
conduct
of local
both
plan
a number of familiar themes. Wraith and of’ public inquiries in Britain. highlight are characteristic of’ many types of’ inquiry. the context of local plan inquiries. First and the Franks Committee: the extent to which
or an administrative
role.
I
D,,,r,ct
Newham
I <>ndon Borouph
BC‘k,“”
Of
Plan
TABLE
,nno\at,on\ Ile\,ble
-
h,ghl>
I month 122 OhJeClor~
I month 108 ObJcctor,
42 da)\ 471 oh,rclwn\
2 ueck\ 91 ohjcc’orc
I da\ X ob,cilor\
for selection
procedural
criteria
,mporm,
1.1. The study inquiries -
100
Progress
in Planning
Amongst objectors at local plan inquiries. there is often conl‘usion on thy\ xorc. The proceedings have all the appearance of at least a quasi-judicial process, and !?I at the end of the day. the inspector’s recommendations local planning authority. Objectors may find this hard
can bc o~crritldcn both to undcrhtand
b! the and
to
accept.
Other long-standing problems with public inquiries in gcncral impinge on the 1oc;iI plan inquiry. There is the perpetual conflict bet\veen the pressure\ I’or spced~ decision-making. a goal which inquiries are seen to impede. and the nectl to sat‘eguard reference
individual rights against arbitrary go\ ernmcnt action. ‘I’hc broad of public inquiries have always been problen~atical. II the inquir!
administrative entiret! that
in nature.
a political
political
alternative Should Should
decision? scheme
should
policy
an objector
decision,
Similarly.
to that
under
be alloyed
and not merely should objectors consideration?
terms i\
to USC it to challenge
01.
in It\
the manner 01’ Implementation bc allowed to promote an
What
al-c the right\
01‘ ‘third
01‘ partics”!
procedure be tormaI or informal‘? Is legal representation to be enuouragcd? costs bc awarded to ob.jectors? Are the pr~~cedurcs bet’orc. during anti al‘tcl
the inquiry in accordance with the requircmcnts of’ natur;ll juaticc’.’ These broad issues have been around for so Iong that thcrc k no reason suppose
they
can be resolved
to e\,eryone’s
complete
satisi’action
to
in the t‘icld 01 local
plan inquiries. That does not mean that there can bc an> groom I’or complacency it difficulties do emerge , and that there \tiould not bc constant enclca~c~ur to inipro\c the system.
The
research
has been
undertaken
in two stages.
During
1979 and curl>
19X0 the
study focused on the eight local plan inquiries detailed in Table I. 1. This sample inquiries was selected to reflect the diversity ot‘ circumstances v,hich had alread> become apparent within the system b) that time. In effect. these eight inquiries represent amongst
the earliest phase in the evolution the first twenty local plan inquiries
The second
stage
of the research
ha5 been
01‘ the svstem. to be held. undertaken
\ince primarily
which down.
time it is reasonable to expect that the system will ha\c Some of the early problems may have been ironed out.
occur
art‘ likely
to reflect
has bccomc apparent that problems. over and above
more
f’undamental
the borough-wide those encountaed
difficulties.
the\
(11’
~CI-c all
during
lYX3. b!
had time to \ettlc but those which still
As the s~5tcm
has c~ol\~d.
London local plans prc\ent special elseMSherc. C‘onscqucntl!. thi\ Iattcl
stage of- the research has concentrated on IAondon, and in particular. the incluirie~ into the Westminster, Wandsworth, and Hammersmith and I’ulham District Plan\. Whilst these inquiries do raise certain problems which arc largeI\ conl‘inctl to London. broader themes emerge which ha\-e direct and important implications 1.~11 the local plan inquiry system at large.
it
CHAPTER
2
The Legislative 2.1.
Context
-
The Function
of Local
Plans
INTRODUCTION
Town and country planning legislation rarely makes for exciting reading. Furthermore, legislative complexity does not necessarily eliminate ambiguity and uncertainty. Indeed, a cynical observer of the current ‘planning scene’ might even conclude that the main beneficiary is the legal profession. Be that as it may, a study of local plan inquiries cannot proceed without a thorough understanding of the legislative framework, both as it applies to the preparation of local plans in global terms, and to the inquiry specifically. Perhaps the key characteristic of the legislation is that the scope of the local plan is left in significant measure to the discretion of the individual local planning authority. Against this background, there has been a continuing, but somewhat inconclusive debate over which matters may properly or usefully be tackled in local plans. The ensuing uncertainty often finds expression in the local plan inquiry itself. The DOE defines the role of local plans in straightforward land-use terms, the emphasis being firmly on “the development and other use of land”. In contrast, Healey (1979) finds a tendency for the public to view the local plan as ‘&ageneral vehicle for solving local problems”, regardless of whether such problems relate directly to land-use matters. The local planning authorities have an unenviable task seeking to reconcile these opposing views.
2.2. THE
FUNCTION
2.2.1. Legislative
OF LOCAL
PLANS
Provisions
The ‘two-tier’ system of structure and local plans was introduced by the 1968 Town and Country Planning Act, largely in response to the recommendations of the Planning Advisory Group (PAG) in 1965. We are not here concerned with the merits of the PAG Report, only its legacy. PAG envisaged that in place of the ‘old style’ unitary development plans, strategic (structure) plans would establish a “coherent framework of planning policy” which tactical (local) plans would translate into site specific land-use proposals. The provisions of the 1968 Act were consolidated in the 1971 Town and Country Planning Act, which remains the basis of the legislation for the preparation and 101
102
Progress
adoption
in Planning
of local plans.
important
bearing
Amending legislation to the 1971 Act which has an on the preparation 01‘ local plans derives from the 1972 Local
Government 4ct. the Inner Planning and Land Act. As ii direct result anticipate. structure for the preparation does plan
Urban
Areas
Act
1978. and
the
19X0 I.~xal
C;o\ernmcnt
of‘ local government reorganiaation in 1974. uhich PA<; did not plans are prepared by the county council. M hityt responsibitil\ of tocat plans generally falts to the district cc)uncil. Thexc ‘who
Lvhat’ arrangements for local plan preparation arc formaliaect in ;I ‘development scheme’ (Section 1Oc of the 1971 Act as inserted by the I972 Act). prepared and
kept under review by the county. in consultation with the districts. Lintit Ma! 1982. the 1971 Act was supplemented by “the 1974 Regulations” (S.I. 14236. 1974). e\ccpr in Greater. London. where different Regulations apply (S.1. 1481. 1974). The 1973 Regulations arc fully esplained in the “Memorandum on Structut-c and I.ocal Plan>” accompan\ing DOE circular 4/79 recently. the DoE has issued Circular preparation possible taken
of local by the
place
plans.
19X0 Act.
although again excepting London. More 23/X t which provides general advice on the
and explains Att the local
\+:ithin this I‘ramwork
Regulations were introduced wilt bc examined in this test
the changes plan
in adoplion
inquiries
of‘ legislation
reLicwed
proccdure~ in this stud!
and supplemcntar\
ad\ ice. Ne\l
in May 1982 (S.I. 555. 1982). the implications 01‘ \\hich as and where appropriate. At the time of’ v riting. the
DoE \vas in the proccss of drafting 19X0 Act and ~CM Regulations.
a revised
Memorandum.
to tithe account
At (his juncture. wc are concerned esctusivel) with the statutol.! I-egarding the I‘unctions of local plans, and the i‘ormat supptcmentar! contained in c~rcuiars. The 197 t Act states onlv that:I.1 I(‘,1
made ha\e
01‘ the
pro\,i\ic)n\ advice
i\ IIGII plx1 \tlall ~(ln\l\t (II ;I ,,I;,,’ ;illil ;I 1\11111‘11 \I‘llc‘lll~Ill ;iliil \11‘111 117 \uctl dclail :k\ ltlc JU~IIOII~J 1h1nk ;kt~t>~~~t>~nalc Ltw du11101~1~‘\ (iI1 IOI.II~~I~;I~C t~lotx)wt\ 101 the Jc\~loprilent a1111 rllt1c.l ,l\C ill 1‘111d 11, ih‘ll ,>a11 (II ltlcll ‘IIi’.i 111 lOI ATI> dc\ci-lptl~~n of de\ct
(t>1
c~lrlt;lln\uct1matlcl-\ A\ ,,,a\ lx, t~rc\crltwl (II ‘I\ \cclcr;ll\ ot state 111,1\ ,,, a,,, p’:rrlicillar c;,\c d1recr.”
In recognition the
of the diversity 1974 Regulations provide
plans and sub.ject plans. envisaged for each:
The
of planning problems to be found at the tocat tc\,el. for- three types of local plan: districl plans. action ;IK;I Memorandum
“A tti\ll-let plan (rep. 15 (I 1)ma! hc :,I c;i \?.tw.l c the clec~i~led .. \\ a>
ptnnnq
pt-epad m<~ttcrs need
(pal-as.
3. t 2-3. 14) ctaborates
loi. the \\ tlolc LO he \tucl~cti
on the role
OI
,tt1thot11\‘\ c
“411 act~~m dri’;i plan (ref. I5 (2)) I\ IN dn d~u md~;r~cd II, 111~ I~ILIC~~IIC ptrm ;I’ 41, ~LILOII ;IIC.~, an ar-ca untended 1.01 compt-ehen\l\~ de\ elopmerl~, re~ic~cl~~pn~c~~~ ;rnd/i~r irnptcl\ cmenl. 10 hc c~~rr~rnenc~d \\lchln 10 ycan ol \uhml\\lon 01 the \,,,,c,~,rc ptal> ” (N.B. Subsequent to [he 19X0 Act, an action irrespective 01‘ the structure plan designation.)
area
plan
may bc preparcd
1.i’
for an> artx
The Local Plan Inquiry "A subject plan (reg. 15(3)) is designed to enable detailed treatment description
of development
or land use
103
to be given to a particular
.”
In the 1982 Regulations (Reg II), the term “district plan” is no longer used. Local planning authorities clearly have a considerable choice both of what type or types of plan to produce, and which geographical areas they wish the plans to cover. For example, some London Boroughs (e.g. Westminster) have prepared a single borough-wlide plan; others (e.g. Lambeth) have concentrated their statutory local plan work on smaller areas vvith urgent plal~ning problems, the Waterloo District Plan being an example. Outside London, planning authorities tend to favour this latter ‘patchwork’ or ‘mosaic’ approach. It should however be noted that planning authorities do not have a statutory obligation to prepare local plans at all. Indeed, in Circular 23/81 (para. lo), the DOE stresses that a local plan should only be prepared where there is a “clear need” for that plan. With regard to the content of local plans, Section 1l(5) of the 1971 Act requires that:“‘A local plan for any area shall contain, or be accompanied by. \uch diagrams. Illustrations and descriptive matter as the local planning authority think appropriate for the purpose of ercplainmg or iilustratlng the proposals in the plan. or as may be prexribed, or as may in any particular c3e he specified in directions given by the Secretary of State: and any such diagrams. Illustrations and descriptive matter shall be treated as forming part of the plan.” Both the I974 and the 1982 Regulations require that the proposals contained in the written statement must be “set out so as to be readily distinguishable from the other content thereof’; i.e. the “reasoned justification” for the proposals and other supporting material (1974 Reg. 16; 1982 Reg. 12). The proposals map has to be presented on an ordnance survey base. The 1974 Regulations (16(l)) made provision that the proposals formulated in the local plan shall relate to such of the following matters as the local planning authority thinks appropriate:“(I) (pi) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (\iii) (ix) (A) (\i)
Distribution of population and employment Housing Industry and Commerce Tr~nsp~)rt~ti(~n Shopping Education Other social and community services Rccrcation and leiwrc Conservation. townscape and landscape lltility services An? other relevant matters.”
In the 1982 Regulations, this ‘shopping list’ of appropriate local plan matters is omitted entirely. Also omitted is the earlier requirement (1974 Reg. 17) that proposals should be set in the context of social and economic considerations. Whatever policies and proposals are included in the local plan, Section 1 l(9) of the 1971 Act requires that it must “conform generally” with the structure plan “as it stands for the time being”. A local plan prepared by a district council cannot be placed on deposit with a view to adoption until the county council issues a certificate
104
Progress
in ~l~~~~~~g
of general conformity with the approved structure pian.
The Local
and a source of especial difficulties examined in depth in Chapter 3.
2.3.
THE
STATUTORY
ADOPTION
at local plan inquiries.
Plan inquiry
105
This whole issue will be
PROCESS
2.3.1. The Sequence t$ Events IJnder the old system, development plans were approved by central government, and inordinate delays were common. The PAG Report (para. 1.30) was vitally concerned to secure a more streamlined process. Consequently, the new system is based on the principle that there should be a clear division of responsibility between central and local government for the approval of development plans, to reflect the nature of the issues at stake. Since local plans must operate within the strategic framework established by the structure plan and approved by the DOE, responsibility for adopting the local plan is placed full square with the local planning authority. Although the DOE does have reserve ‘call-in’ powers for local plans, these powers had nt’v~r been exercised prior to June 1982. The DOE is however required to approve the (Section 12(3)) public participation statement for each local plan. In Fig. 2.1 each step in the process of local plan adoption is attributed to the relevant provision in the statutes. The process depicted represents all the stages through which a local plan must pass to secure full statutory status. The plan is formally placed “on deposit”, and if a valid objection is made during the 6-week objection period and not subsequently withdrawn, a public inquiry will be necessary. (Since the 1980 Act. the inquiry may be dispensed with if all objectors agree to a written representations procedure.) Six weeks notice of inquiry must be given to objectors once the date of the inquiry is fixed. After the inquiry, the inspector sends his report to the local planning authority. They are required to consider the report and. having done so, publish a statement of what action, if any, they propose to take in response to each of the inspector’s recomlnendations. Prior to the 1980 Act, the planning authority could only make a modification to the deposited plan in direct response to an objection which had been considered at the inquiry. Schedule 14 of the 1980 Act relaxes this provision. and a local planning authority may now “modif> a local ;~ccord~ncc with {Ii‘: (a) (b)
plan
before adoption to take account not only of objections duly made in the regulations and matters arising nut of such objections (as formerly) but also
Iatc objections made to the plan: and an) other considerations which appear 23/8 I).
to the authority
to be m;lterial”
(UoE
Circular
If the planning authority does determine to modify the plan, it must publish a list of the proposed nlodjfications, which are then subject to a further 6-week objection period. The ~em(~randum (para. 3.75) indicates that an inquiry into the proposed n~odi~cations will be necessary where:-
106
Progress
in Pianning
FIG. 2.1. The statutory
process of local plan adoption.
Assuming the local plan eventually surmounts these various obstacles. the way is clear for the planning authority to adopt the plan by council resolution, subject to the Secretary of State being notified and not exercising his ‘call-in’ powers, and adoption notices being advertised locally.
The Local Plan inquiry
107
Local planning authorities also have the option of preparing non-statutory or ‘informal’ local plans, which do not comply with the full statutory requirements of the plan-making and adoption process. For example, the planning authority may decide to adopt the plan by council resolution without putting it on deposit. By this means. the prospect of a statutory local plan inquiry is removed.
2.3.2.
The Conduct of the Inquiry
The local plan inquiry is held under Section to note the precise wording of the Section:-
13(l) of the 1971 Act. It is important
“For the purpose of considering
objections made to a local plan the local planning authority may, and hhall in the case of objections so made in accordance with regulations under this Part of this Act. cause a local Inquiry or other hearing to be held by a person appolnted by the Sect-etar) of State or. in such cases as may be prescribed by regulations under this Part of this Act, by the Authorit> themselves .”
That the inquiry is held to consider “objections made to a local plan” highlights the issue of what exactly constitutes “a local plan” in statutory terms. There are no statutory rules governing the conduct of local plan inquiries. Nevertheless, Purdue (1977) implies that the statutory Inquiries Procedures Rules (S.I. 1419, 1976), which apply for example to inquiries into (Section 36) planning appeals, have a significant bearing on the conduct of local plan inquiries:“uhere no detailed procedures (for an inquiry Into a development plan) are laid down. administt-ativr practice normally follows the existing rules by analogy. and in any case. the court\ ha\t. nlwn><, even before statutory rules were created. required the conduct of lnquirles to be according to the rules of natural ,justice.“
It is the concept of natural justice - “that no man should be judge in his own cause, and that no man should suffer without first being given a fair hearing” (Wade, 1977) - which provides the bedrock upon which all public inquiry procedure is founded, and the local plan inquiry is no exception. By virtue of Section 13(l)(b) of the 1971 Act, procedural matters relating to local plan inquiries f-all within the jurisdiction of the Council on Tribunals (Hoffman. 1981). Guidance from the DOE on the conduct of local plan inquiries is provided by the 1977 Code of Practice “Local Plans: Public Local Inquiries - A guide to procedure”. Whilst this Code lacks statutory force, it is authoritative insofar as it has the support of the Council on Tribunals, which was closely involved in its drafting. The existence of this Code of Practice does not preclude the possibility of introducing statutory rules subsequently. Sub.ject. of course, to the dictates of openness, fairness and impartiality, the Code of Practice (para. 3.28) leaves it to the inspector to “decide how to conduct the proceedings”. Although seeking to encourage informality, the procedural format favoured by the Code is the traditional ‘adversarial’ approach, which is based on, but dots not necessarily resemble, court-room practice. The objector, who may be legally or professionally represented and call witnesses if he wishes, presents his case by reading a proof of evidence. He is then cross-examined by the advocate for the
108
Progress
in ?i~~~~i~~
Technical difficulties aside, there can be no presumption that loc;rl politici;tn\ itnci local planning authority. The local planning authority then prescnt~ its counterc~idoncc. which is subject to cross-examination by the objector. The objector- ha\ ;I fin~~l right 01‘ reply. Within this broad proced~~ral framework, many \:tri;ttion\ can and quite properly do occur.
The Local Plan Inquiry
109
members of the public involved in the preparation of the local plan will readily accept structure plan policies. As Caddy (1981) points out, “the longer a plan takes to come to fruition. the greater the chance there is that political changes will alter the direction of the plan”. Nor can it be assumed that potential conflict between the structure and the local plans can be resolved, de facto, by the requirement for general conformity, which in practice is a vague and malleable concept. Nowhere is this more evident than in London. The so-called ‘Coin Street Inquiry’ provides a vivid illustration of the problem. Very briefly, the Coin Street sites are on the South Bank of the Thames. within the area of the Waterloo District Plan, a location which is defined as a “preferred office location” in the GLDP (para. 4.14). However, in the Waterloo District Plan, the sites are designated primarily for housing devel(~p~nent. After the plan had been adopted (without an inquiry being necessary), developers applied for planning permission to build nearly a million square feet of offices at Coin Street. The application was ‘called-in,’ and two public inquiries have since been held. A major issue at both was whether the local plan does conform generally with the GLDP; the developers claim it does not; local community groups argue the reverse. The outcome is still awaited, (at the time of writing), but the general message would appear to be that the interpretation of the structure plan in the local plan is still a potential source of confusion. Another major issue to consider is the effectiveness of local plans as vehicles for ‘positive planning’. In particular. we are concerned with areas of decay requiring substantial public sector investment; e.g. an inner city location where an action area plan might be expected to play a guiding role in the regeneration of that area, A number of commentators are uncompromising in criticising the development plans system in this type of situation. According to Hambleton (1978):-
Booth and Edwards (1981), referring to the experience of the Barnsley Metropolitan District are less pessimistic. but concede the difficulties. The essence of the dilemma for the planning authority is that, in the final analysis, the local plan is no more than an advocacy document in respect of the allocation of public and private sector resources. Planning departments do not actually spend money; they have to persuade others what to spend, where. and in what order of priority. Central government has done very little to advance the cause of the local plan as an important arbiter of resource allocation at the local level. For example, the relationship between local plans and the Housing Investment Programme (HIPS) is at best tenuous. DOE circulars on the annual HIPS submission mention development plans only in passing, if at all (see DOE Circulars 63177, 38/78). There are of course real difficulties in coordinating an annual investment cycle for a whole borough, with a development plans system which operates on irregular time-horizons. and in which the ‘cover’ of local plans may be incomplete. Likewise. there is effectively no
As things stand at present. the Iocal plan is playing an increasingly bringing forn,ard
proposals
for dc\,elopment.
Uic
proposals
map
relied upon to depict all the public scctor schemes with a reasonable iliiplementatioli. In Lond~~ii. road safeguarding lines are frequentI\ proposals
maps
of the borough
(pun. 3X). Pinall!. wc‘ must
curnine
plans.
despite
Ihe response
the contrary
of‘ the general
there is increasing widcnce of disillusionment.
I.PN
to Ioc;iI
Local plan inquiries
c\c‘n bc
chance 01‘ oniittcd l’i-oni the
advice‘in public
Iimitcd trolc in
cannot
l/75
pkinh.
highlight
~IIJL‘C the
various wubs in \Ihich the public. and indeed dcvclopcrs. pcrcci\c shortcoming\ uithin the local plans system. ‘l’he nature of‘ objections lodged to local plans \vill 1-x examined in depth in the nest chapter. For the time being. it is sufficient broad term\ c\II> IocaI the general public. in
At the simplest buyer
OI- elisting
appear to hare
plans
level. the local
plan
cannot
home-owncl- OI- tenant
an ‘identit\ problem
upon b>, the intcncling IIOIIW~
bc relied
to provide
:o Illu\tr;rtc,
it] the c‘\c’\ 01
;I reasonable
dcgrec
of‘ ccrtaint!
that his propert> is sal’c I‘i-om any cataclysmic planning change. I‘hc pIanning tcstbooks might tell us that flexibilit>, in development plans is esential. but t’or the householder OI- purch~~scr. ccrtainty is undoubtedly a virtue. At the other cxtrcmc. and back in the rt‘;llmh 01‘ ‘positive planning’, the local plan appeal-\ tc, ha\c OHI\ limited rclcvancc to the immediate problems of‘ everyday life. If local planning i\ to gain the confidence and support of‘ the general public. II must ad&es4 itself consti-ilcti\rl> to those problems which a local cc)mniunit\ \ces falling
within
to physical land-use cannot be expecttxl other
iisc
is scai-cely
land” surprising.
of
;I\
of town planning. even if such matter\ trclatc onl! IndirectI> The ‘ordinar\ man iii the strci‘t’ plannin, (J as strictly defined.
the ambit
to understand the fine distinction “other related but non-planning
and
Di4trict
chapters entitled ‘Housing’.
plans
and
action
‘1Jducation’. ‘Social
area
between the “dc~elopment anti activities”. Public conl‘uGc)n plans
Services’
c~~ninionl~ and so forth.
contain I\ not
Ihc
man in the street cntitlcd to c\pcct to find the full range of‘ his council’\ housing policies in that plan? When he finds that the plan cannot include firm policio on those aspects of housing management or health service proCsion I\ hich al‘l’cc~ him most. is it any ~\oiiciei- that he feels perplerd? Individual ob.jections to ;I local plan will tr the most part display es\cntiall> ‘parochial’ concerns and ambitions. l‘here is however a pattern and consistcnc! to
The Local Plan Inquiry
111
many of the problems raised at local plan inquiries, and seen in global terms. these recurrent themes and issues reflect more deepseated shortcomings within the local plans system at large. This brief review of emergent problems within the local plans system has not been in any sense exhaustive. Rather, it has been designed to highlight those issues which impinge most directly on the day to day operation of the local plans inquiry system.
2.5.
(‘ONC‘LUSION
The legislative framework is one of contrasts. On the one hand, the function and content of local plans is defined in broad and indicative terms, in keeping with the premise that responsibility for local plans must rest at the local level. Yet it would seem that the DOE finds this unsatisfactory. The whole tenor of DOE advice to local planning authorities has been progressively to seek to restrict the role of local plans to a narrowly defined concept of land use. In other words, the DOE is guided primarily by a commitment to administrative propriety. How far the man in the street can understand, let alone subscribe to the DOE line, will be discussed more fully in Chapter 3. If the role of local plans continues to give cause for uncertainty, the statutory adoption process leaves very little to chance. The intricacy of the process reflects the attention to detail required to ensure that the proper ‘checks and balances’ operate throughout. Whether or not the statutory adoption process can justify its complexity and duration must depend on the relevance and usefulness of local plans in tackling the urgent planning problems at the local level.
CHAPTER
3
The Terms 3.1.
IU’lrKoDt
No
inquiry
that
or
on
is held
its entiret\. constitutes authorit>
local lo
l‘hus.
‘rclwant
in
this
Plan
Inquiry
1980). It is 5oniewhat \vhat
inquiries.
We
but
wr\‘c
onI\,
7’he
DoI;
without to
can ha\c
niade
“ob_jections
IO hut-.
it‘ the
any
highlight
tcrma
01 retcrencc
tr-unk road inciuiries
the turn< of rei’crence objection’: being
ob,jection’.
direction
smoothly
to impost
plan
consider
;I ‘relevant
operate
acrimc)nious
(McAuslan.
is obliged
of
to The
has wught
Dok
inqirirv
c\pected
dispute.
in point
reference
onI>
be regarded seen
that
to (the)
IocaI
plan”.
v+idet-
are
either
recent
~t‘ars
therei‘orc
terms
in statutor>
terms.
and
the plan
not
depend on what the Ioc;iI planning
to I‘ind an acceptable ~ucct’ss. (‘ontinuing unccrtaintic4
o\cr-
the
is
to I‘ind
;IS contr.o\‘et-sial
already
has struggled conspicuous
of
hut-prisins
ol‘the inquir! Cll an ob~jcction \f hich
the
saga
the in
euactl!
definition difficulties roIc
of
local
in general.
plans
3.2.
lx
in
cast the
of
of the Local
(‘I’lOh
can
uncertain ;I vivid
of Reference
MII.\‘I’
The
IS
LIoE’s
the Code
,\ KI,.I.I~:\
intcrpt-etation
of‘ I’ractiw-
\YI
OI~.II~:(‘l’IOU?
of ‘relaant
-
objection
I III:
I)ol.:
I[\
I I,.Kl’KI~
. is to bc t’outid
I’ZI
IO\
in paragraph
3.5 01‘
The Local
Plan
Inquiry
113
exclude from the inquiry objections which were in effect alternative proposals for development. The DOE feared that to permit objections of this nature would create endless opportunities for delay in the consideration of the planning authority’s proposals. However, in its anxiety to restrict the terms of reference, the DOE appears to have overstepped the mark. There is nothing in the 1971 Act to support (para. 3.5) the Code of Practice in its assertion that “objections should relate to particular policies or proposals in a local plan . .“. The Act is only concerned with “objections made to a local plan”, and Section 1 l(5) of the Act makes it quite clear that the local plan comprises everything between the covers of the written statement (see p. 103). That being so, there is no reason why an objection to an aspect of the reasoned justification or supporting material should not be considered valid. Whether such an objection serves any useful purpose is altogether another matter, to be examined subsequently. Dexter (1979), from the DOE, concedes that the Code of Practice definition of ‘relevant objection’ is problematical;
“It ma) be difficult to decide which are the relevant objections. only in the Code of Practice
particularly
since this term appears
and not in the Act.”
Despite the difficulties, it is instructive to accept ‘para. 3.5’ at face value, and examine its possible implications. Let us assume that the local planning authority complies with the Regulations in presenting its proposals in a visually distinct manner, and that it also follows the advice of LPN l/78 with regard to the nature of proposals. In other words, only strictly defined proposals for the development and other use of land would appear in bold type or upper-case. Everything else in the plan. except the proposals map, has the status of reasoned justification or supporting material. Thus. if the Code of Practice was to be rigidly applied, the only objections which the planning authority would be obliged to hear would be those specifically directed at the (upper-case) land-use proposals. To sum up. we can begin to identify the DOE’S ‘ideal objection’ in the following terms. The objection will relate to a specific property or land holding, the owner of which is aggrieved by a policy or proposal for the future use of that site in the local plan. The objector will seek complete or partial relief from the injurious effects of the proposal, but in so doing, he will not seek to promote either alternative policies or indeed alternative uses of his land or property.
3.3.
TIIE
TEKMS
OF
REFERENCE
IN PRACTICE
The evidence from many local plan inquiries suggests that the DOE’S preferred terms of reference have rarely been strictly observed in practice. Rather. local plan inquiries have displayed a marked tendency to stray ‘off course’ by hearing objections which:(i) (ii)
challenge both the need for and the implementation are vitally concerned with “related but non-planning
of structure activities”,
plan policies,
114
Progress
(iii)
seek
in Planning
to promote
omissions That
is not
future the
new or alternative
policies
in response
to percei\cd
in the plan.
to sa!; that
prominently
‘straightt’orM,ard’
at local
ob.jections
plan
inquiries
theory
and
-
they
to land-use do -
pi-opouls
but the\
do not
arc by no
mc;iii~
star!
whole
The discrepancy aignil‘icancc.
between
On the one
worthwhile
hand.
contribution
prxtice
if the locnl
to the resolution
is of potentially inquiry
plan
01‘ these
t’ai.-rcachinf
is incapable
broader
ot‘ making
problems.
an!
the \.;ll-iou\
participants to the inquiry are either u,asting their time. or enter-taining tlilse hope\. or both. Ho\ve\,cr, if the inquiry does achieve positive results outside it\ strictI> defined terms of reference. begins to look Iess secure. plan
inquiry
may diverge
The problems highlighted Hampshire proposed
the whole basis of the tuo-tier dewlopment plans \~stcm Some examples will illustrate the cstcnt to \\hich the local from
inherent
at the Farcham Structure Plan that
some
6.000
land
allocation
commensi~rate
the notional
in the structure Western (approved homes
quo’.
local
plan
relationship
~berc
Wards local plan incluir!. Hrictly. the South in 1976 but prepared in the carI> 1970’\)
be built
for
‘status plan:
111the Watern
employmen
Ward\.
\\ith
:I and 40 I or111.
groL4Th. inl’raslrtlctilw
The Action Area plan duly made proposals to implement structure plan polic>. hur to growth on such ;I SGIIC. c\cn ttio local plan inquiry then heard stron g objections though matters.
the objections In the c\cnt.
could have been interpreted as reopening \t ructure plan the inspector found that thei-c was substantial mei-il in these
objections. and the Hampshire t’a~our- 0I‘ a more modest lewl The likelihood ‘i-t‘tc\ant’ alturnatiw I‘recluentl~
of‘ the local
Countv Council of growth. plan
inquiry
accepled
mo\,ing
his rcconimencl~l(l~~i~~
conspicuously
away
to bc tountt
urging
platitudes.
70 counter
this.
to commit
the council
to more
compuIsor> ~xxupation
II-om
land-use issues can only increase if‘ objectors arc fret2 to ad\~oc;tie policies. Public sector housing polio is one area where objector\ the inclusion
of additional
policies
objectors
purchase powers b\ locat authoritv
hn\e
positive to acquire tenants.
sought
action: l)r Ion g-term
for inclusion
ncu 01 arc
in the plan.
;irc;i\ of suere housing stress, such as the inner I.ondon Boroughs. criticised the housing policies contained in thu local plans ;I\ being
in
In
objector\ tla\e no moi-c than
in the plan.
;I polic!
cwmple. through the USC’01‘ want pribate hous~a t’or
One 01’ the mosl important aspects of the ‘non-i-clc\.anl’ objoctic~n problem i5 thal \\ hen objections do not just happen by del’ault. There x1-c. ot cotii-SC, occ;iGon\ what ;III objcctcjr uitl neither ttic inspector nor the planning authorit) can anticipate
SLIC~I
may then strav of‘l‘ course through gcnuinc w>. and the proceedings misunderstanding. More often than not. howwx, local planning authoritic\ deliberately hear and respond to objections which they noncthctess contend arc not relevant in the strict land-use sense. Various considerations may pcl-waclc planning authorities
to
By
large.
and
objector.
act
Elected
in
they
this
way.
are reluctant
members
to force
are especiallv
a confrontation loath
to appear
wilh
an intending
intransigent
c\t‘n
10 the
The Local
Plan
Inquiry
115
point of refusing the objector the opportunity to have his say, particularly if the objector is an established and well supported community or amenity group. Before the inquiry opens, planning authorities usually undertake extensive consultations with objectors, where the problem of any ‘non-relevant’ objections can be considered. It appears that very few objectors are prepared to drop an objection on the grounds of non-relevance as a result of these discussions, and perhaps the determination of the objector to proceed is sufficient to persuade the planning authority that discretion is the better part of valour. At least by allowing a doubtful objection to be heard, the planning authority avoids any possibility of a legal action, in what is a hazy area of the law. Planning authorities may also have a problem in differentiating between the relevant and ‘non-relevant’ parts of an objection covering a number of matters. Broad-ranging objections of this type are common from community groups and similar bodies and, in these circumstances, it may be easier to hear the whole lot. Notwithstanding these various pressures on the local planning authority to hear ‘non-relevant’ objections, there is, of course, always the possibility that the planners and councillors actually sympathise with the objector and, in fact, see some purpose in letting him have his say. Why should objectors be so keen to pursue a ‘hopeless’ cause, once the (supposed) litnitations of the local plan inquiry have been properly explained? Part of the explanation must lie with the unique role of the inquiry. Either directly or indirectly, local plans touch on many aspects of public administration which vitally affect the individual, but which are effectively closed to constructive forms of public participation. (The ballot box can hardly be relied on to ensure local authority accountability!) When the local plan inquiry comes along, it offers the committed individual or group a chance to present their case to a forum which at the very least demands the respect of the council. It is too good an opportunity to let slip, regardless of the prospects of ‘success’. The upshot of all this is that, at the end of the day, the local planning authorities have attached little credence to the DOE’S interpretation of ‘relevant objection’. They have made no systematic attempt to exclude ‘non-relevant’ objections according to any explicit criteria along the lines of para. 3.5 of the Code of Practice. The inspectors have also been notably reluctant to curtail the proceedings on the grounds of ‘non-relevance’. Whether this state of affairs will continue. in the wake of the recent events surrounding the Wandsworth Borough Plan remains to be seen.
3.4.
‘WANDSWORTH’
The Wandsworth Borough Plan inquiry, more than any other, has highlighted the problems over the terms of reference of local plan inquiries. It is important to examine the background to the inquiry, and the immediate outcome, which led to an adjournment debate in the House of Commons. The Borough Plan covers many matters of an explicitly party-political nature, which do not accord with a strict
Progress
116
definition
in Planning
of the “development
council houses. Substantial which the Council accepted
and
story (L.B. Wandsworth. 1982). At the pre-inquiry procedural this turn
of‘ events,
and
other
use of land”,
numbers of objections were to be heard. The Inspector’s
advised
meeting.
the inspector
the Council
and
including
received Report express4
the sale of
to these politics. then takes up the his misgivings
at
that
“IO aprnd tlmc on rn;lttcr\ \hll~cI>LICIT’ es\ent~all> tllc Icgldntion.
Nonetheless. the inspector forthright
uould
~n\oI\c
a haste
ot the oblcxtor\’
whyxt
the Council still decided that all the objections should be heard. duly did. In so doing. he defined his own role in the I‘ollowing
Mhich
terms:
“111i;~~rnc\\ 10 obyctor\. and in an effort to cIImin;ltc or mltlgatc an! cIcmcn~\ 01 \\a\tclulnc\\
that
the sale of‘ council
housing
“must be likeI\ 10 preludtce the supply o( aatislactor\ home 10 ;I Iatgc number lamilie\ now li\ine ~n.h~gh level Ilat5, or in other- unutldactclr~ hcJu\lng:“.
and
taking
the bull right
The Borough
Council
the leader
01 ~l~wd\;~nt,~~c~i
by the horns:
“I hnve 110doubt that ,t vvi~uld he ,n the w&al he relinquished. until \uch time ;I\ the problem\ \hortage ha\c hcen sr~lved.”
records.
compelling.
the policy:
cried
‘foul’,
of the Council
Interc\t\ o( the Iwal comrn~~n~t> 101 thl\ pd~c> 10 pt-wntccl h> the Horcnls$‘\ gcnc,al IUILI\II+
and as Hansard
(House
01‘ Commons
2X.4.82)
The Local Plan Inquiry
117
(There is as yet (June 1982) no intimation of just what ‘steps’ the Minister intends to take.) Bearing in mind the warnings and advice the inspector gave the Council at the outset, their reaction to his report and the Minister’s subsequent criticism seems harsh indeed. Clearly, the pitfalls which may lie in wait for inspectors at local plan inquiries are enormous. It would, however, be potentially misleading to draw any immediate conclusions from the Wandsworth episode, since the overt party-political dimension to the plan is untypical. To obtain a more realistic view of the type of issues which are likely to confront the inspector, a ‘typology of objections’ has been devised, based on all the inquiries reviewed in this study.
3.5.
A TYPOLOCY
OF OBJECTIONS
This typology of objections at local plan inquiries includes both ‘relevant’ ‘non-relevant’ objections. In the first instance, objections may be considered correspond to one of two basic categories:-
and to
(l)
Property Objections:an objection which is concerned with the impact on a specific property or land holding of a policy or proposal in the local plan. The objector has a direct financial or tenant interest in the property or site in question.
(2)
Policy Objections:an objection which may or may not identify a specific site, but is concerned with the wider implications of a policy or proposal for the community at large. The objector does not have a direct financial interest resting on the outcome of the objections.
There is of course overlap between these two basic categories. This is particularly true of objections which seek an alternative designation for a site to the use proposed in the plan. For example, a developer may object if his site is not earmarked for commercial development. However, if that same site had been designated for commercial uses, a community group might well have objected that the site was more appropriate for housing. or for some other defined community need. Indeed, it is not unusual for objections to be made to proposals for which planning permission has already been granted. A single objection may very well embrace the characteristics of several of the categories outlined below. The ensuing typology cannot claim to be in any sense precise or comprehensive, but simply indicative of the potential variety of issues liable to confront the inspector.
3.5.1. Property
Objections
3.5. I. I. Householder/Small
Business Property
Objection
This type of objection might equally be called a ‘small-scale’ property objection. It will typically involve the occupiers of a small group of dwellings, perhaps a dozen or so, who will either be displaced as a consequence of a proposal, or whose residential
118
Progress
amenit> this
suCf.er. Small.
will
relocation
in Planning
alw
type of objection
authoriry.
Almost
i\ significant
ot’ the
built-up
in the ovr:rnll
Kedtxfopmcnt
e\Gitc w0~1ld also f‘it this commonly
in the locality, of‘ at1 alternative Also
t‘alling
who object5
of a run-down
he simply
within
this
fi>r- ;I x2lc
ot’ ~~~\~~l~~~~~~~~~~t
Agricttltitr~tl ;t m;tior
arc;f for 01‘ this
want wot~lii
land on the ft-iny duvtlopment
housing
t!pc
ix a
or an industri:tl
01‘ ob,jcction
i5 that
tlo\~elopmcnt
it on or aci.iaccnl to his patch.
;I kcv consideration
category
to the omission
to the planning
the neud f’or the proposltd
doesn’t
site is thu
with
of‘ the plan.
to bc lel‘t alone.
proposc
urban
A charxteristic
~hrcatenucl context
conscqucncc wants
of the plan.
the local authority
category.
axtil:tbilitv ohjcctic>n.
simply
industries
In the wider
marginal
conte\t
does not dispute
sornc~\h~‘rc
land-o\vnct-
01‘ only
the ob.jcctor
arca on which
in point.
Ihe ob,jcctor
type of objection.
is generally
invariably,
w%ich cast
this
of this t> pe cc3ncet-ns ;t site dcsignatcd
ol+tion
Ail
backyard
‘nclii-conlorming’
characterisc
in the resolution
The
of’ the
bc kllc ob.jccticm f‘rc,m ~1 majot
01‘ :t proposal
in the pl;m
to de\~el~~phis hitc.
The Local Plan Inquiry 3.52.
119
PoIk_v Ubject~o~s
Objections falling within this category exhibit immense diversity, but have in common a desire by the objector to insert in the plan an entirely new policy, proposal or commitment. Despite the endless possibilities which the ‘sin of omission’ presents, objections of this type can usually be further classified according to whether they represent a ‘sin of outright omission’ or only ‘partial omission’. In the case of the former. the policy being sought by the objector does not relate directly to any existing policy in the plan. That being so, the merits of the suggested poiict cannot be evaluated by reference to the local ptan written statement. Such ob_iections tend to focus on ‘related but non-pl~~nnjn~ activities’. With the sin of partial omission, which is much more common, the objector contends that the policy or proposal in question is dealt with inadequately, and must be supplemented in some m:ay. This in turn will often involve the designation of a site for a use other than that shown on the proposals map. The further categories of policy objection outlined below refect variations on this latter theme of the sin of partial omission. (According to para. 3.5 of the Code of Practice, the sin of outright omission would definitely be a non-relevant objection, but partial omission might be considered acceptable.)
Objections in this category are usually lodged by persons or organ~sat~ons familiar with the planning system, and who appreciate the nuances of the precise wording of policies. The objection often focuses on the degree of flexibility buitt into the policy. Thus. a developer confronted by a policy that “the local planning authority will not allow office development” will argue that such a policy is unreasonable and too rigid. He will argue that the word “normally” should be inserted, and specific exceptions to the generality of the policy position stated. Conversely, a community group may seek to have an existing “normally” taken out. (This example again illustrates the overlap of policy and property objections.)
3.5.2.X
HiA
fur Rcrourccs
This type of objection seeks a commitment in the plan that more money be spent for some defined purpose. The expenditure may fall either on the local authority promoting the local plan, or on some other public agency. As such, these objections may be moving into the arena of overt political decision-making, if they seek to reorder existing priorities. Objections within this broad category generally correspond to one of three distinct patterns. Firstly, there is the type of resources bid which overlaps with the ‘question of emphasis’ outlined above. If the objector supports a policy in principle, but feels that it is unlikely to be implemented to any worthwhile degree, he may urge the planning authority to reinforce the policy with firm commitments in the local plan. Thus.
120
Progress
in Planning
instead of a policy that “the council will encourage tree planting”. the objector will seek a policy comnitment that the “council will plant 1,000 trees a year”, and so forth, The provision of’ children’s da!-care l’xilitics is one issue which very commonI> attracts ‘l’hu swond type
objections of‘ this type. of‘ resources bid might best
bc called the ‘quid
pro quo’
obJection.
in that the ob.jection is first and I‘oremost ;I response to a dcvcloptnent proposed in the local plan. In this case, the ot7icctor opposes the development in principle. but
argues
that if‘ it does
proceed, it must he accompanied by increased espenditurc effects on It~;tl residents or businesses. For example, before
to
a major new housing estate is built. the inadcyuatc provision of local shops, play space or whatever in ad,ioining residential neigkbotlrhoclds shc-ruld be made good. mitigate
Objections negotiating
its ad\wsc
which
urge
‘planning
the council gain’
to make
f‘rom cornmerci;tl
more
vigorous
de\.elopment
use of the practice may also
oi’
in this Propert)
t’eature
context - a particularly topical issue in Cew ot‘ the recent contr’oversial Ad\,isory Group Report (198 1) on the sub,icct. Finally. thcrc is the tape of resources bid which does not relate to any specific development proposed in the local plan. Rather it is aimed at an aspect ot community c)t- welf‘arc provision, to which the land-use planning aspects are of only incidental concern to the objector. The local plan is not of‘ prime concern to the objector. but the inquiry does provide a ti>rum to pursue the particular cansc in question.
In the more attracti\,e towns and villages and urban areas, amenity societies arc often anxious to promote their own ideas for preserving or enhancing the character and quality of the environment. The problem of traffic congestion is interesting in this context. Both the planning authorit! and the local groups may agree that ‘something must be done’ to alleviate congestion and improve conditions fat pedestrians, but they disagree on what. Amenity societies are quite prepared to challenge the technical ,jilstifi~ati~~n titr a proposed traffic rnanager~l~nt scheme, and put forward their own alternative scheme. Thus. the ~~rg~~rn~~~ti> primarily about means, not ends.
An objection of this kind challenges the basic assumptions which underpin the development strategy of the plan. In so doing, the objection effectively challenges structure plan policy. and tho example from Fareham referred to earlier (p. 114) could be seen as falling into this category. Similarly. in Sutton Coldfield, objectors opposed the principle of large-scale housing development to help relieve housing stress in the inner city in ~irrnitlgllarn. They argued that new devcl(~ptil~r~t should be concentrated in the inner city.
The Local Plan Inquiry
121
3.6. CONCLUSION
Any expectations which the DoE may once have had that the terms of reference of the local plan inquiry could be largely confined to strictly defined land-use matters must surely by now have disappeared. Perhaps the DOE should be thankful that its advice regarding ‘relevant objections’ has to an overwhelming extent been observed only in the breach; at least the DOE has not had to defend an i~lterpr~t~ti~~l~ of the legislation which is, to say the least, suspect. The in~plications of the terms of reference being so widely drawn in practice are potentially far reaching. In the immediate context of the local plan inquiry, it is clear that the inspector may have an extremely onerous task. At the more complicated and controversial inquiries, the inspector may well be faced with an immense variety of objections and objectors. His all round abilities to comprehend and then find realistic solutions to problems great and small will be tested to the utmost. Thus, it is all the more important that the procedural and administrative arrangements for the inquiry are appropriate to the task facing the inspector. (Chapter 4 focuses on these aspects of the local plan inquiry system.) Taking a broader perspective, the Wandsworth episode highlights the fundamental issue which the local plan inquiry system has had to live with from the outset; what useful purpose is served by hearing objections into non-land use matters? (Chapter 5 examines the outcomes of local plan inquiries in detail.) It is clearly too early to know what, if any, the longer-term repercussions of Wandsworth may be. In the meantime, it is important to appreciate that the difficulties surrounding the Wandsworth inquiry are, first and foremost, symptomatic of the continuing difficulties local planning authorities face in identifying a role for local plans which meets the aspirations of politicians, public and planners alike,
CHAPTER
4
Ad~j~jstr~tive Plan lnquir y
and procedural
The local
is essentially
advisory embodied
plan
inyuir!
Aspects
a decision-making
capacit). ‘I’liat hcin g so, the quality in the inqttir\ ;~ssumcs a paramount
of the Local
process.
albeit
of the decision-making importance. Planning
only
in art
prows:, authorities
arc
only likely to accept the inspector’\ t-ecorllmendations if they believe the proccdttr;tI format enables him to make properly informed. soundly bawd decisions. H> the same token. public oonfrdcncc in the system relies on the objector he has had a full and fair hearing. and the opportL~~~it~ to present manner
tvhich
objcctivc which making process The conduct
suited
him bat.
Implicit
in these
considerations
the procedural fortnat should seek to achieve; which commands the confidence of all parties of local
plan
inquiries
became
a controversial
being satisfied th;it his case in ~hc
is the underlying ‘to secure ;I dccisionto rhc inquire’. issue
large11
;;s ;I twult
of the ekcnts
A wc haw or ‘ad\cr4,tri,tl’ L L prwxdural fratnet~~ork. although it does not seek to impose any rigid proc~dttral straight-jacket. The I.t_wcc District Council sought to dispense with the ndwt-s:tri;tl approach in public
altogether. and adopt a process more akin to a structttrc (EiP). ~Ir~f~~rtttIi~ltcl~. the inspcctctr at Lewes was reluctant
plan to
cxtmination aclt~pt
tlic
inyllisit~)i.i~l role which the p]~~Iinitl~T h authorit> envisagfd f;)r him. :inii tfic procedural format clevisccf by the District Council was not properly rested. Nevertheless. the ‘Leues model‘ deserves serious attention as an innovatiw approach
to the conduct
is to establish
whcthcr
of the local conventional
by the inspector, and whether significant improvements.
plan
inquiry.
practice
the Lcwcs
The
main
is conducive
model
purpose
LO sound
or any other
tbrmula
of this chaptcl decision-m;tkin~ could
ot’f’ct
It is important at this juncture to emphasiso in general tel-ms the distjIlcti~)tl between the ‘,~udicial view’ and the ‘~~~l?iinistr~tive view’ of the role of the public inquiry.
The judicial
Cew.
as charactcrised
by Telling 122
(19771:
The Local
Plan
Inquiry
123
“regards a planmng inquiry as a dispute between the local planning authority and the individual: the ensuing decision should be judicial in the sense that it should be based wholly and dit-cctll upon evidence presented at the inquiry”.
In contrast, the administrative view places the inquiry in an essentially advisory role. Thus, if an inquiry is held on behalf of the Secretary of State, with whom the final decision rests, he will have regard to but will not be bound by the recommendations of the inspector, and other considerations may quite properly influence the Secretary of State’s eventual decision. Quite clearly. the role of the local plan inquiry corresponds to the administrative view. It is a process designed to advise the decision-making body, the local planning authority. At the same time, the machinery at the disposal of the inspector accords with the judicial view, since he relies exclusively on the inquiry to formulate his recommendations. The proceedings at the local plan inquiry may also resemble a .judicial process, at least in outward appearance. It is not altogether surprising therefore, that Bruton et al. (1982) have found “a good deal of public misunderstanding” about the status of the inquiry and the role of the inspector. The traditional ingredients of the adversarial town planning inquiry, conducted in accordance with the principles of the judicial view, are succintly described by Sir Desmond Heap. Addressing a Law Society conference in 1974, he spoke of: “the three roles without which no town-planning inquiry can be complete - the lawyer (whether barrister or solicitor) to do the advocacy. the professional witness to give the evldencc (whether- for the appellant or for the planmng authority) and, of course, the inspector to mark, inwardly d&t. and later report upon the whole proceedings”. (Heap, 1974).
Against this background, the introduction of the structure plan EiP must be seen as a radical break with convention. The structure plan EiP was something of an afterthought in the new development plans system, being brought into statute by the 1972 Town and County Planning (Amendment) Act. As Dunlop (1976) recounts, the EiP owes its existence specifically to the alarm created in the Ministry by the two-year long GLDP inquiry. More significantly, the advent of the EiP can be seen as confirmation of a general principle; that inquiry procedure should reflect the nature of the matters in dispute, and, of course, the terms of reference of the inquiry. In dispensing with the adversarial approach for the EiP, the DOE reasoned that: “the traditional form of inquiry which has come to involve many formalities of a kind apt foldealing with detailed property matters has only rarely proved suitable for exploring also the policy ~\sucs Inherent in major development plan submissions”. (DOE, 1973).
By implication, the DOE did not expect the local plan inquiry, with its essentially traditional procedural format, to have to deal with “policy issues inherent in major development plan submissions”. We might also note Wade’s general comment in respect of public inquiries, that: “inquiries ‘into objections’ are apparently designed xheme can be reasonably taken for granted”.
for special situations
where the policy of the
124
Progress
The wording this category There
ot‘ Section 13( 1) of the (see p. 107).
1971 Act
would
inquiry
with
&al
primarily
two processes
strategic
to resolve
w.outd
policy
bc complementary
potentially strategic implications. It is important to re-emphasisc
plan
inquir\
inlo
indeed.
prior
structure
to the
plans
for the London
in London. local and controversial inquit-?.
would
framework
London
1971 Amendment
appear
Act.
boroughs.
plans throughout poliq questions.
the con\~cntional
consideratioti~,
t‘unction
and
IOC;II
In hhorI.
procedure.
The
the 1)of.
As we saw in Chapter 3. Ioca1 plan with highly compek potic\ i\suc\. \\ith ;I local
that
The borough-wide
leaving
property
in both
clearl!; misguided in its cspectations. inquiries mav \crv well become involved
document.
issues,
site specific
was
4.2.2.
the local
put
an impeccable logic in the DoE’s overall conception 01‘ the of the EiP and the local plan inquiry. The IziP, with its hpccial
roles
procedures.
policy
would
is 01‘ course.
respective plan
in Planning
plan
may
local
plans
in e\et->
it was the intention Whilst
the country That being
to be at an immediate
there
\cnx
hc ;t mqot‘
arc the oh\ ious examplc5 to product
are esccptional
may be required so. the inspector disadvantage
-
urban
cit.cum\t;tncc\
to t;tcklc \uh\tantial at ;I local plan
with
the proccdutxl
at his disposal.
Pvocedurul
Innovations
for the EiP
It will be helpl‘ul to outline the administrative and procedural innovations \\hich distinguish the FiP t’rom the conventional inquiry format. Firstly. the Sect-ctar! of State
selects
both
the matters
to be examined
at the EiP and
the participants.
proceedings arc conducted b> a panel, comprising an independent eminent) chairman and two others. normally ;I \ery senior officer Regional “probing
Office and a senior planning discussion” into the selected
(and
f‘rom the I)ol-
inspector. Their responsibilit! is to Icad matters. and subsequentli trcport to the
Secretary of State. The type of issues which particularly concern the panel the ‘internal cohcrcncc’ of the plan. the i’easibility of’ policies and proposal\ of resource
implications.
The panel
Extensive
beilinct-the-scenes
fut1y briet‘ed probing
and
is not entit-cl>
by DOE officers
discussion.
not least.
atone
matters
precedes
on the subject
All the relevant
ot’ substantial
in its endeavours.
activity
I‘hc
ol’tcn
documents
and matter.
Gwilliani
follows
each
include in tcrnn\
contt-o\er\\. (1978)
has commented:
session.
so as to bc able
arc (supposed
;I
I’he panel
I\
to lead the
to be) a\ailabte
in
advance. and the exatnination proceeds on the understanding that ;tII participants have read them. That \$:a\‘. it is hoped the discussion will be cogent. and get htrxight to the heart of the matter. The proceedings are strictly timetabled. and in no \cnx: arc the discussions ‘open-ended’. The crucial difti-rence between the EiP and the traditional inquitg thu\ lie\ tn the respective roles ascribed to the panel on the one hand. and the inspcclor on the
The Local Plan Inquiry
125
other. We have in effect two quite distinct decision-making models to choose from. In the conventional inquiry, where the inspector adopts a largely non-interventionist role - “to mark and inwardly digest” - it is assumed that the inquiry alone, plus a site visit, is sufficient to enable the inspector to make a fully informed recommendation or binding decision. The inspector must, of course, reach his conclusion entirely independently. In complete contrast, the EiP model rests on the assumption that the panel must play a leading inquisitorial role if the proceedings are to focus quickly and effectively on the principal issues for concern. Nor is the panel expected to be able to reach decisions without the benefit of ‘behind the scenes’ expert advice at every stage in the process. Whilst it would be premature to offer any definitive conclusions on administrative or procedural aspects of the local plan inquiry at this stage, certain anomalies are already apparent. At the more controversial local plan inquiries, the inspector may be required to examine policy issues every bit as complex as those which come before a structure plan EiP. He must rely on a procedural basis which is acknowledged to have shortcomings in a policy context, and he has none of the back-up facilities which are considered indispensable for the EiP panel. With these considerations in mind. we can now proceed to explore local plan inquiry procedure in practice, with a view to establishing whether it constitutes a sound decision-making process.
4.3.
PRE-INQUIRY
ACTIVITIES
A literal interpretation of the legislation and the Code of Practice might suggest that the pre-inquiry period would comprise largely routine administrative activities. The reality is markedly different. For many local planning authorities, it is an intensely busy time in which substantive issues are confronted, and even occasionally resolved. As such. the pre-inquiry period must be seen as an integral part of the local plan inquiry decision-making process. For the sake of clarity, the various activities undertaken during the pre-inquiry period will be examined below under separate headings. although in practice there is plenty of overlap.
4.3.1.
Appointment
of the Inspector
The process is set in motion by the planning authority approaching the DOE Inspectorate in Bristol as soon as it becomes apparent that a local plan inquiry will be necessary. The Inspectorate exercises great care in seeking to appoint an inspector whose temperament will be appropriate to the likely circumstances of the inquiry. If there is some prospect of it being highly charged, or even unruly, the ability of the inspector to maintain control in a hostile atmosphere will be a paramount concern to the Inspectorate. Only inspectors with at least 3 years experience and a professional qualification in town planning or a related subject have been appointed to local plan inquiries. About fifty inspectors have been used in this role to date, but none specialise in local plan inquiries. As a general rule, inspectors are not appointed to particular local plan
Progress
126
in Planning
inquiries on the basis of anv prominently at that inquiry. have the all-round ability to information and then arri\,c
specialist expertise in a subject which is likely to fcaturc Rather. by the very nature of their task. inspector? must control the proceedings, gather all the relevant at a well-reasoned recommendation. In effect. the\ arc
expected
M,ith virtually
to be able
to cope
Although the Code of Practice (para. an “independent assessor _, with expert technical
assessor
has been
appointed
of the Armthorpe/Edenthorpe/Kirk District Plan. The technical assessor land
for colliery
disposal.
waste
tipping,
At the Westminster
share
the workload.
4.3.2.
The Progvarntne
Immediately
the plan
goes
own ranks a “programme (para. 3.22) indicatoa:-
The programme reason followed number tact,
this advice. of objections,
administrative
in the light
-
on deposit,
is. and
and
up.
1982. That
of labour
be seen
a planner
not least
alternative
01
was in the C;I\C’
methods
two inspectors.
of.
the object
bclng
to
unequal.
was highly
of Objections
the local
authority
appoints
as the Code
the post.
an honourable role (Francis, a thorough
Most
from
\\ithin
it\
01‘ Practice
to be, ‘the inspector’s
filling
Westminster being it is a demanding flair.
were
His role is vital,
must
against
crops
in February
of possible
there
The Receipt
officer”.
officer
the DOE advise
to date.
the division
Qfficev
which
SandalVBarnby Dun and Adjoining Area5 examined objections to proposals to allocate
inquiry,
although
anything
3.14) makes provision for the appointment knowledge in a specialist field”. only one
man’
and
authorities
for this
ha\,c
exception. If there ~I-c‘ a large 1979), which requires integrity.
working
knowledge
of the plan.
Objectors are encouraged to submit their objection on a standard form (see Fig. 4.1). and most comply. The wording of question 4 on the form is significant.
in that
it seeks
Code of‘ Practice definition. elaborate on the substance the full scope authorities statutory
4.3.3.
of their
have &week
that
objections
A supplementary of the objection.
objection
at this stage.
there
to engage in formal very much standard take place between
Consultations is no obligation
are ‘relevant’
according
to the
sheet to the form provides space to but very often objectors do not re\cal Almost
been prepared to accept objections ob.jection period has expired.
Pre-Inquiry
Although
to ensure
without which
exception.
have
been
planning made
after
the
and ‘Modifications’ on either
the local
planning
authority
or obJector>
or informal consultations before the inquiry. this has become practice (Bruton et ni.. 1982). These consultations almost aIwx!\ planning officers and the objector: elected member involvement
The Local
c,ty
HOll
London
PO SWIE
BOX
240
“lctnrlo
Plan
Inquiry
127
street
60P
I:IG. 4.1. Town and Country Planning Act (1971) - City of Westminster or support for the plan.
District
Plan notice of objection to
tends to be minimal. Where political ratification of any agreements reached is required, this is usually done either through ‘chairman’s action’, or through a special sub-committee, which can be convened at short notice. A small minority of objectors, particularly those legally represented, may prefer not to get involved in any pre-inquiry consultations. Although the problem of ‘non-relevant objections’ is not usually resolved through this process (see p. 115) there are other potential benefits for both the planning authority and the objector. For the planning authority, pre-inquiry consultations
Progress
128
often prow regard
in Planning
to be a valuable
to individual
objections.
learning process. both in ;I general 1’0 put it crudely. the planning
s;c‘nx. and with authorit> is likel!
to
get a much better idea of what ground it will be fighting on . and L\hat tactic5 art’ likeI> to be tieplo>cd against it. F’or the objector. there is some prospect ot‘ more tangible proposals after
benefits. Objectors may ha\,e gcnttincl> niisunclerstood the poltctes or v+.hich are causing them anxiet>. and objections arc occasionally \\ ithdrawn claril‘ication 01‘ the matter. and perhaps ;I f’ortiial lettet01’ asstlt-aticc f-c~rn thC
planning authorit>. However. 01‘ greatot- signil’icance the phenomenon of ‘prc-inquiry modit‘ications’.
to the otttcomc
ot the inquiry
i\
1:ollowing consultations with objectors. man!’ planning L ,iitthot-ities ha\c seen t‘il thenisel~es to propose modil‘ic~ttions, which the in\pcctor i\ asked to endorse. Thcrc can bc no absolute presumption that the inspector will agt-cc \\ ith the\e ‘pre-inqttir! modifications’. nature.
Ilie\
but hc almost at-c commonly
there are examples Mhich Eagle Street. the C’o\entry improved
rather
than
in\jariabl\, matters
does.
of detail
I’rc-inclutr\ or minor
mc,dil’ic~rtions drafting
L;II’\ in
amcndmenls.
but
hare ;I substantial impact on the t.inal I’orm ot the plan. c’ity Council agt-cod that 759 dwclling5 ~houlci by
demolished
as proposccl
in the tlcpo\itcd
plan.
One particular problem The process can generate with
the statittor>
ob.jectors
ma\
J‘he local
planning
part! intercat\ niottification.
ha\.c
w:ith pre-inquiry tnodit’ication~ clock ncccl Itj be recognised. ;I \critable deluge 01‘ papet-. all 01‘ which gee\ on deposit documents. the proof’s of e~iclence and so lot-lh, and other the greatest authority
arc unwittingI!
ditl’icult!~
in kccpin g track
mmst also take threatened
cxtrcnic
arc
b> the ;tgrccmcnl
01’ Itt\t u hat is happt‘ntng, to cn\ut.c
that
no third
01‘ ;I pt.c-inquit-!
In
The
Locaf
Plan
inquiry
129
The whole issue of the early exchange of proofs is intimately bound up with the procedural format of the inquiry itself, and, in particular, the extent to which the inspector can play a prominent inquisitorial roie. As things stand at present, the inspector’s briefing is decidedly patchy. At best he will have only a day or two to familiarise himself with the plan area. The local planning authority will have sent him the various statutory and other documents associated with the local plan, the submitted objection forms, and such proofs of evidence from objectors and the planning authority that have become available. He will not discuss any substantive issues likely to arise at the inquiry either with the local planning authority or within the DOE. Obviously, in the absence of written statements from one side or the other. or both. the inspector’s briefing will be limited in scope. and potentially biased or unbalanced.
43.5.
The Procedural
Session
Paragraph 3.21 of the Code of Practice suggests that it may be worthwhile to arrange a procedural session at least 21 days before the inquiry opens; the purpose being “to arrange such matters as the provisional programme and the timetable as well as the way to deal with any specialised technical evidence”. Although the Birmingham Polytechnic research found that less than half the inquiries in their sample had incorporated a procedural session, it should offer certain unique opportunities to enhance the smooth running of the inquiry. It may very well be the only occasion when all or a majority of the objectors will meet together with the inspector and the planning authority. The inspector can thus take the opportunity to set the tone for the inquiry and explain procedure, which will hopefully save time and the tedium of repetition in the inquiry itself. There is a case for arguing that a procedural session presents the best opportunity to resolve the exchange of proofs problem. By this time, the planning authority’s consultations with objectors should have given it a good indication of which ob.jections will be straightforward, and which difficult. The planning authority could thus use the procedural session to state which objectors it feels should be required to submit their proofs of evidence in good time. Provided the authority’s request seemed reasonable, the inspector could lend his support by making it very clear that any of these objectors who withheld his proof until the last minute will incur his c(~nsiderable displeasure. This does not appear to happen very often, if at all. In certain other respects also, it appears that the full potential of the procedural session to contribute to the effectiveness of the inquiry is not being exploited. The whole question of ‘specialist technical evidence’ and the possible need for technical assessors has received scant attention. It might also be an appropriate occasion for the planning authority to issue a comprehensive list of all its proposed ‘pre-inquiry modifications’, which would greatly assist other objectors and avoid confusion in the inquiry itself. Hitherto, procedural sessions have focused primarily on timetabling issues, in which respect they have been notably unsuccessful. The Westminster inquiry was originally scheduled to last two months, it spanned five. At Fareham, the Hampshire
Progress
130
in Planning
County
Council estimate that a quarter of the total inquiry time was accounted by late objections accepted by the inspector after the inquiry had begun. Thct-c also be at least a suspicion that the need for evening sessions sets o\,erlooked.
iC11 mu\t
4.4. I. The Pursuit of Informality Flexibility date. Almost procedure
is undoubtedly the keynote of local plan inquiry procedural without exception. inspectors have shown themselves adept
to suit the circumstances
of the individual
objection.
practice to at guiding
In this respect.
the
Code of Practice appears to be working well. Within the basic adversarial f’rame\\.ork. the Code (para. 3.28) encourages the inspector to cxerci\c hia discretion on procedural
matters:
During the course ot‘ a single inquiry, it is possible to witness a tense icou~-t~-oom battlc’ one day. followed by a relaxed exchange of views on another. Varic)us tractor\ can contribute
to the level of informality
which
prevails.
including
the riced for
5ound amplification. the seating arrangements and. 01‘ course. the attitude of‘ objectors and the inspector’s personality. The crucial factor, howc\,cr. almost in\,ariably, is the presence the role played by lawyers largely
confirmed
or absence of‘ lawyers at the study inquiries.
(Lavers, Certain
by the subsequent
research
undertaken
authorities
rely on their
1979). J’ablc 3. I indicate\ patterns tmt‘t-go’ M hich al-c by Birmingham
Polytechnic. Local
planning
although author-it!
usually
own
solicitor
to conduct
their
a significant number brief counsel lor this purpose. When ;I planning adopts this latter course. it is a clear indication of their determination
fight as strongly as possible particular objections which a~-c percei\,ed threat to the plan. Farrow (1979) summarises the motives of Newham Council
in hiring
Bcckton
inyuiry:
In complete
counsel
contrast,
to conduct
the planning
their
case against
authorities
the Gas
at the Lc\vca and
to
;I\ ;I seriolls Borough
Corporation
Cialle!
GIX‘.
at the
C‘ommon
inquiries had no legal representation. By dividing objectors into the four broad categories shown in Table 4. I. ;I t-ea\onabl) consistent picture emerges of the type of objector who i\ likely to bc Icgall! or professionally represented and engage expert witncsscs. Not surprisingI>. govcrnmcnt agencies. developers and other commercial organisations t’a\,our (and can afford) legal representation. The most hostile proceedings at local plan inqulrlcs
Heard
Community or Amenity Organisations
of Objectors
in the inspector’s
l(1) (0) 1 (1) (0)
report
8 (3) (2) 6 (1) (1) 10(3) (0)
1 (1) (1) 1 (1) (1) 2 (2) (-74 12(9) (8) -
II 13 22 37(4’
257 97 122 126
Counsel Planners Council Solicitor Counsel
1 (1) (0)
-
15 (3) (1)
2 (0) (0) 3 (1) (0) 13 (2) (3) 2 (0, (0)
4 (3) (0) 6 (4) (3)
2 G(2)
12 (0) (1)
2 (2) (I)
1 (1) (1)
6 (4) (0)
1 (1) (1)
(a) legally or professionally represented (b) calling expert witnesses(3) (a) (b) (a) (b)
Industry and Commerce
1 (1) (0)
Bracket Bracket (a) (b)
Central/Local Government
Characteristics
and objectors
23 12 8 112 4 5
Objectors Heard*)
authorities
110 28 357 478 9 9
Recorded Objections
of local planning
Counsel Council Solicitor Council Solicitor Planners Council Solicitor
Counsel
Local Planning Authority Advocate/ Representation(‘)
of representation
Source: Local plan inquiry Inspector’s reports Notes: (“The planners handling the inquiries would not regard their role as one of advocacy. ‘*‘Either appeared in person or represented. “‘An expert witness is assumed to be one accredited ntth a professional quatiftcation (4J0nly 30 objectors can be identified from the inspector’s report.
Beckton Covent Garden Eagle Street Fareham W.W. Galley Common Groby Hammersmith and Fulham Lewes Sutton Coldfield Westminster
Local Plan Inquiry
TABLE 4.1 The manner
9 (2) (0) 2 (0) (0)
6 UN(0)
2 (0) (0)
91 (0) (0) 3 (0) (0) 1 (0) (0)
1 (0) (0)
9 (0) (0) 3 (0) (0)
(a) (b)
Individuals
W
132
Progress
in Piann~ng
invariabi~ occur when the advocate for. say. a developer or a statiilory undcrtakt‘r. chooses to subject the planning authority’s witness to a prolonged . aggressi\c cro\+ examination. At the Westminster inquiry, Sir Frank Layficld, on behalf of 111~ Grosvenor Estate, cross-examined one planning officer for 4 da! s on office pol~c!. Sir Frank has a reputation for thoroughness. The great majority of community or amenity groups, and almost a11 private individuals conduct their own case, and in these circumstances. the planning authority’s advocate is usually content to adopt a low-key manner him~clf‘. In ati! case. inspectors tend to take a particularlv benevolent attitude to the ‘~lonprofessional’ objector. the ordinary man in the street. who might otherwIse find thy proceedings oppressive or confusing. He can he assured of’ the illspcctor’s ‘protection’ if the planning authorities advocate becomes o\e~--~calou~ It ~~oulci be quite wrong to suggest that the qLI~~si-judic~~il format ncccssaril! crcatcs an intimiditating atmosphere; it need not and does not. The Birmingham Polytechnic research provides impresci\c evidence 01 ;I high Ic\~sl of satisfaction with procedural aspects of local plan inquiries:
There is perhaps just one caveat. The sample of ob,iectors examined by 13irminph;~m Polytechnic was found to contain only 4% unskiilcd mnnual \tc)rkers and r10 skillccf or semi-skilled manual KJorkers at all. It may be that it is only the ‘articulate midtilt~ classes’ who in fact have the courage or the resources to get in\ol\~d in local plan inquiries - objectors receive no expenses. The yucstion of \~%ethcr the Iocai plan inquiry system is failing to reach a vast section of. British co&t>. is bc~ond rhc XYI~C of this study, but is clearly an issue which demands further in\e\tigation.
4.4.2. Cross-examination as a Basis for Decision-making Procedural flexibility notwithstanding. the cross-cs;lminntion rrcmain~ the hahi\ trl local plan inquiry procedure. and the primary means of examining conilict and informing the inspector. Few inspectors have shown much inclination to take a leading inquisitoriaJ role in exploring substantive issues. Perhaps thi\ is only to bc expected. since their experience is still o~er~~~l~~lrningl~ founded in ~~~~~~~i-j~~~iic~~~l planning inquiries. governed by statutory rules of procedure. Given the general satisfaction which has been found to exist v,ith l~xxi plan inquiry procedure, it may seem churlish to seek to rccsamine the cff>cti\cnesy 01’ cross-examination as the basis for informing the inspector. Yet ccrrain important questions, which are potentially grounds for disquiet, remain unans\~~ercci. 7’111:crossexamination framework is, by its very nature, a process which Irelie\ on thrusl ;~nd counter thrust. Can this process possibly act in a rigorous and reliable manner it’ only one side is legally represented, notwithstanding the inspector’s bcncv~~lencc 10 ‘the little man? The unrepresented objector may feel satisfied w.ith the presentation of his own case. but few are capable of conducting a searching cro\s-cua~7li~l~~tior~ 01.
The Local Plan inquiry
133
the planning authority’s witnesses. The inspector’s benevolence usually takes the form of ‘protection’, and not assistance in asking the right questions. We must also come back to the issue of whether the cross-examination is an effective means of exploring complex policy issues. In fairness, the ‘great office policy debate’ at the Westminster inquiry did demonstrate the capacity of the cross-examination to get to the very heart of an extremely contentious, difficult policy area. Certainly, when all the evidence had been heard, the inspector lacked nothing in relevant material on which to base his recommendations. The advocates and the witnesses were of the highest calibre, the quality and manner of presentation of the various arguments outstanding. In short, this was the adversarial procedure operating at its very best. Any potential shortcomings in the cross-examination to provide a reliable basis for decision-making are more obvious when the two sides are unevenly matched. The main danger, however, lies not in the unrepresented objector being bamboozled by an over-aggressive advocate for the planning authority; rather, the problem is more subtle. Whatever a lawyer or an expert witness may proclaim about his own integrity, his primary role is to win the objection, and that does not necessarily mean presenting all the relevant evidence. As Waller (1981) so delicately puts it; “naturally, gratuitously
the expert cannot distort his main conclusions. harmful to his client’s case.”
but he can avold making
points
In theory, the EiP format should be able to avoid these dangers of hidden bias or disguised gaps in the evidence, but there is no convincing evidence that this is so in practice. Research by Bridges and Vielba (1976) highlights the somewhat arbitrary nature of the EiP in ‘hitting the right chord’. At the end of the day, the various arguments highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the adversarial approach are somewhat inconclusive in the local plan inquiry context. Whatever the nuts and bolts of the procedural framework, the role of the inspector is ultimately crucial in ensuring that all the relevant information is to hand. This simple conclusion raises the whole question of logistics; in short, can the inspector cope? The workload on the inspector at a major local plan inquiry is enormous. London poses special problems. Both the Westminster, and the Kensington and Chelsea inquiries lasted over four months. In each case the inspector’s report runs to over 200 closely typed pages. By comparison, the Hammersmith and Fulham inquiry was a tiddler, just one month and 70 pages. Despite the highly specialised and contentious policy issues confronting these inquiries, there were no technical assessors. Is it really within the competence of one man to absorb that amount of information and eventually make balanced recommendations? The DOE Inspectorate is likely to devote far more resources to a controversial ‘call-in’ inquiry such as ‘Coin Street’, where an architectural assessor and a social policy assessor sat with the inspector. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Inspectorate has seriously underestimated the demands made on the inspector at the major local plan inquiries in London. Of course, London is not typical of the rest of the country. Many local plan
Progress
134
inquiries
in Planning
last but a few days.
cannot cope entirely play as constructive ‘L-ewes model’
The events special
issues,
and
itself.
of attention.
surrounding
the Town
to the DoE,
and
came
from
exercise, was anxious
Thus.
and
with
local and
to suppose
of Lewes
even
aroused
District
that
the inspector
that
the inspector
and
in this respect.
Plan
the interest
inquiry
have
groups
sides.
the full agreement
hence more wcrc keenly
authority.
the inspector
had been
actively
as “an without
involved
was only They would
of the objectors.
one: aspect
rccognised be required
discussion. (Powell.
of the procedural
in the absence
to undertake
;I
demanding role than is conventionally the case. a\\are of the need to devise a procedural format
l‘he planning in the inquir> authorit! loosely 1979).
format
full well that
more
on
in the public
the planning
informal round table legal representation”
the
the on communit!
w)ere on good terms with the planners. to maintain this “rapport and mutual respect”
The desir-e l01- informality b! the planning
who
should
caused
of the Council
who
decided to conduct the inquiry on the structure plan EiP, and
both
is no reason
in their annual report 1978/9. It is important to understand to the inquiry. Objections to the plan focused primarily
participation authorit\
there
is worthy
concern
Tribunals background
and
adequately. Even so. it is important a role as possible in the proceedings.
based
envisagcd
of la\\!cr\
inquisitorial.
on
and
7%~ planners at L.e\\ t‘\; which would facilitate
the most effective use of the inquiry’s time and the inspector’s energies. It is worth quoting Po~vell. one of the planning officers most ctosel!; involved. at some length:
Clearly.
the success of the whole project was critically dependent upon these preand the inspector coming to the inquir) inquiry arrangements working smoothly, fully briefed and willing to play a leading inquisitorial I-olc. Ilnt‘ortunately, this was not the case. At the procedural session. Mr. Woodford. “surprised and perplexed” both the planners and the the appointed inspector objectors by stating that he felt the inquiry would be best served if the Council appointed an advocate to present its case. Neither the Council nor the inspector changed their positions as a result of the procedural session. and the inquiry itselt became something of a hybrid. There were no lawyers, but not all the objectors case in good time, and the inspector was unwilling expected of him. Instead, he sought to superimpose
had prcparcd their statements to undertake the inquisitorial the conventional quasi-legal
ot role
The Local
Plan
Inquiry
135
framework onto the proceedings, in which the ‘actors’ were unprepared for the roles of advocate and witness which were effectively thrust upon them. ‘Proofs of evidence’ had to be read out, and the inspector made no attempt to orchestrate a discussion around the acknowledged issues of real dispute between the planning authority and the objectors. Following the publication of the inspector’s report, there were acrimonious exchanges between the Lcwes District Council and the Inspectorate. In a letter accompanying his report, the inspector expressed his unreserved displeasure with the conduct of the planning authority, and also stated that, in his opinion, the objectors had been unknowingly disadvantaged by the absence of advocates. Both the planning authority and the objectors strenuously deny that this was so. In retrospect, it would seem that the attention focused on the Lewes inquiry has been somewhat misdirected in emphasis. The issue of informality assumes less importance now that the overwhelming evidence from local plan inquiries generally is that an appropriate level of informality can be achieved even within the conventional procedural framework. Similarly, the desire to exclude lawyers totally from the inquiry as an end itself would seem to be misconceived. Nonetheless. there are aspects of the Lewes model which deserve serious attention in terms of improving the rigour of the inspector’s decision-making process. Although it appears that the inspector at Lewes failed to make much use of the pre-inquiry statements of case, the planners still felt that particular element of the exercise to have been worthwhile. If nothing else, at least the objectors were better informed in presenting their case. The Lewes District Council have since undertaken an inquiry into the Newhaven District Plan, which in their view benefitted from the lessons learned at Lewes. A more flexible approach was taken to the use of lawyers; “the District Solicitor appeared on behalf of the Council on major issues when legal representation was fielded by the objector. leaving the planning officers to represent the Council’s views on other matters. particularly when community groups were involved”. (Powell. 1982).
The planners again prepared early statements of case for the inspector and the objectors, and on this occasion, this appears to have been a resounding success, Powell notes with evident satisfaction: “it was clear from the beginning the Distract Plan and the matters Council’s statements of case well acceptance that they be taken as
of the inquiry that the inspector had an extremely good grasp of at issue. It was apparent that the availability of the District before the inqutry had assisted him in thts respect. and hts read tended to confirm this assumption”.
The inspector particularly impressed the planners with his readiness and capacity to ask highly pertinent questions. The value of the Lewes approach, as it has now evolved at Newhaven, is the manner in which it seeks to draw on the particular strengths of both the adversarial format and the EiP style probing discussion. First and foremost it seeks to rectify the woeful inadequacy of the inspector’s briefing prior to the local plan inquiry, and thereby draw him more fully into the proceedings. At the end of the day, the inspector has only the submitted written evidence and his own notes to rely on in reaching his conclusions. Quite commonly, the inspector can be observed listening
133
Progress
in ~~ar~~~~~
for IiterafJy hours on end to exacting cross-examination. not intervening, scarcclv any notes. The eventual contribution of that cross-examination inspector’s decision is likely to be correspondingly negligible.
and taking to the
The introduction to this chapter suggested that the pracedLrra1 format must iSecurc a decjsj(3~l-rllakjn~ pmccss which commands the conEdence rrT all parties to the inquiry’. As far as objectors axe concrrncd. prncedurai aspects of the tocaf pfan inquiry have won widespread approvat, hSfXCf”J” are to be c~~y~~rat~~~~~ted for their skilifut handling of the proceedings. Not surprisingly they too lit& tt~e procedural framework broadly satisfactory. We must withhold judgement on the reactions of the foenl planning authorities. since their views will find expression in the way the> respond to inspectors’ recommerrd:~rivns, the subject of’ the next chapter.
The l,ewes approach offers a much hctter prospect than convcntiortaJ practice of the inspector arriving at the inquiry properly briefed, and thereby able to take a more active role in the proceedings. Giving the inspector every opportunity and encouragement to be more positively inv,olved can only enhance his own understanding of’ the situation, and indeed encourage all parties to the inyuiry to have confidence that he has fully grasped the issues.
5.1.
INTRODUCTION
If the local plan inquiry system is to function effectively, public confidence in the fairness of the system is essential. Many objectors find it wholly incongruous that the planning authority should have the final say in whether to accept or reject the inspector’s recommendations. One of the most important findings of the Birmingham Polytechnic research was that “the overwhelming view of objectors is that the Inspector’s recommendations should be binding on the local authority’*. The credibility of the system is clearly at stake. It is essential therefore to examine the outcomes of local plan inquiries, to determine whether planning authorities do respond to inspectors’ recommendations in a reasonable manner, and whether public disquiet over this fundamental issue is justified in practice. In short, does the inquiry offer the objector a genuine opportunity to safeguard his interests, or to influence the planning authority’s policies if he is so inclined? The logical way to assess how influential the inquiry can be in shaping the adopted plan, is to trace the progress of objections through the various stages of plan adoption. From an administrative standpoint, there are three hurdles which an objection has to clear to be successful:(i)
The planning authority must accept that the objection Very few objections fall at the first fence.
should
be heard.
(ii)
The inspector has to be persuaded that the objection merit to warrant a modification to the plan.
is of sufficient
(iii)
The planning authority has to accept the inspector’s and adopt the plan in that form.
recommendation
At the end of the day, of course, the modified plan has actually to be implemented if the objection is to be successful in real terms. Taking a broader perspective, an objector who fails to secure a formal modification to the plan may nonetheless achieve worthwhiie benetits through the inquiry process. These ‘indirect’ benefits are many and varied, and must be seen as an integral element of the capacity of the inquiry to effect change. Indirect benefits or outcomes are of particular interest in examining the wider possibilities of local plan inquiries to influence ‘related but non-planning activities’. 137
138 5.2.
Progress I”Kb:-INQI
Rcforc
in Plarmir~g IKk
IUI.‘I.IIfrNC’ES
examining
specific
ANI)
outcomes.
<)I!T(‘OhlI~:S
it is important
to recognise
other
cloments
01’
the capacity of thr inquiry to ctfect change. As Burton (‘1o/. (19X2) rmphasise. the local plan inquiry is highly unusual insofar a it takes place within a plan-making process which also embodies \tatutc)r\ the plan-making
public
process
participation.
which
may impinge
I:urthcrmorc,
on
one of the principal on Public
Participation
adduced
favour inquir!
~3~irti~ip~lti(~l~ in ~3~~li~-lnaki~l~ was the lin~itati~313s 01’ the the old-ct>lc ~~~~~loprn~nt plans:-
of’ public into
Lcvin (1976) takrs chance of intluencing None
Despite
1969)
in
t]-~~~it~(~~~~~l
this basic premise a step further. He maintains that the best ;I planning authority is at an early stage of plan-making, bet’orc
the decision-makers option.
by rhc
in Pl;tr~ning.
Committee
parallel) remains person.
(Committee
reasons
‘Skeffington
become
of this would
thr \xrious
too closely seem
opportunities
identified
with and
committed
LO a particular
to bode too well for the local plan inquiry. ibr public
participation
in the (sequential
01
c)f structure and local plan preparation, the local plan inyuir? the objector’s only guaranteed ~~pp~~rt~lnit~ tct he heard by an illd~pendent Yet that inquir\; ma\; very well take place some S-10 years after work on the processes
development tocat
plans
commcnccd
(the development
plan). By IIO stretch of the imagination stage in plan-making”. Could it bc thcref’ore in the process
plan
being
can the inquiry that the inquiry
the structure be considered arrives i;impi!
and “an
too
the
earl!, late
to bc anything hut a cosmetic exercise? The possibility that a11 inspector’s recommendations would [‘ail to s\vac an intransigent planning authority “hell bent on getting its plans through” was rccvpnised during the Committee Stage of the 196X Act (Standing Committw 7.3.6X). An amendment was proposed, the efftct of which would have been to create a presumption in faictur of’ a ‘cali-in’ should the planning authority rcjcct the inspector’s r-~cc~mmcr~datio~~. The Minister, Mr. ~l~~~[~erm~~tt, reject4 the amendment on the grounds that a reserve ‘call-in’ power would deter a planning authority t‘rom acting in this manner through “sheer obstinacy and with no valid policy”. Whether the Minister’s optimism was well founded will become apparent. Plotting the progress 01‘ ob.iections in the strictly limited contest of the inquil-1 as a discrete and self~contained event is relatively straightforward. It is much more difficult to relate an> modifications arising out of the inquiry to the \jridcr procchses of plan preparation. We need to know not only why an objection is or is not successful. but why it \vas lodged at all. ‘I‘he relationship bctwccn public participation and the inquiry will be examined more fully in Chapter 6. but it is worth noting hcrc that a majority of ob.jectors had previously beun involved in public parti~ipati(~n, although developers tcmi INS to get involved before the inquiry stage. Perhaps the most noteworth> Feature of the local plan inyuir!, system which highlights the pr~bl~il3~iti~~ll relationship of the inquiry to public ~~~lrti~iF~~~ti(~~i. is the
The Local Plan Inquiry
139
propensity of planning authorities to negotiate ‘pre-inquiry modifications’ (see p. 128). This practice suggests that public participation is frequently unable to identify or secure all the inputs to the local plan which the public seeks, and which are in fact, acceptable to the planning authority. The most plausible explanation of this phenomenon lies in the fact that an impending inquiry puts the planning authority under much greater pressure than hitherto. An objector who has failed to make satisfactory progress during public participation, and who decides to pursue his case at the inquiry, may quite rightly perceive the pre-inquiry period as a good time to seek concessions from the planning authority. In the sterner context which now prevails, the planning authority is forced to reconsider, and not infrequently backs down where hitherto it had stood firm. Although pre-inquiry modifications tend to be of marginal consequence to the key policies and proposals of the plan, there are exceptions, the Eagle Street example described above (p. 128) being one such. Various forms of expediency, or even a change in political control, may prevail upon a local planning authority to agree preinquiry modifications. Whatever the precise reason, the capacity of the local plan inquiry to secure a change to the plan, even before the inspector hears a word uttered in anger, is beyond dispute.
5.3.
X3.1.
PERSUADING
The Inspector’s
THE
INSPECTOR
Options
It is important to recognise that the inspector’s task in determining an objection is not prescribed in any rigid black or white terms. In seeking to resolve an objection he has a good deal of room for manoeuvre - more so than would be usual in determining an appeal, where at the end of the day a planning permission has either to be granted or refused. At the two extremes of the range of options open to the inspector, he may either recommend a modification to meet the objector’s case in full, or reject the objection outright. In between these two positions, innumerable possibilities for a compromise outcome exist. For example, the inspector may recommend against making a formal modification to the plan, but urge the local authority to seek other ways to overcome the objector’s grievance. If he is uncertain of the merits of an objection and the council’s response, he can urge a period of further study and consultation, and so on and so forth. This broad spectrum of possible outcomes in fact reflects the highly robust terms of reference of local plan inquiries in practice. The individuality of the inspectors stand out prominently when reading their reports. They differ significantly in the interpretation of their role, and that of the inquiry. Some are exceedingly cautious, and scrupulously avoid making recommendations which do not accord with the strictures of LPN l/78 in respect of the function and content of local plans; others feel less constrained. Similarly, certain inspectors seem to reach almost instinctively for compromise in recommending a solution, leaving the precise manner of resolution of the objection to the planning authority; others are more decisive.
Beckton Covent Garden Eagle Street Fareham W.W. Galley Common Groby LeWeS Sutton Coldfield Hammersmith and Fulham Wesrminster
Local Plan 27(8) 6(3) 15(12) 2735I l(3) IO33 58(2X)
5 12 II 2 2 3 18 7
(b)
That a Modlflcatlon be made
(a)
That no Moditicatlon be made
Inspectol-c’Recomrnrndat~on\ ~
0 3 2 4
4 7 7 IO 51
1
3
-
-
(d)
Partial Acceptance
-
II 2s
27 6
(cl
.Accept in Full
I 3
I I 2 I 19 7
-
(e)
ReJect
Kecommcntiat~on that a modlflcarlon be made
I PA‘\ Ke\ponseto In\pector’\
1‘AHI.k: 5.1. The ‘outcomes‘ of the study inquiries
3 24 42 80 200
20 10 42 229 -
(fl
rota1 No. 01 modifications made tc \*ritten statement
b
2 5. co
b G-
5.
s
0’ ?
The Local
Plan
Inquiry
141
None of this is intended as a criticism of inspectors, who happen to have an extraordinarily difficult job. Rather it serves to demonstrate once again the latitude which exists within the local plan inquiry system for a range of possible outcomes. Thus, whilst certain patterns of outcome are apparent, an individual inquiry or objection is still quite capable of throwing up a surprise. Nor, it seems, has the passage of time and growing experience of local plan inquiries removed this possibility, as the Wandsworth case has amply demonstrated. It is only against this somewhat inconclusive background that we can begin to examine outcomes in a more systematic manner. Table 5.1 is a crude attempt to illustrate the ‘success rates’ of objections at local plan inquiries. The table must be interpreted with extreme caution as the footnotes indicate. Although the numbers do not mean a great deal in themselves, it is evident from columns c, d and e. that planning authorities are generally disposed to accept inspectors’ recommendations. Even so, it may take only one important recommendation to be rejected by the planning authority, for public confidence in the integrity of the local plan inquiry system to be undermined in that area. In order to remedy the qualitative defects of the table, the progress made by the various categories of property and policy objection presented in Chapter 3 will be explored in turn.
5.3.2. The Resolution
of Property
Objections
With regard to property objections generally (see pages 117- 118). the local plan inquiry is unlikely to present the inspector with any unique or special difficulties; which is not to say that such objections are necessarily straightforward. Nonetheless, property objections tend to resemble Section 36 appeal inquiries and compulsory purchase inquiries in terms of the issues to be resolved. In all these cases, the crux of the matter is to balance the benefit to the public interest, against the hardship to be suffered by the objector, be he a householder or a developer. Since inspectors for local plan inquiries have wide experience of appeals and compulsory purchase orders, the resolution of the property objection at the local plan inquiry is a ‘routine’ undertaking.
5.3.2.1.
Small-scale
Property
Objections
A consistent pattern emerges, of inspectors giving any benefit of the doubt to the objector. The Eagle Street inquiry provides an example which illustrates many of the characteristics of this type of objection, and the manner in which it may be successfuLly resolved. A proposal to improve playground facilities at a school required a row of adjoining houses to lose part of their back gardens. The householders objected, and the inspector’s report notes that “the extra strip of land to be added to the school site represents in the opinion authoritv the difference between conditions which are tolerable and intolerable”.
The inspector
was however
unconvinced.
He recommended
that
of the education
Progress in Planning
142
“consideration be given to an amendment to the plan to reduce the area to be taken gardens of Lexester Causeway houses for the school.”
The City Council
duly made a modification.
“under the original rear garden\“.
proposal
local r&dents
would
reasoning
from
the back
that:
habe suffered
hardshlp,
due to dlmlnutlon
ot
It would seem then that in circumstances such as these, the inquiry does provide the ordinary man in the street a genuine opportunity to safeguard his interests. If the inspector is unable to lend total support to the objector, he will at least seek ways to minimise the hardship to be suffered.
5.3.2.2.
Substantial
Site Objections
Not surprisingly. this type of objection tends to be strongly contested by both sides. Throughout plan preparation, the planners are likely to keep a weather eye open to major controversy erupting at the inquiry. They will think long and hard, for example, before including a proposal which involves a significant loss of agricultural land; the man from MAFF will see to that. Likewise community groups are eminently capable of mounting a strong challenge to proposals for large-scale urban redevelopment. In these and similar circumstances, the planning authority’s justification for the proposed development is likely to be soundly based. The planning authority may also seek to demonstrate why alternative sites for the proposed development arc unsuitable. Inspectors have shown a marked tendency to support the planning authority against this category of objection. There are however exceptions. usually when the planning authority has failed convincingly to demonstrate the need for the scheme in question. If this happens. inspectors tend to favour a compromise solution. Rather than recommend outright deletion of the proposal from the plan. the inspector may suggest a further study to re-evaluate its merits. 5.3.2.3.
Objections
to a Key Development
Proposal
In dealing with objections of this nature, the inspector can only realistically exercise his duties if he starts with a firm presumption in favour of the plan. If the inspector was to uphold such an objection, he would in effect be ‘inviting’ the planning authority to rewrite the plan from first principles, which would be a matter of the utmost seriousness. It would however be most extraordinary if the inspector was to find himself having to contemplate such a drastic outcome. Any planning authority which found itself unable to defend a policy or proposal on which the success of the whole plan depended could, at the very least, be accused of carelessness. Certainly, at both the Beckton and Westminster inquiries, the inspector upheld the key proposals within the plans which the objectors had sought to overthrow. There have however been a handful of comparable cases where the outcome has been less clearcut, most notably the ‘Hammersmith Island Site’ which will be detailed subsequently in this chapter.
The Local Plan fnquiry
143
5.3.3. The Resolution of Poticy Objections The typology of policy objections presented in Chapter 3 demonstrated the extent to which objectors have sought to use local plan inquiries to secure ‘non-planning’ goals. In hearing and seeking to resolve policy objections, inspectors frequently find they have a very delicate path to tread. On the one hand, if the local planning authority has knowingly accepted a ‘non-relevant’ objection, he has a duty to both the planning authority and the objector to consider the objection on merit. Yet by so doing, he risks taking both the inquiry and, perhaps more importantly, the adopted local plan, out of the realms of statutory local planning as defined by his ultimate employer, the DOE. The inspector must also be wary of objections which introduce overtly political considerations and which thereby encroach on the exclusive decisionmaking responsibilities of elected members. In short, the resolution of policy objections highlights a number of crucial issues concerning the role and scope of local plan in general, and the local plan inquiry in particular.
Inspectors are rarely sympathetic to objections which seek to introduce an entirely new policy or proposal. A less consistent pattern emerges in respect of objections which advocate supplementary policies to subjects which are dealt with in the plan; i.e. ‘sins of partial omission’. The recommendations of inspectors in response to objections concerned with aspects of local authority housing management are particularly interesting and instructive. For example, at the Lewes inquiry, a local pressure group sought the inclusion of a policy to protect public sector tenancies for single persons and those in voluntary multi-occupation. The local planning authority claimed that “the issue was not capable of resolution within the District Plan”, but the inspector disagreed. He recommended a modification explicitly addressed to this matter. Similar problems confronted Gillian Pain, the inspector at Beckton. Her inquiry report concisely illustrates the inspector’s dilemma: “the borderline is difficult to define between matters which should be included in the Council’s policies and proposals for Beckton and those which are outside the scope of a land use plan. Normally I regard housing allocation and tenure policies as going beyond the purposes of a local plan. but because of the special local circumstances, it seems logical and necessary for the plan to provide broad guidelines.”
Inspectors at local plan inquiries frequently find that pragmatism is the better part of common sense in arriving at their decisions. Whilst pragmatism is undoubtedly a virtue in the context of the individual inquiry, it is unlikely to be conducive to consistency within the local plan inquiry system as a whole. Once again, the differing but entirely reasonable approaches which individual inspectors have taken to problems of this kind only serves to highlight the unresolved arguments about the proper role and scope of local plans.
The guiding
principle
which
inspectors
follow
in these
circumstances
implications for the local plan as a lool for implcmcntation. familiar with the development control system. ‘l‘hcy dislike
as unrealistic:
in other
are inclined
to support
rather
rigidit!.
than
Objections a formal
coming
words,
unlikely
objections
of iniplcnieiit~~t~(~n
obviously
vital.
t:tkc
at
appeal.
;i policy
arc ahvaqs
in all respects.
Iic will not recommend
the inspector
the a\xilabilit\:
a modification
Consequently, demonstrably
objector\ responaiblc
\vill need case
to present
belorc
they
This
may ho,we~w
be
helpful
to
ob_jectors,
through
plan
hc feels
is
i\
it ix entircl!,
at lea5t ttic tacit ;yrecment could indeed be met.
a ihoroughl~
\vill c\incc
inspector at all. F.wn then. the inspector is onl! the adequacy of‘ resources provision in the plan.
to rec~~~~nl~~i~i
01‘ trcso~trces
unlcas
realistic in resource terms. in which case he may rcquirc of the planning authority that the obJector’s reqrtiremcnts
the!
01‘ Ho\ihilit!
to L’I~II-~‘ that the
anxious
and
C‘onscqttcntl!~.
in the direction
thii; headin g rarelv _ persttadc
under
tn~)~ji~c~~ti(~t~. Inspectors
capable
upheld
to be
which
is the
Inspector\ arc intimately; policies which ~btey tcgard
and
coherent
an!’ sytnp;tth>
i’t-om the
likcl!, to of‘t’er a gcencralcomment on and
not recommend 8 modification. the procc\x 01 ‘indirect benefits
described in the next section. The ‘quid pro quo’ type of ~CSO~II-ccsbid is the mclst likely
to attract
the
inspector‘s support. perhaps because the re~l~tirctlierit for ~~d~iiti~)ii~tl rcsourccs is usually incidental to rather than the tnain thrust of the ob.jection. ‘I bus,. it‘ the objection
is seeking
to mitigate
the adverse
en\~ironmental
cficcta
of a clcvclop~~xt~t
on an adjoining are:t. the resources bid clement of‘ the objection could he wmc\~.ltat disguised as a design aspect of the wider proposal, which the i~ispcclot~ \\ilt not feel constrained
This
in examining
on merit.
is a category of objection
where
objectors
have on occaaitx~
been
able
it)
enlist the support of the inspector. At the I,ewes inquiry. the insprctotsl~~~~)~)rt~~i objections to the ~Iitrodtlctj(~tl of a traffic ~li~in~~~~t~~etlt rchcme, in tr~\wttr of. retaining the status quo, whilht at the Sutton Coldfield favour of an alternative traffic management
inquiry. the inspector atid road construction
rccommcnded scheme put
in
forward bl; objectors. Roth these examples arc significant. since they sho\v that inspector\ may bo willing to rc_jcct the expert technical e\,idencc of the Council in :I highl! \pecialised I‘ield. To arrive at any conclusion on a matter as complex as 21 maJor traffic management scheme may require ;I substantial amount of statistical e\:idence to be un1-aveltcd. In the two casus cited above. the inspectors evidently felt it WIS within their capabilities to do so. and
override
the expert
courttcr-argtltnents.
The Local Plan inquiry
5.3.3.5.
O~ie~~ion.~ of PCtciple
145
to Key Policies
The capacity of the inquiry to secure change to the local plan is nowhere better demonstrated than at the Western Wards of Fareham inquiry. In effect, the inspector found that the proposals to build 6,000 houses, in line with the structure plan, were no longer feasible. Instead, he recommended a reduced housing allocation of 4,000 and the plan was modified accordingly. The outcome of this particular objection is notable for the bold and decisive quality of the inspector’s findings and recommendations, to which extent it is exceptional.
X3.3.6.
‘Countev-objections’
Finally, in this section, we must recognise the role of the counter objector, for whom a successful outcome is a recommendation from the inspector that no modification be made. Hitherto, the focus of attention has frequently been on amenity societies and community groups who oppose the local planning authority. This is not always the case. Such organisations do sometimes appear at the inquiry to support the plan, particularly if policies or proposals for which they have campaigned successfully during public participation are now objected to by other parties, developers for example. It is difficult to establish a success rate for counter objections, since they usually take the form of an adjunct to the planning authority’s own case. but inspectors insist that their views are fully taken into account.
5.4.
‘INDIRECT
OUTCOMES’
To reiterate, an indirect outcome is defined as any aspect of the local plan inquiry process which benefits the objector, but which does not result in a formal modification to the plan. Indeed, a good many of the more sophisticated objectors know full well that they are unlikely to secure a modification to the plan. For the community group which is seeking to influence public sector agencies on a range of issues, the local plan inquiry may present a useful opportunity for advocacy of their case. but the inquiry is not an end in itself. In various ways, the indirect outcomes of the inquiry may be every bit as useful and important to the objector and the planning authority as the actual modifications to the plan. The most significant of these indirect outcomes is the ‘consolation prize’. Not uncommonly, the inspector finds substantial merit in an objection, yet he is unable to recommend a modification. He can, however, offer an observation to the effect that the local planning authority should look outside its immediate responsibilities for the local plan and explore alternative means to provide relief for the objector. The Groby inquiry provides a good example. The parish council from nearby Ratby objected to the Groby district plan, claiming that traffic problems in their village would be aggravated by the population growth in Groby. The inspector agreed, but did not find this sufficient cause to
146
Progress
in Planning
prevent development at Groby. Still. reluctant to send the parish council away empty-handed, he urged the Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council to pursue vigorously with the County Council the need for a new western bypass to Leicester which would bring immense benefit to Ratby. In its Statement of Decisions on the Inspector’s Recommendations, the Borough Council committed itself to make “every effort to press for the bypass”. Long-term resource allocation is another important issue which is susceptible to influence through the indirect outcomes of the local plan inquiry. Although inspectors are reluctant to recommend increased allocation of resources for the reasons discussed, they may be willing to identify or acknowledge a resource deficiency when an objector presents a convincing case. By so doing, the inspector lends legitimacy to any subsequent efforts the objector may make to influence the spending priorities of the agency in question. Similarly. local authority planners are also in a stronger position to influence the allocation of resources if they can draw on the support of the inspector’s finding that a deficiency exists, which should be remedied as and when the resources are available. This question of resources introduces a related issue - the longer-term involvement of the public in the implementation of the plan. Amenity groups, public participation forums and committed individuals who have doggedly lasted the long haul of public participation and then the inquiry, become sufficiently well educated in planning practice to recognise that the battle is not lost and won when the plan is adopted. They wish to retain some influence over the implementation of the plan, and a number of inspectors have stressed the need for public involvement in subsequent monitoring activities. If. for example, the inspector has given the benefit of the doubt to the planning authority on a major policy issue, he may urge a review of that matter after a certain period of time. The more contentious the issue, the more likely the inspector is to seek to ensure that the public are involved in plan implementation. At Sutton Coldfield. for example, the inspector stated in his report that
It would be naive to pretend that some planning authorities do not see the adoption of the local plan as a welcome opportunity to reduce public involvement in day to day planning to the very minimum. That being so, the inspector’s support for continuing public involvement is important. One other indirect benefit of the local plan inquiry deserves a mention. and that is its therapeutic effect. ‘Letting off steam’ in front of a polite and attentive inspector is a traditional function of inquiries, which defies objective measurement, but is real enough for all that. The satisfaction of having ‘had your say’ may also be enhanced if the local press is covering the inquiry, as it often does. and it is surprising just how influential the local paper can be on vote-minded councillors.
The Local 5.5. THE RESPONSE OF LOCAL INSPECTORS’ RECOMMENDATIONS
PLANNING
AUTHORITIES
Plan
Inquiry
147
TO
Table 5.1 indicated a strong likelihood in favour of the local planning authority accepting the inspector’s recommendations. Subsequent preliminary research by the Birmingham Polytechnic broadly confirms this finding; they record an ‘acceptance rate’ in excess of 85%. Unfortunately, crude statistics such as these do not necessarily tell the whole story. Thus, it is important to examine the implications for the local plan inquiry system of those recommended modifications which are rejected. Firstly however, we need to establish why the acceptance rate is as high as it is. The explanation appears to be threefold. Firstly, the inspector carries sufficient status in the eyes of the planning authority decision-makers to create a strong presumption in favour of accepting his recommendations, unless there are overwhelming contrary arguments. Secondly, and more tentatively, inspectors strive to avoid making recommendations which the planning authority could interpret as encroaching unnecessarily into areas of decision-making which are the legitimate sole preserve of the politicians - Wandsworth being very much the exception which proves the rule. To that extent, the inspector eases the way for the planning authority to concur with his findings, which by no means indicates that his recommendations are inconsequential - quite clearly many are not. (The issue of the relationship of the inspector’s role to political decision-making in the context of the local plan is examined more closely in the next chapter.) Finally, and at the risk of sounding trite, planning authorities frequently agree with the inspector’s findings. Without doubt, the most celebrated example of an inspector’s recommendation being rejected concerns the so-called ‘Hammersmith Island Site’. Hammersmith town centre is identified as a ‘preferred office location’ in the GLDP, and the District Plan made proposals for a substantial amount of new office development in the town centre. By far the most important development proposed for the town centre was ‘site 93’, the island site: “Site 93 is to be developed as a new public transport interchange development of some 600.000 sq. ft., shopping, a new bus garage. and a car park.”
incorporating a major office leisure facilltles for public use,
The site already had a planning permission for an office development on this scale, but by the time of the inquiry (June, 1980), a new and even bigger office scheme was under consideration by the Borough Council. A local community organisation called ‘People Before Profit’ objected to the proposal in the local plan, enlisting the aid of some very knowledgeable expert witnesses in the process. They argued that the whole scheme was essentially misconceived; that the office component was far too large; that the bus garage could be more appropriately sited elsewhere; the car parking provision was unjustified; and that the ‘package’ of planning benefits for local people was wholly inadequate. Although the planning authority strongly defended the proposal, and in so doing stressed that the financial viability of the whole scheme required the size of office development proposed, the inspector’s conclusions were largely sympathetic to
Progress
148
in Planning
Profit. Without being numerically bpecil‘ic. hc rccommencled that the c’ amount of‘ oft‘ice floorspace on site 93 be reviewed. and that the other 11x5 advocated b\, People Before Profit be reconsidered in a t’avourable light. flammersmith Borough Council rejected these recommendationa outright. .l’hih People
H~‘OIT
‘esces
waq hardly surprising, since in the period between the end of the incluir! issuing of the inspector’s report, the planning poiiq committee trc\ol~ed permission
for the revised.
ol‘l‘ices. So aggrieved
wcrc
larger
scheme.
People
Bcforc
m,hich included Profit
sonic
at this turn
700.000
of e\cnts.
and the to grant xl. ft. 01’
that
the!
\\ciit
to the High Court to challenge the Council’s decision to reject the inspector’s recommendations and grunt the planning permission. The GISC is e\tensi\el\ repot-ted in the ./o~/x~/ q/‘P/~tz/zi~zg La\l, (Dee 19X1. pp. X69-874). People I3ei’ore Prolit \\crc unsuccessl‘ul.
did score
but the?
something
of‘ a moral
\,ictor\.
l‘he judge had strong words to sa> about the system outcome to obtain: “the! (the local planning authorities) an
e\tcnt
might
that
Borough
Council.
the inspector’s particularl!
recommendations
reappraisal it might
case.
plan
in such
immense
amount
together.
l‘hc
incidental.
\vould
be misleading
‘l’he\
the reality
;I situation
is certainI!
simply
take
the \ ie\\ that
of‘ the \itiiation.
gcncral important
is ambiguou\.
local
plan
A theme
political
in pi-omotin,
it must
be considered
any real chance
of’ persuading
hi&l!
under
of‘this
” the
require\
cc~mmitmcnl. \\a\
I10
IllOl~C
than
that the IOLXI plan
to go
hack
to
xluarc
a11
to piece
Inquit’\
otit~.
t‘accd \vith highl! ~p~cialid at the t~;lmmcl.zlnith inquit.!
I‘or the inspector to be able to support his t.ccc)mnic‘ncl~ltion~ \\ ith ;I of’ the options. And finally, if. the Dot: i\ not prepartxl to ‘call-in thcsc
circumstances.
will it e\,cr?
iZ more typical example 01‘ an inspector’s recomtncndation being trejectccl iy provided by the Sutton Coldfield inquiry. In response to the objectIon ret’errcti abo\ c (p. 144). concerned the inspector
that
mincledncu’.
maynitudc
scheme
unlikeI>
c\‘eryone
IO supposes
hlo~d~
con~met-LXII
and
inspectors can get out of their depth when on this scale. The decision-rnakiI1~ procea
plan
reason
conclusion\ tram thi\ rather ~ssuc’s. l.ir\t1!, the role 01’ the
any
several
of time and etl’ort.
no good
actin, ~7out of’ ‘sheer
to draw
highlight
roIe of‘ the
\vas not adequate thorough analysis ii local
Ile
unrepentant.
to reflect
There
were indeed
it does
and thus
stand
Secondly. problems
failed
of‘ the scheme.
Council
exceptional local
incredulous”.
remains
In their
the Borough Whilst
nonetheless
alloned such an had the 1;t\v on their side to also had harsh \VOI-ds IOr the
the complex financial aspects 01‘ what is ;I huge cie\elopment b? an! opinion. the inquir\ produced no neu t31dencc to \\arrant ;I
standards.
radical
make individuals
which
which
with
rccommcnded
traffic
~~la~l;~gcr~lctlt
and
road
construction
to
prop~~sal~.
that:-
“\pcUtK I.cIeI.cIIcctx 111‘Icle t
t)l\rrlbulol- Koad \t1011tc1 It ,““LC to he nccc\\ar>:toyttw \\11t1a,, apt”“,” i;llc ;IlllcnllillcI1l I,1lllC t)l\rr-tcl Il~agr-am10 IIKIIUIC cc>n\ldcr;lrion ot the IIW
relccted
the recommendation
‘. \tru 113,I\C;ItI#rrnWl\ 101 tl1c dl\tIlcl the t,mc (11 Ltlc Puhllc ,,,
Inqu~r\.
dl\lllbuli,l 7‘11~ conctu\ion
on the t’ollowing
ground\:-
Io:L
SLII!C!OI :I, I\ \I111 lt>c
The Local Plan Inquiry
149
What the planning authority is saying, in the politest possible way, is that the inspector has attempted to make a technical decision and got it wrong. Local planning authorities do not reject an inspector’s recommendation lightly rather it is a question of having to. That is to say, in the opinion of the planning authority, the inspector had not fully appreciated the implications of his suggested modification, and to have accepted it would require the planning authority to adopt an inferior or unworkable policy or proposal. After all, the planning authority does presumably have an obligation to adopt what it regards as its ‘best plan’, having taken full account of the inspector’s findings. There are then occasions when the local planning authority does doubt the thoroughness and reliability of the inspector’s decision-making process, although these reservations are only expressed in the most muted terms. There is one other factor which may persuade a planning authority to reject the inspector’s recommendations; the desire to get the plan adopted with all possible haste. The Nuneaton Borough Council rejected the inspector’s recommendations for three very minor modifications to the Galley Common District Plan, on the grounds that no useful purpose would be served by the whole modifications procedure; an entirely reasonable course of action. What might be worrying is the possibility of a planning authority rejecting an important modification because it could necessitate a modifications inquiry. Six such inquiries have been held to date, including those at Westminster and Sutton Coldfield, and there is no evidence of planning authorities deliberately rejecting inspectors’ recommendations to avoid this possibility.
5.6.
CONCLUSION
There are so many facets to a local plan inquiry, and such a variety of possible outcomes that all-embracing and definitive conclusions are elusive. In seeking any overall assessment of how well objectors are served by the local plan inquiry system, we must return to basics. For those most directly affected by a local plan, the ultimate credibility of the system rests not on the role of the inquiry as a forum to debate sophisticated policy matters, but on its effectiveness as a property safeguard. It is this particular aspect of the system which gives the greatest grounds for satisfaction. The objector receives a full and fair hearing; the procedural format enables the inspector to arrive at a decision which both the objector and the planning authority respect, and the inquiry thus offers the objector a genuine opportunity to secure relief. Even in respect of policy issues, there is little evidence of local planning authorities wantonly abusing their position as judge in their own cause. Nor does the ‘call-in’ threat appear to play much part in influencing local planning authorities. Rather. it is the almost reverential attitude of local planning authorities (including the members) towards the inspector which creates such a firm presumption in favour of his recommendations being accepted. This is without doubt one of the major strengths of the system, which relies a great deal more on good-will than statutory
150
Progress
in Planning
to be able to function in a manner which will secure public confidence. The inquiry is a good formula for getting the Council to change its collective mind, perhaps because it provides a face-saving opportunity to reverse an earlier decision. So much for the accolades - in other respects the outcomes of local plan inquiries highlight underlying problems with local plans. In particular, we are back to the problem of objections concerned with ‘related but non-planning matters’. To theil credit, inspectors have sought to treat such objections in a practical, common-sense manner, so that it is by no means a foregone conclusion that the objector’s efforts will be in vain. The price which the system pays for this often bold approach by inspectors is an inconsistency of outcome and purpose. This is bound to create uncertainty for objectors and planning authorities alike. However, the alternative is for inspectors to adopt a much more rigid interpretation of the scope and content of local plans, which in turn would create its own difficulties. The inevitable price of conformity would be the lowest common denominator of caution. powers
CHAPTER
The Local
6
Plan
Preparation 6.1.
Inquiry
-
An Integral
Part
of Plan
and Implementation
INTRODUCTION
Let us recall the words of the Secretary
of State in December
1979:
“the average time taken to prepare and adopt a local plan is between 3-4 years.. I believe it is expensive, wasteful and totally unnecessary to spend so much time to prepare plans.” (DOE Press Notice 576)
Many a local authority planner would agree, and in so doing, would identify the local plan inquiry as the principal cause of this supposed profligacy. There is however a reverse side of the coin, which may be all too easily ignored. It is important to determine whether the benefits which the planning authority may derive from the inquiry are in any way commensurate with the time and effort involved. We are primarily concerned with the contribution of the inquiry both to the quality of the plan-making process, and to the prospects for successful implementation of the plan thereafter. Of obvious concern to every local planning authority is the crucial question of whether a statutory local plan offers them direct and accountable advantages over informal plans or even no plans at all. A persistent criticism levelled by planners at the adoption process is that it is ‘uncreative’. Hardpressed forward planning teams suggest that the delay associated with the local plan inquiry is not only unfortunate in itself, it also imposes unacceptable opportunity costs. Would it not make more sense, so the argument goes, for professional planners to devote their energies to original work, rather than slogging over old ground at an inquiry into a plan which is becoming rapidly out of date as adoption is delayed. The clear inference from this line of reasoning is that the inquiry is not an integral part of the plan-making process, but an exercise largely peripheral to the real business of plan-making and implementation. A recent discussion paper by the District Planning Officers’ Society (DPOS, 1982) “Local Plans: The Need for Radical Change”, suggests a growing disenchantment amongst its members with the local plan inquiry system. The paper argues that the inquiry should be scrapped in all but exceptional cases, since the protracted nature of the adoption process actually discourages the preparation of statutory local plans in the first place. Thus, the fundamental protection which the inquiry is supposed to afford the public is obviously lost, as planning authorities come increasingly to rely 151
Progress
152
in Planning
on \,arioux forms of non-statutory deserw serious attuition.
‘I‘he Circular basis.
also states
The ad\,ont
that
of Circular
development
local 23/X1
plans
planning.
should
may come
Argument\
onl!,
of this nature
be prepared
on a statutor>
to be seen as a significant
landmark
in the c\olution of the local plans s>stcm. Gone are the halcyon days after- local (ro~~‘rnment reorganisation. when the making of local plans could even become &something unfamiliar
of an end in itselfa means to help establish the idcntit! of ;I new and district council (Fudge, 1976). The crude statistics alone indicate just ho\\
far the new planning authorittes have tcmpercd Mabq and Craig estimated that the preparation An equi\,alent figure of 7 or 8 hundred This increaaingl! cautious approach itnportant
implications
for the local
the import of Circular position in the process
their early ambitions. of 3.500 local plans
w0~1ld now seem to the preparation
plan
inquit->.
more realistic. of local plans
Whether
(see Table
authorities to deposit.
conslitutc is that
at least public
or othewisc.
23/X1 is to elevate the inquire to a much mot-c prominent of local plan preparation. This is largeI> because the Circulat
2. I). a ‘typical’
local
plan
has taken
I?- 18 months
reach deposit. and a further to suppox that the adoption planning inception
has
intentionall\
eff’ccti\cly seeks to downgrade the importance of sur\q uork and participation in formulating local plans. coupled with the emphasis rather than int’ormal plans.
1lither-to
In 1975. ~‘2s en\isagcd.
period
before final can be significantl>
the best
public on statutor! part
ot’ 3 years
arc able in t‘uturc to meet the DOE’S target of one year from the inquiry process (deposit - adoption) will in all likelihood half the total
participation
plan
will have
preparation
time.
to be significantly
The e\,idcncc curtaitcd
from
Table
closcl> \%hat the! seek In order to examine implementatiotl.
t‘rom the inquit-!. more adequately wc need
to identify
the potential the specific
contribution circumstances
2.1
it’ the timetable
envisaged bq Circular- 23/X1 is to be realistic. The enhanced importance of‘ the inquiry in local plan preparation should impel planning authorities to examine
plan
more
of the inquir! in which
the
statutory status of the plan will bc of greatest significance. The influential carlicr Socit.t\ in 197X suggested that a statutor> repot-t by the District Plannin g Officers’ local
plan
-
to
adoption. There is no reason shortened. Thus. if local
10
The Locai Plan tnquiry (b)
the issues arc complex
and/or
(CJ
thcrc are development plan policies.
pressures which
The cam IOr a local plan would
the decision
be further
(a)
a mide range of agencies 15 likely
Cb)
statutory status anticipated”.
is hkcly
to be made are interrelated
are inadequately
with
or too generally
153
each other:
covered
or
In structure
assisted where:
to be involved
to be beneficial.
in implementation:
particularly
when further
and/or statutory
action
can bc
These criteria remain entirely applicable today. Local planning aut~lorities should be looking to the inquiry and the statutory status of the plan to assist itnplementation in a variety of contexts. Firstly, the inyuiry should serve to Iegitimate land-use decisions which may encounter opposition from local people. In their 1978 report, the District Planning Officers’ Society stressed the paramount importance of the relationship between the professional planning service and the public. “WL bcliccc
the most Important reason for preparing (statutory) alternative? is the tormal opportunity piben to interested parties formulation of the plan. and. if the) disagree <h its proposals. local inquiry.”
local plans rather than the to ‘have their sat‘ during the to have their oblcctions heard at a
In practical terms, this means that planning authorities must be properly receptive to opposing views in formulating their policies and proposals, but if and when a policy has been adopted after a thorough testing at the inquiry. that policy should en.joy political and administrative support. Most obviously, planning authorities will look to the DOE and the Inspectorate to uphoId local plan policies at inquiries into appeals. ‘call-ins’. enforcement notices, and compulsory purchase notices. Tile onus clearly rests with the DOE to demonstrate that a statutory local plan does offer significant advantages over informal policies as a sound and sustainable basis for development control. The 1982 paper from the DPOS is sceptical about whether the DOE has any real commitment to local plans at all. Certainly. if the protracted and inconclusive course of the ‘Coin Street’ inquiries (see p. 109) is anything to go by, the omens are not particularly auspicious. In considering the effectiveness of the local plan as a basis for development control, it is important to recognise that the plan may constitute a material collsid~ration long befbre it is finally adopted. Planning authorities commonly treat the draft local plan as its policy framework in determining planning applications. Subject to certain provisos, this is perfectly proper. If a policy or proposal in the deposited, but as yet unadopted statutory local plan is not subject to objection. there is no logical reason why that policy has any less status than if the plan had been adopted. By the same token, policies which are subject to objection. either directly or implied, should clearly be held in abeyance. This issue of the status of the plan prior to adoption raises the complicated and somewhat vexed question of ‘prematurity’. Those planning authorities which are serious about local planning, will generally seek to refuse planning applications which are either contrary to the policies of the draft plan, or which they know touch on subjects which will arouse controversy at the forthcoming local plan inquiry. This is a common problem. Nothing is more likely to infuriate objectors to the Local plan
154
Progress
in Planmng
than the grant of a planning permission which is seen to preempt their case at the inquiry (Crispin, 1981). If the planning authority is genuinely concerned to have the whole issue examincd at and resolved through the local plan inquiry. it will refuse the application on the grounds of’ prematurity, and look to the DOE to dismiss an! appeal. The DoE’s attitude on this question is equivocal. Circular 2301 states that “the absence of a local plan. or the fact that one is in the offing, is not in itself sufficient reason for rel’using a planning application”. However, the various cases reported in the .Joun~crl of Pla~7~1it7 g Zmt, over the past two years of’ appeals being determined just prior to a local plan inquiry show an inconsistency of approach by the Secretary of State. In one case. in Tamivorth. WC find the Secretary of State allowing an appeal, against the rccommenjation of his inspector, and declaring that “the emergence of a local plan is not reason enough to withhold planning permission” (.J.P.L.. 19X1, p. 65). On another occasion however. the Secretary of State found that “to grant [,lanllln: IXIYII~\\I,~~ IIONtot dc\c‘l~+-~~llcnt OIIthe I-cmalning
\l:rturor?
p~-cxxuc~
in the adopllon
crf the
twxi
appeal \itc plan”. (J.P.1
uodd prejudice the . 19X1. p. 116)
On this tvhoie question of appeals and local plans. the DPOS 19X2 paper claims, provocatively and probably quite unfairly that. “the Department’s attitude invites the conclusion that it does not consider local plans, or inquiries into them. to be very important.” What is beyond dispute is that the adoption process is by no means a ‘sterile’ period of delay. Another main area in which the local planning authority (as distinct from the district or county council) will hope that the statutory status of the local plan will promote more cffectivc implementation, is in the coordination of public sector development programmea. 1Jnfortunately. in the current climate of public sector capital expenditure, characterised above all by uncertainty and relatively short time horizons, it would bc unrealistic to expect a local plan to be a major influence. Even so, it would he dcfcatist not to rccognise the potential influence of the plan in an advocacy- role. The inquiry can do much to bolster the status and credibility of the plan in this respect. The enhanced status which a plan achieves from having been to inquiry - and status in this context is both a matter of statute and perception - will work to the advantage of the planners in their efforts to secure the cooperation of other departments and agencies in the ~nlplern~ntati~)r~ of the plan. We have already seen that elected members arc wont to treat the inspector’s findings with the utmost respect. His imprint upon the plan lends weight to the efforts of the planners to ensure that implementation of’ the plan remains a high priority of the planning committee and the council at large. Furthermore, an inspector’s report which acknowledges deficiences in the provision of health or education facilities, OI inconsistencies in housing policy, should do much to iegitimise the interest of the local plan in these areas of ‘related but non-planning activities’, even if the inspector declines to make specific recommendations. Table 6. I presents a certain amount of encouraging evidence that departments other than planning arc prepared to provide senior witncssea at the local plan inquiry. and this in itself should help to consolidate
-
Principal Assistant
-
-
Covent Garden LPI Team engineer Treasurers’ department Housing ofticer
Eagle Street LPI Assistant director
education
-
Deputy director of engineering Deputy director of housing Director of education
Beckton LPI
admin. assistant administrator
-
Sutton Coldfield LPI Group leader social services Assistant city engineer Education officer Group engineer highways Principal engineer Assistant secretary
authority
Coventry
Greater Greater Greater
London London London
Council Council Council
of Newham of Newham of Newham
City Council
London London London
Borough Borough Borough
Birmingham City Council Birmingham City Council Birmingham City Council West Midlands County Council Severn Trent Water Authority West Midlands Regional Health Authority Btrmingham Area Health Authority Birmingham Family Practitioner Committee
‘TABLE 6.1. Local planning excluding planning officers
engineer’s
department
Lewes LPI Assistant architect Chief environmental Heaith officer Chief housing officer Representative Representative
County
Groby LPI
Fareham Western Wards LPI Treasurer’s department Social services department Assistant estates officer Assistant education officer County traffic engineer Representative
witnesses -
Lewes District Lewes District
Lewes District Council Southern Water Authority East Sussex County Council Surveyor’s Department
-
Council
-
Council Council
County
Hampshtre County Council Hampshire County Council Hampshire County Council Hampshire County Council Hampshire County Council Nature Conservancy
-. Leicestershire
-
3
156
Progress
the status
of
authorities
in Planning
the plan more widely
or agencies
m:ithin the authority. or indecd x\ ithin othct at the inquiry. Similarly. if‘ the inquir> put\
represented
prcssurc on the planners to cn
fancil‘ul
hot
T-he issue of whether the inquig turns of outwmcs and processes.
air.
i\ a creative ever&c must bc considcrd both Pre\ ions sections of thi\ study ha~c all-cad!
III
identified a range of‘ outcomes. which dcmonstratc the capacit! of the inquir! (0 secure important ctiangcs in the adopted plan. 7‘0 this cx~cnt. the inquir\ has ;I creative input to plan preparation. Furthermore, aen ;I ‘no-cl1angc’ olltcollle 111;1\ lx highly
significant.
against creating
potentially misleading
small proportion
relativcty of‘ the
it’ it means that
21ficrcc and ;I somewhat mow
In thi\ and that
run
an important
damaging impression
of highly
which
controversial
local
succe~st~utl~dcfc~~ricd
is hoMc\cr ;I danger 01’ too naI-roc\ I! on the plan
inquiries.
at (tic c\penw
ha\,e
the greatest
issue needs to be examined in 1crmx 01’ outcome. change’. On the face 01‘ it. the planning justification
for
wasto ot time and cl’fort art’ those Lvhich hale inqiiirie\. I‘roni which no nioi-c than marginal There are ekaniples to support this planners feet aggriwcd at the ci’fort
\iew required
perhaps
to blarnc.
they
has been
01‘ the milt.
latter context. one further is the \,aluc of’ ‘incremental
authorities
policy
attack. There b\, focusing
~;ILL‘ only
themsel\~es
claiming
that
the inquir>
\\;I\
;I
been required to hold short. Iowkq changes to the plan ha\c cnier~cd.
Galley Common of them to woe Grann>
should
i5 enc. I Io\vc\.cr. II ‘grannv’\ hack garden’. h:r~e
hccn
consul~ccl.
cajoled public
and caressed much earlier. and if she still refused to accept Iw lo\\ Ic)I- 1111’ good. then the planners should rither have capitulated to ;I grcalcr t’orcc. 01.
resigned planners
thenisel\es to the consqtienccs ol‘ their own intransigence. I)a\hing J oung target at their peril that granny’s back garden is not incrcmentat to grann!
We ina\ turn the inquiry undertaken
then
osercise.
it niu\t
the part 01. ideas
of the planning LXhich emeye.
inquiry genuine
to the wider
IS uncrcati\~e implic4 during earlier stags incorporate
issue
of‘ processes.
that it is no more in pIail-preparatic,n.
In general
terms.
than 3 duplication If the inquir-\
the chnryc
Ihat
01‘ t2tf’~~rt i\ 10 bc ;I irc;lli\c
;I learning process. which in turn to consider dispassionateI>
;authority
;iss1Imc5 ;I rcaciino\ on an\ ila inl’olwl:ttic)n appi~oactling Ihc of the planning authorit\ depends ~ipon ~1hcther It wc\ lhc inqiiir\ 25 ;I
The likelihood ‘open mind’ Lvith a reasclnably opportilnit\ to improve the plan.
oi- as no more
than
an :in~k\\ad
dctcn\i\
C‘
c\ercisc. There is quite commonly a reluctance amongst local authorit! planner\ 10 aiccpt that the inquiry can produce any new evidence or ideas t‘or them to be disp;l~\ionat~ it is instructive to accept thi\ line of ;ii-gumunt about. Whilst not entireI> convincing. at face ~atur. Why. if no ncu evidence is forthcoming. are the planner\ prepai-ai 10 and particularly dui-ing the pre-inquiry period’? One poh\iblc accept modifications.
The Local Plan Inquiry
157
explanation is that the inquiry - or the threat of the inquiry - forces the planners to evaluate policies and proposals from an entirely different standpoint. ILocal plans are largely shaped and assembled by planning officers who are essentially creatures of policy; their training and experience defies them to be otherwise. Quite commonly, they have only limited experience of the ‘nuts and bolts’ planning problems which daily confront their development control colleagues. Furthermore, it is only exceptionally that ward members will be sufficiently closely involved in the detailed drafting of the plan to be able at that stage to represent the interests of individual constituents. Thus, the local plan is drafted from a particular vision of the public interest, in which recognition of the emotional, if not financial. implications of a proposal on the individual may be unwittingly suppressed. So, when an aggrieved householder objects to the plan, and the planners come face to face with this angry or distressed individual, they are forced to entertain an entirely new perspective in evaluating their proposals. This different approach to plan evaluation is itself a creative exercise. albeit one which should perhaps have taken place earlier in plan preparation. One factor which is commonly supposed to militate against any sort of public inquiry achieving its full potential as a constructive learning process is an adversarial procedural format. No less an authority on the subject than Sir Frank Layfield has commented:“puxcdurc that relies on cross-esnmination and reply encourages the promoting authority to adopt a defensive attitude and discourages them from considering constructive altcrnattcc\“. (Layfield and Wh>brow. 1973)
That being so, the procedural flexibility which characterises the local plan inquiry must again be seen as a particular strength of the system. A planning authority genuinely concerned to use the inquiry as a constructive learning forum need not feel deterred by procedural constraints or inhibitions. Prior to the 1980 Act, the legislation itself provided a serious obstacle to planning authorities seeking a constructive role for the inquiry. As explained on page 105, a modification could only be made in response to an objection, but this impediment has now been removed by the 1980 Act. The importance of this change in legislation may only become apparant when the full impact of Circular 23181 is felt. If planning authorities follow the advice of the Circular, they are likely to find that the draft plans they place on deposit after twelve months or so are a good deal less ‘polished’ than their predecessors under the old regime. This need not matter. The legislation now enables the planning authority to continue to refine the plan after deposit. by using the inquiry process to promote post-deposit amendments. It is to be hoped that planning authorities do not use this opportunity in a gratuitous way, but use the inquiry to give new material proper exposure. Whether or not planning authorities will look to use the inquiry in this way remains to be seen. In the meantitne, it is possible to offer some general conclusions as to how far the inquiry constitutes a creative input into the plan-making process. On balance, the inquiry can be seen as the ‘quality control’ stage in plan-preparatio~l. It could be argued that quality control is achieved through public participation and
158
Progress
in Planning
the and so Count! Wards The p-son.
various consultations which take place with the DOES, statutory und~rtakcr~ forth. This argument lacks conviction. Why, for cuampte, did the ~lampshirc Council onI> concede the technical shortcomings of the Fareham Wcstcrn plan after the inquiry? essence 01‘ a quality control check is that it is undertaken by an indcpcndu~1 with no prior il~~~)I~,~l~i~n~along the production line. ami Wli<3 has not ixfll subject to the pressures which characterise the design and fabrication stages 01‘ that production process. A quality control process is essential for both producer and consumer confidence. E\sen if a local plan is adopted without an inquiry being necessary. the qualit,; control check has still operated; the public having declined the opportunity to insist upon an inquiry. all
6.4. TIf F: R It: LAY1 0 NSff 1 P 0 1: ‘f‘ff I< I NQ I! I R Y TO A N D f’ 0 1, I T I C’ .4 I> 11 1,;C‘ 1 S I 0 N - M A I( f K (;
I’ll
If I, I C’ I’,t KTI
(‘1 I’.& 1’10 h
That tticru is ;I close. if‘ not intimate relationship between public participaticln and the public inyuiry is not in doubt. The precise nature of that relationship. and whether it is ~[)lnpl~~l~nt~~r~ or contradictory is more pr~bicr~~ati~al. With the introduction of the politicians into the arena. we find something of a ‘m&nage :I trois‘: three distinct proccsscs, each seeking to influence the technical work 01‘ planmaking. To examine this intricate network of influences in an>’ depth is bqoncl the scope of this stud\:, which must of necessity rely on some general observation\. (‘I’hc Birmingham Pol?;tcchnic Research Papers provide much interesting dctailcd GIVstud! material.) Contrasting theories about the nature of the relationship of the inquir) to public participation may be characterised in the following terms; either that the inqulr-> i\ expressly designed to rcsolvc conflict as a discrete. self’-contained event in its own right: or that the inquiry represents the final stage of the participation pl-oce~, in which the loose ends are tied up. In support of the former int~rpr~t~~t~(~ll. the I>oIJ (1979) holds that public participation should take the form of a constructitc d~aloguc between the planners and the planned. in which the plannin, 0 authorit\ seeks to meet the aspirations of the public where possible - a bargaining process in fact. Thus. the inquiry is an acknowledgement that the dialogue has achicted all it can: thu variotlh parties are now involved in B contlict which can only be resolved through a11 ~iidepcnd~tit process of arbitrati~)n. The inyuiry is also likely to introduce ontirclh new issues. In so far as thu inquiry is a form of arbitration rather than bargaIning. public participation and the inquir! are distinct in purpose and practice. The alternative interpretation tends to find favour amongst ‘la\’ ob.jectori;. and amongst thox planners who see effective public participation as a possible means to defuse or avoid the inquir) altogether. Hollow (1978) suggests that “the inquir> should be used as a waq 01‘ resolving the odd question left over at’tei- the et’fccti\e participation exercises”. In support of this general principle. Hellos citca the (ii-oh> on both the (Leiccstcrshire) inquiry, arguing that because public participation structure plan and local plan was thorough and responsive. objections to the local plan wcrc of relatively minor significance. The attractions of this ‘tidying-up model’
The iocal Plan Inquiry
159
are obvious. for both planners and public alike, and of course there are success stories along these lines. Nonetheless, as a general principle, it has serious practical and theoretical flaws. Not least, it presupposes that the population of the local plan area are fully familiar with and accept the policies of the structure plan, even after the time lag between structure and local plan preparation. This was most definitely not the case in Fareham, for example. Perhaps, more important however, the validity of the tidying-up model rests upon the notion of public participation as a process which generates consensus, both amongst the public and between the public and the planners. This is reminiscent of the Skeffington Report, which entertains a vision of a largely altruistic public, in which intending participants are urged to “seek to altruism is not obtain what is best for the community as a whole”. Unfol-tunately, necessarily the dominant motive of the activists who engage in public participation. If public participation does not achieve consensus, two things can logically happen. Either the disappointed participant is content to abide by the combined will of the ‘victorious’ participant and the planning authority, or he can pursue his case at the inquiry. The latter course of action is often favoured, particularly it would seem, by community and amenity groups. Indeed, it is one of the ironies of the local plan inquiries system that groups deliberately fostered by local planning authorities to contribute to the participation programme, have subsequently emerged as determined and sophisticated objectors. This was most certainly the case at the Westminster and the Kensington and Chelsea inquiries. More generally, the Birmingham Polytechnic research has found that 67% of objectors appearing at their case study inquiries had previously been involved in participation. They conclude that “the chances of avoiding an inquiry through a comprehensive and drawn out programme of participation would thus appear to be slim.” In fact, the tidying-up model seems to have fallen steadily into disfavrour over the past two or three years. Hollox (Hollox and Biart, 1982) now concedes that “ho\h’evercomprehensive
are the opportunities provided fbr public may arise hetwen individuals and/or groups and the local planning rexlIved at the “‘consultations” or draft plan stages”.
participation. basic conflicts authority, which cannot he
We are still left with a substantiat minority of objectors who have not previously been involved in participation. The activities of developers (in this context) are of particL]larly interest. There is evidence from the Birmingllam Polytechnic research that developers are disposed to avoid public participations in favour of the inquiry. On the reasonable assumption that developers prosper only if they have the expertise to ‘get things done’, their preference for the inquiry - a medium they and their advisors understand intimately - must reflect a conviction that the inquiry is the most effective way to secure their aims. In their perception, the inquiry gets to the heart of the decision-making process on the local plan, which in their position is the only sensible place to be. There is nothing improper in developers or other ‘non-joiners’ adopting these tactics. It does however shed a new light on the relationship between participation and the inquiry in the wider process of plan preparation. The prospect emerges of
160
Progress
in Piannmg
the ‘new objector’ successfully using the inquiry to undermine tho arlit:r uchievement 01‘ the participation cxercisc. In this situation. the role of’ the cottnter-objrctot assutms ;I special importance.
The Atxkton inquiry providtz an cxccllent example 01‘ this phenomenon. with the response of the Newham Voluntar! Agencies Council to the objt’dion 01‘ the (ias Board
(as rccor-ded in the Inspector’s
Report):
The Local
Plan
fnguiry
161
the inquiry is at least in part quite simply bypassing the political process. The politicians do not control what goes into or what goes on at the inquiry, and they are disposed to treat what comes out as a,fuit accompli. If that is so, it does nothing to reinforce the conventional wisdom that planning is a political process - at least not the making of development plans. Any attempt to understand more fully the juxtaposition of the inquiry and the political influences on the formulation of the local plan must focus on the role of the planning officer giving evidence on behalf of the planning committee. MiltonWilkinson (1976) has examined the ‘identity problem’ of the officer giving evidence at appeals, and his views are pertinent in respect of local plan inquiries: “1 belioe
that it is well recognised that no constraint must he placed upon the planning officer in his giving evidence. To some extent one must recognise that his role changes. Whereas prior to the public Inquiry. the planning officer has been advisor to the planning authority on the plannlng proposals or planning decision, and that decision has been for elected reprcscntativcs to take. once he findr himself in the witness box the planning officer 1s an expert in hlh own right.”
It is nonetheless still his duty to explain to the inquiry the reasons why the Council decided to adopt the particular policies or proposals which are in dispute. In practice, the planning officer’s dual allegiances to his political masters on the one hand, and his professional status on the other, are not as irreconcilable as they might seem. “a local plan written statement shall contain a Ry virtue of the Regulations, reasoned justification of the proposaIs formulated therein” [I982 Reg. 12 (2)], and by convention, the reasoned justification must be couched in terms of ‘good planning practice’. It is not sufficient to give as the reasoned justification for a policy “because we the members say so”. Members who decide to flaunt this convention, as in Wandsworth, soon find how quickly things can go wrong. There are then. very real if unwritten constraints on the freedom for overt political decision-making in drafting a local plan. Policies must be presented in terms of good planning practice, and if they become the subject of debate at a local plan inquiry, there is nothing incongruous or theoretically impure about officers defending them on those grounds. It is also important to look at the role of the inspector within this context. At the best of times, the inspector treads a delicate path between what is properly his domain, and what is not. The essence of the inspector’s role, the bedrock upon which his status and influence is founded is his high profile neutrality. The introduction of politicians pursuing overtly political arguments would make it extremely difficult for the inspector to maintain the appearance of political neutrality and ob,jectivity. From long experience of appeals, planning authorities fully understand the unwritten ‘rules of the game’; that the inspector’s role is to establish facts. weigh the inferences drawn from the facts by both sides, and exercise his judgement on the basis of ‘good planning practice’ (Allen, 1974) and rational analysis. Subsequently his decision will be presented as far as possible in apolitical ternis. There is in a sense a gentlemans’ agreement between the planning authority and the inspector to exclude the political component - including the politicians from the visible decision-making process. Without this understanding, the inspector’s role may become rapidly untenable.
162
Progress
in Planning
Having now reviewed the interplay between the inquiry. public participation and political decision-making. some general conclusions are possible. Firatl!. no one process constitutes a dominant influence over the others. The politicans are clcarl! susceptible to any pressure which the inquiry may bring to bear. without relinquishing their ultimate responsibilities. In the other direction. the inquiry can do much to either undo or reinforce the previous achievements 01‘ public participation. and participants and planning authorities must recognisc this as both a threat and an opportunity. Within this unique mPnu,qc ci troi.s, public participation is without doubt the most vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the others as a dominant influence on the final shape 01’ the adopted plan.
There must bc at least a suspicion that a certain amount of crocodile tears a~-c being shed by those planners who criticise the local plan inquiry system most ficrcel! All too frequently the critics adopt a very one-sided accounting framework. The costs and alleged delays are emphasised, but the potential longer-term benefits ot‘ the inquiry for the planning authority arc all too easily dismissed. Perhaps the planners who find the s\‘stem broadly satisfactory. and there are many, tcol less 01‘ an urge to go into print than their colleagues who find so much cause for disenchantment. In particular, claims that the local plan inquiry system imposes intolerable delays must be treated with caution. It is misleading to suggest that the whole planning machincr\ is necessarily rendered inoperative until formal adoption of the local plan has been secured. In practical terms, the implementation 01‘ the local plan \tarta long before the technical end of the adoption process. SimilarI!. argument5 that the inquiry imposes an unjustifiable workload on the local planning author-it! lack conviction. It‘ the workload is heavy. it is usually because the incluir! highlights substantive problems which have to be resolved it‘ the plan is to secure the political and public commitment essential f’or its long-term prospects of succcsst‘ul implementation. In both direct and less obvious ways. the inquir> i\ an integl-al part of local plan preparation: to cut it off on the grounds of‘ adniinistrati\~c convenience \vould ha\e serious ‘side effects’ on the quality 01‘ the plan making process. which are not taken into Of course. local
account planning
by opponents of‘ the inquiry. authorities do ha\,e certain
legitimate grie\ antes. .l‘hc relationship between public participation and the incluir! highlight\ shortcomings in the formel-. which must be cause for frustration at the \‘er\ leaht. Potentially far mot-e worrying however is the widespread lack 01‘ conviction amonst planners that local plans are of any real consequence at all. ‘I’hc Dot has singularI> clumsy
I‘ailed to demonstrate its commitment to local plans. whate\,er it5 true position ma> be. and the consequent scepticism within local planning authorities is inevitable. Only when they are convinced of the lasting value of local plans \vitt the planning authorities
accept
the local
plan
inquiry
as a necessar>
burden
tu shoulder.
CHAPTER
Future
7
Directions?
The most intractable problems which now confront the local plan inquiry system are largely not of its own making. To that extent, immediate remedies are likely to be elusive. Its principal weakness, an ambiguity of purpose reflected in uncertain terms of rererence, derives directly from continuing public disenchantment with local plans constrained to a strictly defined ‘land-use’ role. Against this difficult background, it is important not to lose sight of the many solid achievements of the local plan inquiry system. The first question posed in this study was whether the inquiry can significantly influence what happens on the ground. That it most certainly can make a decisive contribution to the final shape of the adopted local plan is beyond dispute, and therein lies the principal strength of the system. It is more than a cosmetic exercise. The objector receives a fair hearing, the planning authority does not wantonly abuse its role as judge and jury and thus a soundly based objection stands a proper chance of being successfully resolved, at least in terms of the plan itself. Whether the plan can then make its mark in the real world outside is another matter. Local planning authorities should recognise the inquiry as an opportunity both to improve the quality of the plan, and consolidate its status with the various implementing agencies. The inquiry is, and should be seen as far more than a safeguard for property interests; it is an integral part of the plan-making process which is frequently undervalued by planning authorities. Criticism that the inquiry is unnecessary or counter-productive ring somewhat hollow when we see just how high a proportion of inspectors’ recommendations planning authorities accept. Perhaps it all boils down to this; if a local plan is worth doing at all, it is worth doing well, and the inquiry is an indispensable part of a rigorous and trustworthy plan-making process. There are of course weaknesses in the mechanics of the local plan inquiry system, when viewed in isolation. It is illogical to apply essentially the same decision-making process to a relatively straightforward two or three day inquiry such as Groby, as to a four-month long inquiry into a London borough plan. The practice of requiring one inspector to shoulder the entire burden of a major local plan inquiry threatens the reliability and credibility of the decision-making process in those circumstances, albeit they are exceptional. The disparity between the ‘decision-making resources’ devoted to a structure plan EiP on the one hand, and a local plan inquiry concerned with issues of an equivalent magnitude on the other. is little short of astonishing. 163
164
Progress
in Pia~~~~~~
As ;t general rule. the larger the inquiry, the n1ore time the inxpi’ctt~r sllo~llcl kl\C prepare beforehand, and the more important it is that written c\idencc i> ;I\ ailablc to him and all other parties in good time. The ‘Lcwcs model’ has much to ~ommcntf it in this respect. as it does in seeking to bring the inspxtor more l.uilv inlo the proceedings altogetht‘r. At the major inquiries, I’ar 11101’0use cc~lllcl IW n1adc 01 specialist lochnical asscssorb. in the same May as happens at ;I contrcj\ c’t-\1;11‘c~;lll-in’ or appeal such as Coin Street. For the time buing. it ~vould appc;tr Lhal the Inspectoratc CI~W not consider local plan inquiries to be a paI-ticul:trl> high priorir> in allocating its own. nclmittedly sciircc resource:,. 1211the more credit rhcn lil individual inspectors i‘or having achieved so much. ol‘tcn against the i)cl&. Ironically, one of’ the greatest strengths of‘ the s!‘stcm ma! !ct 1)1-o\c 10 hc it\ Achilles heel. Time and again. iocal pian incfuirics ha\x ~l~ill[~ll~~r~~~~[~ a capacit\ Ii) investigate in a critical and ~~llstrL]~t~~~ mannc’r. :i range ol‘ \ itai uiiial ;tnd environmental policies, which happen to fall oufsid~ a strict dcf‘in~tion ctf ‘Ian&use’. The inspector’s conclusions at the Wandsworth inquiry NYI-C01. proi~~nd importamx to many sectors of the community in that borough; !ct hc \v;ih ruled ‘c)rit ot’ cc~tl1.1’. E\,en so. the message will not be lost on the supporters and c~pponcnt~ ot that plan alike. ‘l’he opening paragraph of this study xuggested that the ultinl;ltc crilcI-l(ln b> \vhich to evaluate the elf‘ectiveness of thu local plan incluir\ 4)stt‘m \\ 3s \\ hcthcr it had a unique and worth\vhile contribution to ol‘l‘er. It did in M’ancls\\orth. Presumably, the question which the DOE will non be ashing i\: ho\+ can \\c prc\ent ;1 rcpe;lt performance of’ the Wandslvorth cpiactdc’l It i\ 10 lx 11~~1~~1 that the i]lsI~lr~~l v)lutIt>ti 01. D~partIll~rit’s response is not thr negative, adminiati-~rti\i’li seeking to confine local planning still more rigidly to h~tci-use nl;litcln. ~I’flc I)ol: must recogniae and accept the basic message 01’ whal happc‘nsd at the Vv~an&\\ orth inquiry and cl~where. lip and down the country. loc:il plan inquit-ICX highlight public disenchantment with the Mhole concq1 ot‘ local plan\ ;I\ I;~nd-u~ plan\ :~ncl nothing more. A plan which either ignores or brushes onl~ tangentialI> against Ihc‘ major and acknowledged social problems is unlikeI> to inspire an\onc. B’hat I\ it thal all rhc amenit! societies. welfare organisations and communit> group\ ;II-c‘%I! ins at t Ircsc inquiries. In essence. it is this: “you art‘ not proctiicin g the t\pc t11’pt;lns \\i’ \$allt: to
\vhere
is the
vision
which
\vc
haw
;I right
to
o\pect
ot‘ p1:rnIlcrx’i
b’tlci-c
I\. the
~(~~~init~~~iit to a better Cuturc which wc demand of‘ our po!itiui;inL’! - xollr ltlC;I/ plan is boring; it is nothing more than a bureaucratic dixumc‘nl iot ~~~l~iii~~l~~r~lli~~ l.ocal Pl~lJlnin~ needs broad public support il. ii i\ to \uI-\ i\f and con\.cniencc’.“ flourish. Hut can local planning break out of the shackles 01 “the rie\elopmcnt ;1nd ~Itllcr use of‘ Land”. without having to rcwritc the legislation and gc) bitch 10 \clu;~rc clnc and rethink the entire planning syhtem’l Quite simpl!. the answct- i\ and rnu>~ bu, !c\! If they arc to be Lvorthwhile and iniluential. local plans muy(t assume ii hlghcr protilu. and become a fbcus of public and political attention. f:\,cn if’ the range 01’ p(?licich which the plan can directly promote remains linritai. it can still geiieralc intcrcst arid commitment b? stating the key welf’arc problems in succinct and uncqui\ ocaI tL‘rms: ‘%Y have a thousand homeless families in oui- borr)iigh. !vc nccil 2 thou~antf C\tr;i
The Local Plan Inquiry
165
homes.” Having established the dimensions of the major problems - and the inquiry can play a key role in forcing the planning authority to ‘come clean’ - the plan can proceed in the conventional manner to set out the land-use policies designed to facilitate the various broader solutions chosen by the Council. Subsequently, a monitoring process must deliberately seek to keep the plan in the limelight. A systematic and dispassionate monitoring programme should provide the local plan with a role and an identity which can transcend the short-term vagaries of local politics and this year’s level of the rate support grant. It must ask all the embarrassing questions: “how many homeless families have we housed since the plan was adopted - why so few?” “ Are the land-use and other policies being pursued still justified?” In this way, it is to be hoped and expected that public and political interest in the plan and its consequences can be sustained. At the risk of sounding pretentious, the plan could evolve a role as the objective conscience of the Council and the community, and thereby become increasingly influential in generating debate and in determining priorities and allocating resources. The role of monitoring leads on to consideration of the eventual need for a formal review of the local plan, and the role of the inquiry in that process. It is important that the provision for an inquiry is kept. The threat as well as the actuality of an inquiry is an important discipline on the local planning authority, and it will ensure that monitoring and review is not given a low priority or undertaken in a halfhearted manner. There is no reason why the contribution of the inquiry in the original plan-making process should not apply equally at review. However, the time-scale of the full adoption process could present very real pl-oblems for planning authorities, since the review is likely to focus on immediate prcjblems requiring urgent attention. A modified adoption process might be appropriate in these circumstances. The inquiry itself could remain intact, held by an ind.:pendent inspector preferably appointed by the DOE, but much of the ‘paraphernalia’ either side of the inquiry could be dispensed with. Most usefully, the inquiry would follow shortly after a major public participation exercise, itself a response to an important monitoring report. The inquiry could be convened at short notice, and the planning authority would be able to make ‘instant’ modifications in response to the inspector’s recommendations. Without the option of a streamlined inquiry process along these lines, planning authorities are likely to be deterred from undertaking formal reviews at all, which would be one more step in consigning local plans to oblivion. In an ideal local plans system, the inquiry would indeed be no more than a safeguard, only required in exceptional circumstances. Of course it would be better if all the wide range of issues which come before local plan inquiries could be explored in a voluntary, systematic and constuctive dialogue between the planners and all the various groups and individuals with a genuine concern for their environment. Until that happy day, the local plan inquiry remains a vital outlet and opportunity for the citizen who is committed to the ideal of securing change through the medium of town and country planning.
Bibliography
The Local Plan Inquiry
167
HEAL.tY. P. (1979) ,Starutu,:v Locrrl PJatw their EvaJiuioi2 in LtyisJurion and Ad~~;~i~~~fr/;~~, ftrif,pic’raiiotr, Working Paper 36. Department of Town Planning, Oxford Polytechnic. Oxford. HEAP.
D. (1974) Planning inquiry Practice. Occasional Paper. .Jownml uff’lannit?,~ und Enviwnmcvrt i.w, Maxwell, London. HESELTINE. M. (1979) Streflmlining P/nnrlin,sy .Machiner:l~. Department of the Environment Pres+ Notice 576. 12th Ijecember, London. HOFFMAN. G. (1981) Procedural Issues Views from the Council on Tribunals, In: Z.ora/ Plnn Pub/it J.our/ Jnqurrie~. Working Paper 2, Department of Urban and Regional Planning. Lanchesret Polytechnic, Cowmy. HOLLOX. R. (I 97X) Locul /‘Jan fnqrrir-its - Kequiwmenlr cmd Procrdwev. Development Plan Inquiries C‘onferencc, April. Department of Urban and Regional Studies. Sheffield Potgechnic. HOLLOX. R. and BIART. S. (1982) Locai Plan Inquiries - A Case Study. .Jn~~mn/ off’lunnin,~ Nnd EniJirorrmenl Lw, .lanuary. pp. 17-23.
Sweetand
LEVIN. P. H. (1976) Goi~u~menr und [he f’lawning Procc:cs. Allan and linwin. London. LONGDON, P. (1977) The Administrative Xrrieu ~fS?ruc~urc Plans. CJnpubllshed M. Phil. Thesis, University College London. McAUSLAN. P. (1975) Land, I.an’ und Plannc/~,q. Weidenfccltl and Nicolson. London. McAUSLAN. P. (19X0) Tllc Jdeo/o,~ies of Plann/nr Lau Pergamon Press, Oxford. MABEY. R. and CRAIG. L (1976) Dcveloument Plan Schemes. 7%~ Wanner 62 (3). MILTON-WILKINSON, C. (1976) The Role of the Professional Witness for the Local Planning Authority, Occasional Paper, .Jnurtral of Pinnninby curd Enr+wmwnt JAI,, Sweer and Maxwell. LOlldOt?.
NARDECCHIA. T. .J. (197% O&wion hi, Lund Scc~uritie.s Invcwncnr of Westminster District Plan PLI. London.
7-ru.cr Llrf..
Proof of Evidence. Cit>
Department of Planning, Cheimer Institute of’ Higher Education,‘Chelmsford. POWELI.. T. E. (19X2) Locui P/am in the Lertxr Di.~/r-i~/. PTRC Seminar. Local Plan Inquiries 26-27 April. I.ondon. PROPERTY ADVISORY GROlJP (1981) Planninfi Gnin, HMSO. London. PURDUE, M. (1977) Cnscr and Marruialt on Plannin,s Law. Sweetand Maxwell. London. SIMMIE. .1. M. (1974) Citizens in Conflicr: the Sociolo,~~~ of Town Plnnnin~, Hutchinson. London. TELLING. A. E. (1977) Phnrng I,NII’ and Procedure. 5;h ‘edItion. Butterworth, London WADE, H. R. W. (1977) Adminirrrcrtive Lrnt,. 4th cditlon. Clarendon Press. Oxford. WALLfzR. R. A. (19x1) Expert Witnesses at Planning Inquiries, .iuurnn/ of. P/annmn,y ant/ ~n~~/ronm(~~~/ WRAITH, R. E. and LAMB. I:nwrn. London.
G. B. (1971) PEIMC Inquirks
o,t UN instr.ument
of Gowr-nmenr,
Allen and