Hannah Hickman and Martin Boddy

1. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: the challenging role of the planning inspectorate in the new English national planning system Hannah Hickman and Martin Boddy

2. Presentation Structure • Research proposition – why look at the planning inspectorate • Planning inspectorate role and purpose • Planning reform and PINS • Recent planning cases as examples of ‘challenge’ • Views from those close to the system • Initial conclusions

3. Traditional role of PINS in England • (1) reports and recommendations to enable the SoS to make decisions on national infrastructure projects • (2) making decisions on planning and related appeals, applications and orders, referring recommendations to the Secretary of State or Welsh Minister where appropriate • (3) the examination of Local Plans in England, Local Development Plans in Wales and Community Infrastructure Levy schedules

4. PINS constitution and Status • ·Executive Agency of Department for Communities and Local Government • Accountable to Ministers and ultimately Parliament • Key part of the ‘machinery of the planning system’ (Cullingworth and Nadin, 2006) • Values of fairness, openness and impartiality • Evidence-based decision-making - quasi-judicial function • Staff of 730, [plus contractors], 2013/14 expenditure of £37m

5. Abolition of RSS and the NPPF • Abolition of strategic planning, top-down housing targets • Local Plans now the “keystone” (CLG 2012) of formal planning framework • Tensions at heart of NPPF between ‘localism’ (powers and freedoms to town halls) and ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ • Local authorities required to: • demonstrate five-year land supply • meet the requirements of the ‘duty to cooperate’

6. Impact on PINS’ work • Core work remains the same - recommendation on soundness of Plans and on appeals against refusal/approval • But increase focus on: • oadequacy of provision for five year land supply • oevidence relating to the Duty to Cooperate • And in the context of • ofundamental shifts in structure of planning system • o(shifting) context of local plan policy, material conditions, and planning guidance

7. Evidence of challenge to PINS’ work • Decisions are increasingly (?) subject to legal challenge and recourse to legal processes • Wave of vocal criticism of PINS in the media and by politicians • Possible shift in relationship between PINS and SoS • Specific expression of more general ‘politicisation’ of civil service and anxiety around ‘accountability’ • Yet … one of the very few parts of Government to have grown in size and responsibility since 2010

8. Recent examples (1) Solihull – Inspector challenged by Courts Courts overturned local plan following appeal from developers Council had placed two sites in greenbelt and used pre-NPPF evidence on housing land supply from the RSS to justify this "I do not consider that the inspector's approach to the policy requirements of the NPPF in relation to housing provision was correct or lawful. As a result, he failed to comply with the relevant procedural requirements; and the local plan with modifications, which he endorsed and the council adopted, is not sound because it is not based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development requirements nor is it consistent with the NPPF." Mr Justice Hickinbottom Yet – Grand Union Investments v Dacorum Borough Council is another story … pragmatism by the Inspector endorsed by Lord Justice Lindblom.

9. Recent examples (2) The green belt housing conundrum Tewkesbury … SoS approves 1000 homes - “no other credible way of reducing shortfall”, upheld by the courts despite challenge on the grounds of localism. But: • Coventry (190 homes in green belt) – Inspector argued in context of ‘severe housing shortfall’ that development very clearly “outweighs the harm”. SoS disagreed. • Saltford, BANES (90 homes) – Inspector recommended approval on the basis of need and minimal impact. SoS disagreed “harm by reason of inappropriateness … not outweighed by other considerations” despite accepting little prospect of BANES identifying five year supply. • Thundersley, Essex (165 homes) – Inspector recommended approval of scheme. SoS disagreedand upheld by Courts. "Exceptionally low" housing land supply of 0.7 years did not outweigh presumption against green belt development. • Bucks, Pinewood Studios. Granted despite “serious harm to the green belt needing to be accorded weight”.

10. Recent example (3) Cheshire – Inspector challenged by SoS on localism Secretary of State disagrees with his inspector over localism Inspector gives weight to emerging neighbourhood plan as a basis for rejecting a housing scheme on high grade agricultural land. Secretary of State argues that as no NP plan yet published, five year supply arguments should prevail. In reaching this decision the secretary of state acknowledged that in a case such as this there is an inescapable tension between the need for housing development to be plan-led at local level and the broader needs to promptly deliver sufficient new homes. “I do not suppose that it would be the first time that more has been claimed for a legislative reform than has actually been delivered” (Mr Justice Males – Tewkesbury Judgement)

11. Criticism of PINS - increased suspicion from all sides? • “The Planning Inspectorate is prioritising development over the views of local people, and undermining localism” (LGIU 2013) • Local / National Press Headlines - “Why is PINS doing this?” “Harrogate goes to war over planning inspectors’ housing ruling”, “We will complain to Government …” “Scheme approved by the Planning Inspectorate” • Communities – “X … is quite right to criticise the Planning Inspectorate, which is riding roughshod over localism either because of instructions from the Government or because of its own institutional bias.” (Daily Telegraph letters) • MPs – The ‘Sir Mike Pitt’ letter and proposals for PINS abolition • Development sector largely silent on PINS until it comes to the courts.

12. Views from those close to the system (1) “It’s utterly impossible to be an inspector currently” “Decisions on policy are being made in PINS” “… there is an atmosphere of challenge in PINS, a greater level of ministerial interference, nudge is ok, public interference is not” “Conflict is not between PINS and SoS, it is between the SoS and the SoS. Once a policy has been written down, Inspectors will stick to it, PINS is not a policy making organisation…” “There is democratic illiteracy when it comes to PINS” “Politicians don’t understand planning and they don’t understand inspectors” “If things are difficult it makes sense to give them to an arms-length agency- do it at arms-length and blame inspectors” “Planning Inspectors are on the one hand independent, and on the other hand not”

13. Views from those close to the system (2) “People are up in arms at the planning inspectorate over undersupply.” Yet: “Sometimes it feels like localism and neighbourhood plans v the inspectorate. Localism means that Local Authorities will question PINS’ interventions”. “It's a myth that top-down targets have been abolished … it's just that top-down targets are now being imposed by the Inspectorate in a random way without any kind of strategic framework within which they can be sensibly accommodated.” “LA’s say ‘why is PINS doing this’? Actually, it’s LA unwillingness to put plans in place with impunity” “Many inspectors would like to be more pragmatic, but developers will challenge and they are clued up to the holes in the NPPF”

14. Views from those close to the system (2)- It’s not all bad surely? “The Inspectorate is one of the best bits of the system” “Inspectors play by the rules, providing honesty. They are the glue in the system” “Planning inspectors are trying their best to keep the show on the road” “What reforms have done is expose PINS as the only mechanism left to deliver reforms for government” “PINS is the only safeguard in the system” “Hats off to Inspectors for helping local authorities where they can’t make their own decisions”

15. Some initial conclusions • PINS left attempting to manage tensions between contradictory policy drivers for local determination and pressures for economic growth - putting inspectors in the limelight. • De facto strategic planning function - mediating between local and central levels • Perceived at least to be partly delivering top-down strategic steer, undermining impartiality • Challenge of the ‘quasi-judicial’ nature of PINS • Impartial objective actors or a ‘politicised’ part of the civil service

16. And finally … “The next 12 – 24 months are looking very turbulent, with many changes ahead, including growth in the economy, tighter financial constraints, increased ministerial interest in what PINS does and potentially a new government. Localism may also come back on the agenda again.” (PINS Board Minutes, April 2014)

17. Contact details Hannah Hickman hannah@hannahhickman.co.uk Visiting Research Fellow at UWE and Hannah Hickman Consulting