Independent Review of Planning Appeal Inquiries Action Plan › government › ... · 2019-05-14 · Section 1 – Delivering the recommendations Introduction The Planning Inspectorate

1 April 2019

The Planning Inspectorate

Independent Review of Planning Appeal Inquiries – Action Plan

April 2019 update

2 April 2019


Contents

Foreword 3

Section 1 – Delivering the recommendations 4

Section 2 – Impact of delivering the Recommendations 37

Annex 1 - Portal Development 40

Annex 2 - Plan on a Page 41

Annex 3 - Control Plan 43

3 April 2019


Foreword

The Planning Inspectorate greatly welcomes the findings of Bridget Rosewell CBE, Independent Review of Planning Appeal Inquiries.

We are encouraged by the practical, common sense nature of the recommendations which promise to lead not only to much faster decisions but also to radically improve the experience of customers. Crucial to this is the introduction of an overhauled appeal portal which we anticipate will be ready by the end of 2019.

To put us in the best possible place to achieve the ambitions of the report we are trialling the new approach on several Inquiries and are in the process of scaling up these operations. From the experience gained through the trial we have already made practical improvements and are continuously updating our approach. It is also giving us confidence in the forward planning for the remainder of the implementation phase. At the same time, it has underlined the size of the challenge and that there isn’t a quick fix. Rather a sizable transition period is likely to be needed – depending not only on the number of Inquiries coming forward over this year but also the level of demand from all other case work, local plan and nationally significant infrastructure project submissions. We are committed to improving our performance radically across all casework areas and delivering to challenging timescales.

We are proud to have already developed working versions of several good practice documents which we have published alongside this report. The key learning from producing these and our experience gathered through the pilot to date is that the suggested approach can also benefit other planning casework areas. It is therefore our intention to roll out this approach more widely over time. As Bridget has pointed out in her Review, for the reforms to have maximum effect all parties involved with planning Inquiries will need to adjust their approach. We hope that this Action Plan provides the clear direction and impetus in making this culture change come to life.

Sarah Richards Chief Executive

4 April 2019


Section 1 – Delivering the recommendations

Introduction

The Planning Inspectorate is committed to delivering the recommendations that are set out in the Review, and this Action Plan sets out how and when we are going to achieve each of them. The Review confirmed that planning appeal Inquiries remain an essential part of the planning process for large and complex planning cases. Inquiries are valued by most users of the process, and there was a strong consensus about the high quality of the decisions made by inspectors. However, it concluded that decision making for Inquiries is currently taking too long and needs to be faster. In particular, the report challenges us by stating that the most significant changes require the Inspectorate to become more proactive in managing the Inquiry process and to be more insistent in imposing dates and deadlines. We are already investing in transforming our organisation so that we can work more efficiently. We also have a programme focussed on performance recovery to meet our targets for determining all appeals. The Review fits well within this improvement work and will significantly reduce the time taken to decide planning appeal Inquiries, without compromising the quality of decisions, which is one of our great strengths. Organisational transformation, performance recovery, and the Review are our three key delivery priorities for 2019-20. We have already made significant progress towards many of the recommendations and have commenced a pilot to apply, monitor and measure the new approach to Inquiries. Where improvements have been identified from the implementation of recommendations, the Planning Inspectorate is also mindful that this in turn can be applied to all casework without delaying change in other areas, ultimately bringing improvements to handling of all appeals. The recommendations made in the Review will bring significant benefits to all users of the appeal Inquiries process. The new digital portal will make the process more user friendly and significantly reduce the time taken to validate an appeal Inquiry. Our work planning will become more refined to make the most efficient use of our experienced Inspector resource. Inspectors will take a more proactive role, as they take control of the Inquiry process and drive progress. All appeal parties will need to be more proactive, cooperative and ready to meet Inquiry deadlines. With these key elements in place we will be able to achieve the ambition set out in Bridget Rosewell’s Report and create a real culture change. However, this is set within the context of resource challenges that were acknowledged in the Report.

5 April 2019


The individual recommendations predominantly relate to process changes. However, they are all underpinned by the concept of proactive and positive engagement in the Inquiry process by all appeal parties, so that the Inquiry runs smoothly and efficiently, with a minimum of resources focussed on the issues in dispute, and everyone knows what is going on. The pilot is enabling us to understand the impact of scaling up to become ‘business as usual’ for all Inquiries and how this affects other types of casework. The Planning Inspectorate has been working collaboratively, continuing the relationships formed during the Review, to build a continuous improvement plan for improvements that not only meets the recommendations for Inquiries, in turn, can be applied to all casework without delaying change in other areas.

Our ambition is to be deciding planning appeal Inquiries within the 26 week target as set out in the Review, by June 2020. However, we cannot do this alone. We need all parties that are involved in the appeal Inquiries process to be working alongside us, playing their part in meeting the expectations in these recommendations. We recognise that the package is greater than the sum of its parts. This is a ‘live’ document and will be followed by periodic updates in September 2019, February 2020 and June 2020. Please refer to Annex 2, Plan on a Page, which shows progress made to date against timeline for all 22 recommendations.

6 April 2019


Recommendation 1 - Improving the submission and validation of appeals The Planning Inspectorate should ensure the introduction of the new portal for the submission of Inquiry appeals by December 2019, with pilot testing for Inquiry cases to start in May 2019.

Position Statement

The new digital service will provide a fast and stable case management system. It is critical to the successful delivery of improvements to the Inquiries process. It will provide quick and easy access to documents associated to a case, provide clear guidelines of information required to submit to the Planning Inspectorate and timelines for submission. Parties will receive timely updates on the progress of their case without having to chase for updates. The current position is that Government Digital Services (GDS), has only agreed to deploy a narrow set of casework onto the short-term portal. The Planning Inspectorate is working with GDS to determine the best route for Inquiries. Once the Planning Inspectorate can use the new service for planning Inquiries, we expect this to be live by December 2019. However, timescales are currently uncertain as it is dependent on the procurement and funding of a supplier to assist with the development. If there is a delay in delivering a new portal for planning Inquiries beyond December 2019, additional resources will be deployed within the Inquiries team to ensure that the necessary checks can continue to be carried out manually until the portal solution is deployed.

7 April 2019


Delivery Actions

Action Completed To Do Delivery Date 1. Major Casework

Design for new Portal

• Prototype Design

• User Testing

• User Testing Analysis

March 2019

2. Engagement & sign off with GDS

• GDS Service Assessment

April 2019

3. Agree funding and procurement strategy

• Dependency on GDS advice on development strategy

April 2019 – June 2019

4. Portal Development

• Build

• Testing

• Go Live

December 2019

Outcomes

Inquiries prototypes for the new portal (see Annex 1) have been designed considering

requirements identified during the Review and will benefit from the following:

• Mandatory fields to ensure appellants are including all required information

• Automatic notifications to all appeal parties throughout the life of an appeal including

local planning authorities immediately on submission

• Ability to upload all relevant documents, thus reducing the need for paper

documentation

• Clear guidance to support submissions

• Clear process timeline

Recommendation 2 - Reforming the statement of case The Planning Inspectorate should work with representatives of the key sectors involved in drafting statements of case to devise new pro-formas for these statements which can then be added to the new portal and include, where appropriate, the introduction of mandatory information fields and word limits.

8 April 2019


Position Statement

Statements of case are critically important documents in identifying the main issues and the evidence to be called. The appellant’s statement informs the Planning Inspectorate’s decision on the appropriate mode of appeal and their initial assessment of the duration of any Inquiry.

Revised guidance for the preparation of Statements of Case has been produced with internal and external feedback now received. The final version of the guidance will inform the new Portal in due course but, in the meantime, it will be publicised through the package of guidance that the Planning Inspectorate produces for appeals and inform Inspector training for Inquiries.

Delivery Actions

Action Completed To Do Delivery Date 1. Improve current

document

• 1st Draft for Stakeholder Feedback

• Internal Stakeholder Feedback received

• External Stakeholder Feedback

• Revise draft following external stakeholder feedback

• Finalise draft and publish

March 2019

2. Test improved document

April 2019 – May 2019

3. Build on new portal • Prototype Design

• User Testing

March 2019

4. Test on new portal • Build

• Test

December 2019

5. Go Live • Set Go Live Date December 2019

Outcomes

The improved guidance for Statements of Case will provide the following:

• Clear guidance on succinct submissions

• New portal development will include: o Mandatory information fields o Word limits

• Leading to overall improved quality of documents submitted

9 April 2019


Recommendation 3 - Streamlining the process for deciding the appeal mode to be used The process of confirming the procedure to be used should be streamlined. Where an Inquiry is requested, appellants should notify the Local Planning Authority (LPA) of their intention to appeal a minimum of 10 working days before the appeal is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. This notification should be copied to the Inspectorate. Position Statement Advance notice of an inquiry appeal being submitted enables both the local authority and the Planning Inspectorate to deal swiftly with the procedural decision. Appellants notifying the local planning authority 10 days before submitting an inquiry appeal, copying in the Planning Inspectorate provides such advance notice. The Planning Inspectorate then requests a view from the local planning authority within 1 day of receiving an inquiry appeal, on whether they agree the appeal should be subject to an inquiry or dealt with by another mode.

This measure therefore increases the notice local planning authorities have for providing their view on procedure and prepare their statement of case. It also allows the Planning Inspectorate to issue a start letter within a maximum of 5 working days of the receipt of an inquiry appeal, rather than the average of 7 weeks taken in 2017/18.

This is a significant culture change which the Planning Inspectorate is aware will take time to embed. Therefore, the Planning Inspectorate have adopted a pragmatic interim approach. This has included publishing information on how the Planning Inspectorate has been addressing the Inquiries Review on the Government website (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/inquiries-review). This highlighted that a pilot scheme was being undertaken to accelerate the Inquiries process. It was quickly picked up by Planning magazine, who drew attention to it in an online article the following day. A follow up article providing an update on progress is being published on GOV.UK at the beginning of May 2019. The current interim approach while appellants are not yet regularly advising of an Inquiry appeal 10 days’ in advance is that the Planning Inspectorate will request the local planning authority on every new Inquiry appeal received, to provide its view on procedure within three working days following submission. The Planning Inspectorate also request the local planning authority to secure a venue when the appeal is started and when there is certainty that the appeal is proceeding by an Inquiry and exactly when it will be held. If a 6-month period of monitoring shows that appellants are not following the guidance and giving at least 10 days’ notice to the Planning Inspectorate and the local planning authority that they are going to submit an appeal that they consider should follow the Inquiry procedure, then steps may be taken to introduce legislation.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/inquiries-review

10 April 2019


Delivery Actions

Action Completed To Do Delivery Date 1. Comms

• Comms published on

GOV.UK

March and May 2019 with further updates as and when required

• Inquiries Review progress update on GOV.UK

May 2019

2. Revise Inquiry procedures as necessary

• Monitor Inquiry procedures for feedback

• Update Inquiry procedures following feedback received

• Monitor whether guidance is working, and appellants are notifying LPAs and Planning Inspectorate of intention to appeal

April 2019 - Sept. 2019

April 2019 – Sept. 2019

3. Explore how to progress 10-day advance notice, if new guidance not followed by appellants.

• Investigate what is required through monitoring of procedures

• Complete assessment

June 2020

Outcomes The benefits of a new and improved front-loaded process for Inquiries include:

• Notice of intention to appeal given 10 working days before appeal submitted

• Length of Inquiry confirmed on submission

• View from local planning authority within 1 working day of contact once the new portal in place

• Improved best practice for appellants to follow

• Appeal procedure can be confirmed, and the start letter issued more quickly.

11 April 2019


Recommendation 4 - Issuing a start letter more quickly The Planning Inspectorate should ensure that only complete appeals can be submitted and ensure a start letter is issued within 5 working days of the receipt of each Inquiry appeal. The start letter should include the name of the Inspector who will conduct the appeal.

Position Statement The start letter provides parties confirmation of the start of the Inquiries process and provides clarity on next steps. The outcomes from the improvements identified for recommendation 3, will enable the Planning Inspectorate to issue a start letter within 5 working days of receipt of an Inquiry appeal. This will lead to approximately a 6-week shorter timescale than the average timescale from receipt to start letter in 2017/18. A revised and improved start letter has been issued for all pilot cases. It now identifies the appointed Inspector and provides the details for case management engagement. The impact of the revised start letter is being monitored through the Control Plan (see Annex 3). In advance of the new portal rollout, this will continue to be a manual process.

Delivery Actions

Action Completed To Do Delivery Date 1. Improve start letter

• Start letter issued in

pilot cases includes name of Inspector

• External stakeholder feedback received and incorporated

March 2019

April 2019

2. Portal • Guidance notes in Portal design prototype added as a Start Notice

March 2019

• Develop Written Reps example on Portal as a template

December 2019

Outcomes The benefits to the new process of the improved start letter include:

• Early identification of Inspector

• Start letter issued within 5 working days of the receipt of an Inquiry appeal

• Notification of case management engagement

• Setting out clear guidelines to all parties.

12 April 2019


Recommendation 5 – Agreeing the date of the Inquiry The practice of the Planning Inspectorate leading on the identification of the date for the Inquiry should be restored, with all Inquiries commencing within 13 to 16 weeks of the start letter.

Position Statement The Planning Inspectorate is actively seeking an Inquiry to commence within a 13-16-week window on all Pilot cases. In exceptional circumstances a degree of flexibility is being applied with a view to get as many Inquiries into the new ways of working and achieving faster end-to-end decision times without compromising robust decision making. Our overall target of determining the appeal within 24 weeks is in all cases seen as the key outcome to achieve which we are seeking to protect wherever possible To achieve this new way of working, all parties involved are identifying their required resources from the outset. Local planning authorities are similarly making the necessary preparations when receiving notification from the appellant 10 days in advance of submission. Inquiries that are following the pilot, indicate that further awareness of the new process is required with local planning authorities to avoid potential push back on the Inquiry and case management engagement dates. Delivery Actions

Action Completed To Do Delivery Date 1. Clear Guidance

notes available for all parties showing new timelines for process

• Comms on GOV.UK with link to Inquiries Review set out that the Planning Inspectorate is piloting cases that will follow this practice

• CEO, Planning Inspectorate provided Inquiries Review update at PAS.

March and May 2019 with further updates as and when necessary

• Inquiries Review progress update on GOV.UK

April 2019 May 2019

2. Service Design for new Inquiries Portal

• Major Casework prototype design

• Build Major Casework prototype

• Test Major Casework prototype

• User Story Major Casework prototype

• Guidance notes for Major Casework prototype.

March 2019

13 April 2019


3. Continually review awareness of process

• Monitor engagement and feedback from local planning authorities

• Review guidance with stakeholders

March 2019 – June 2020

4. Agree funding and procurement strategy

• Dependency on GDS advice on development strategy


5. New portal Go Live • Build

• Test

• Set Go Live Date

December 2019

Outcomes The benefits for early preparation to Inquiries commencing within 13 to 16 weeks of the start letter include:

• Early notification of Inquiry date

• Early identification of venue

• Early inspector engagement

• The timely submission of Inquiry documents

• Early identification of Rule 6 parties

Recommendation 6 – Costs of the Inquiry venue The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) should consult on the merits of appellants contributing towards the accommodation costs of the Inquiry.

Position Statement Currently the costs of the accommodation for the Inquiry are covered by the local planning authority. MHCLG has started to scope whether sharing costs would be beneficial. Any change will need to accommodate a range of appellants from large developers who are prepared to pay for, or provide, venues to individuals who have not chosen an Inquiry and cannot afford to pay for a venue. This raises issues about fairness, a potential two-tier appeal system and access to justice, which will need to be considered and resolved before going out to consultation.

14 April 2019


Delivery Actions

Action Completed To Do Delivery Date 1. MHCLG to develop

policy and explore potential for sharing venue costs

• Scope issues and requirements

• Propose possible solutions

April 2019 - June 2019

2. Form element of a future wider consultation (on appeal fees)

• Draft consultation text, for inclusion in a wider / bigger consultation (this item is too small to warrant its own consultation).

June 2019 - August 2019

Outcomes Fewer Inquiries will be delayed due to the lack of a suitable venue.

Recommendation 7 – Statements of Common Ground MHCLG and the Planning Inspectorate should substantially overhaul the approach to the preparation of Statements of Common Ground.

Position Statement

Improved and timely Statements of Common Ground will enable a more focussed Inquiry. Revised guidance for the preparation of Statements of Common Ground has been drafted with internal feedback received and is currently the subject of consultation with external stakeholders. The final version of guidance will inform the new portal development in due course. In the meantime, the revised guidance will be publicised as part of the package of updated guidance that the Planning Inspectorate is producing for appeals and informing Inspector training for Inquiries (see recommendation 8 for further detail).

15 April 2019


Delivery Actions

Action Completed To Do Delivery Date 1. Link with work

carried out on Statement of case (Rec 2) and new portal (Rec 1)

• 1st Draft produced for Stakeholder Feedback

• Internal Stakeholder Feedback received

• External Stakeholder Feedback received

• Revise draft following stakeholder feedback

• Finalise draft and publish

March 2019

April 2019 – May 2019

2. Ensure Statements of Common Ground also cover areas of disagreement

3. Build on Portal • Prototype Design

• User Testing

• Build March 2019

December 2019 4. Test on Portal • Test

5. Go Live • Set Go Live Date

6. Review impact • Review impact and progress made

June 2020

Outcomes

The improved guidance for Statements of Common Ground provides the following benefits:

• A topic-based approach

• Early identification for areas of disagreement

• Greater clarity and consistency

• Enable consistent and effective Inspector Inquiry training and more directive practice

Recommendation 8 – Requiring early Inspector engagement a) In every Inquiry appeal case, there should be case management engagement between the Inspector, the main parties, Rule 6 parties and any other parties invited by the Inspector, not later than 7 weeks after the start letter.

b) Following the case management engagement, the Inspector should issue clear directions to the parties about the final stages of preparation and how evidence will be examined no later than 8 weeks after the start letter.

16 April 2019


Position Statement

Early engagement between the Inspector, the main parties and Rule 6 parties for every Inquiry appeal would not only save time and effort in subsequent stages of the process, but it will also ensure that there is a greater focus on the issues that are in dispute at the Inquiry.

This is a fundamental culture change, which the Planning Inspectorate have supported through revised Inquiry training for Inspectors and detailed guidance which facilitates a far more proactive approach at the pre-Inquiry stage.

The Planning Inspectorate is currently trialling early case management engagement, with main parties. This is informed by a pre-conference note from the Inspector setting out likely main issues and explaining the Inspector’s thoughts on how the evidence would best be considered to make optimal use of Inquiry time. If held by conference call, details of how to access the call is accompanied by an agenda for the conference and a conference etiquette note. The conference call is followed by a note from the Inspector confirming the agreed arrangements and setting out a timetable for the submission of various documents. Conference calls have taken place on a pilot cases and a survey has been issued to all parties thereafter to capture feedback.

All Inspectors and Case Officers are being trained in holding telephone conferences for case management engagement. A case management engagement ‘best practice’ guide has been produced to support the training. The feasibility of video conferencing is also being explored, although ensuring anonymity of Inspector contact details is currently still an issue. It would also require the technology to work for all participants who need to take part to ensure fairness for all.

Delivery Actions

Action Completed To Do Delivery Date 1. Set out new

Inspector training

• Training in new Inquiries process for Sub Group Leaders

March 2019

• Training all Inspectors in new Inquiries process

May 2019 – July 2019

2. Set out best practice for new process

• Guidance notes out for Consultation

April 2019

• Revise guidance notes following consultation

May 2019 – July 2019

3. Identify ways to monitor and quality check

• Tracking for pilot Cases in new Inquiries process

February 2019

• Analyse pilot data and use intelligence to inform scaling up of implementation

May 2019 – June 2019

17 April 2019


Outcomes

Early Inspector engagement has identified the following benefits:

• Clear direction given to all parties on final stages of preparation and how evidence will be examined

• Case management engagement leading to: o Engagement with parties by week 7 from the submission of the appeal o Early identification and categorisation of main issues o Instruction to seek agreement of further matters before the Inquiry

• Greater clarity on what’s required by whom by when;

• Enable consistent and effective Inspector Inquiry training and more directive practice

• Resources can be focussed on issues identified by the Inspector so that resources are used more efficiently.

Recommendation 9 – Preparation in approaching the examination of the evidence The inspector should decide, at the pre-Inquiry stage, how best to examine the evidence at the Inquiry and should notify the parties of the mechanism by which each topic or area of evidence will be examined, whether by topic organisation, oral evidence and cross-examination, roundtable discussions or written statements.

Position Statement The improvements made for this recommendation closely align with that of Recommendation 8 and are intended to provide early clarity and momentum for the efficient conduct of the Inquiry.

A pre-conference note and agenda is now being issued by the Inspector in week 5/6, setting out the mechanism by which the evidence will be examined. Following the discussions held during case management engagement, the Inspector now decides on the approach to be taken at the Inquiry. This is confirmed in a post-conference note, distributed to all relevant parties. Feedback will be collected after each case management conference in order to enable the process to continuously improve. .

18 April 2019


Delivery Actions

Action Completed To Do Delivery Date 1. Set out best

practice for new process

• 1st Case Management Conference held (through pilot)

• Template Script, Etiquette and Agenda for Case Management Conference

• Practice further

iterated and improved following feedback received

March 2019 May 2019 – June 2019

2. Inquiry training of additional inspectors

• Inspector training for first additional cohort in new Inquiries process.

May 2019 – June 2019

Outcomes The benefits of pre-Inquiry direction on the approach to be taken in the examination of evidence include:

• Areas of dispute narrowed down to fewer issues;

• Inspector having early sight of areas of dispute;

• Inspector can make an early and informed decision on approach to take at Inquiry o A topic by topic approach o Reducing repetition and allowing a more efficient programming of expert

witnesses

• Inspector making an informed decision on the most appropriate form of case management engagement

• Inquiries can focus on the key matters in contention, where cross-examination of witnesses is required.

19 April 2019


Recommendation 10 – Making Inquiry documents readily available The Planning Inspectorate should ensure all documents for Inquiry appeal are published on the new portal, in a single location, at the earliest opportunity following their submission.

Position Statement Ensuring documents are made quickly available, subject to necessary data protection controls being in place, will help reduce delays and increase the transparency of the evidence and process.

Until the new portal is in place current practice will continue with the Planning Case Officer making documents available to the main parties. Every effort is made in every case that this will be done as quickly as possible. Whether through the new portal development documents will be made available publicly or only to the main parties remains to be decided. The pros and cons of both options are still currently being considered including likely resource implications. For all the documents to be made publicly available, it is necessary to undertake a risk assessment in the light of the Planning Inspectorate’s duties under the General Data Protection Regulations.

Delivery Actions

Action Completed To Do Delivery Date

1. Portal work (Rec 1) to ensure it can accommodate this recommendation.

• The facility for Parties to upload documents onto the Portal and for these to then be published publicly has been Prototyped

December 2019 April 2019

2. MHCLG to check implications.

• Investigate issues of publishing all documents on Portal in addition to or in lieu of local planning authority website.

June 2019

20 April 2019


Outcomes The introduction of the new Portal will deliver the following improvements:

• Increased transparency and clarity with all parties knowing that they are viewing the same documents

• Easy accessibility to appeal documents for Rule 6 parties

• Save on printing resources and time savings in making documents available

• Greater consistency of documents and ability to forward plan around when information will be received

• Help reduce delays and increase the transparency of the evidence and process.

Recommendation 11 – The timely submission of Inquiry documents The Planning Inspectorate should ensure the timely submission of documents. It should also initiate an award of costs where a party has acted unreasonably and caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted expense.

Position Statement The early and direct engagement of the Inspector holding the Inquiry is expected to drive good behaviour and achieve deadlines being met.

The timetable for the submission of Inquiry documents is now confirmed in the start letter and during case management engagement. Parties are reminded that in order to support an effective and timely planning system in which all parties are required to behave reasonably, the Inspector has the power to initiate an award in line with the Planning Guidance. Unreasonable behaviour may include not complying with the prescribed timetable. MHCLG will look at the policy for the award of costs to see whether it can be extended to include a fine type of award, such as when evidence is not submitted on time. It will consider whether this would be appropriate and whether it could be done under existing legislation. Also, what discretion there should be and how the amount would be determined. The policy is currently that costs cover wasted or unnecessary costs of other parties, an automatic fine needs to be carefully considered in context of current legislation. The aim would be to encourage reasonable behaviour by increasing the likelihood of a penalty for unreasonable behaviour.

21 April 2019


Delivery Actions

Action Completed To Do Delivery Date 1. The Planning

Inspectorate to lead on more robust implementation of timescales, using existing award of costs criteria.

• During the Case Management Conference, the Inspector sets timescales for submission. This will be included in the pre and post note stating that if timescales are not met it could be held as unreasonable behaviour.

March 2019

• Work with MHCLG to review award of costs guidance

March 2019 - August 2019

2. MHCLG to look at whether it is possible to broaden the scope of the award of costs policy and to introduce a fine type of award.

June 2019

• Review award of costs policy within scope of existing legislation.

June 2019

Outcomes

The benefits of the timely submission of all documents include:

• Parties can rely on set timescales

• Easier to plan resources

• End to end time process time saving

• Reduce the need for adjournments

Recommendation 12 – Encouraging early identification of Rule 6 parties The Planning Inspectorate should amend guidance and the model letter provided for local planning authorities to notify parties of an appeal, to make it clear that those interested parties who want Rule 6 status, should contact the Inspectorate immediately.

22 April 2019


Position statement Having everyone interested in an appeal identified and engaged early on enables all relevant issues to be identified and addressed from the outset. The model appeal notification letter, on GOV.UK which local planning authorities are encouraged to use, has been amended to highlight the need for prospective Rule 6 parties to contact the Planning Inspectorate immediately. The impact of these changes is being monitored to understand their effectiveness and whether further action is necessary. Delivery Actions

Action Completed To Do Delivery Date 1. Engage with

Internal and External Stakeholders.

• Portal prototype testing with R6 Internal and External parties

• Revised model notification letter on gov.uk

• Pilot includes sending revised model notification letter that deals with the need for R6 parties to apply immediately.

• Updated Guidance notes on the Portal for Rule 6.

March 2019

December 2019

• Explore potential for model notification letter to be included in guidance on Portal

Outcomes Improvements to the model letter, which include encouraging the early identification of Rule 6 parties, are currently being monitored. We anticipate that these changes will bring about the following benefits:

• Rule 6 parties being identified early in the process mitigating: o Delays o Additional cost for other parties

• Rule 6 parties able to take part in the pre-Inquiry case management engagement increasing transparency and fairness of process

• Improve the prospects of common ground being identified before the proofs of evidence need to be finalised

23 April 2019


Recommendation 13 – The conduct of Inquiries and the role played by inspectors The Planning Inspectorate should consult with key stakeholder groups to update procedural guidance to set out clear expectations on the conduct of Inquiries, based on a consistent adoption of current best practice and technology. Updated guidance should encourage and support inspectors to take a more proactive and directional approach.

Position Statement Inspectors giving parties a clear and strong steer on which issues to focus on, how evidence should be presented and by when key information needs to be submitted enables all involved to take a targeted approach proportionate to the needs of a case. The scale of the culture change required is such that making this shift requires the co-operation from all parties and will require continuous improvement over time.

The first iteration of revised guidance notes have been drafted with internal and external feedback now received. These also include guidance in relation to Inquiry procedures setting out new guidance in relation to the improved Inquiry process is also underway.

This updated guidance will inform the new Portal in due course but, in the meantime, it will be included as part of the package of guidance that the Planning Inspectorate produces for appeals and is already informing Inspector training for Inquiries.

The revised guidance detailing the conduct of Inquiries, once publicised, will be continually monitored with feedback sought and continual improvements made as a result.

Delivery Actions

Action Completed To Do Delivery Date 1. Identify

Internal/External Stakeholders

• Etiquette guidelines reviewed internally & externally

• Revised Guidance notes included in the consultation with External Stakeholders (R. 7 & 2).

March 2019 – April 2019 March 2019 – April 2019

March 2019 – June 2020

May 2019

April 2019 – July 2019

2. Update guidance notes

• Updated Guidance notes designed for new portal prototypes, including: Major Casework - non-form and messaging, procedural comments

• On-going updating/revising in line with recommendation implementation

• User videos published on gov.uk.

3. Align with customer work stream

• Revised Procedures

24 April 2019


4. Monitor and measure effectiveness

• On-going monitoring of effectiveness of new guidance

• Internal and external stakeholder progress reviews.

April 2019 – June 2020 April 2019 – June 2020

Outcomes

The benefits we are looking to achieve include:

• All parties involved are clear on expected outputs and behaviour and potential sanctions if disregarded

• Most parties likely to comply with new expectations swiftly; those disregarding instructions being sanctioned accordingly

• Timely and more focused production of evidence resulting in more proportionate resource needs of Inquiries

Recommendation 14 – Use of technology The Planning Inspectorate should ensure that its programme for improving operational delivery through greater use of technology fully exploits the opportunities available to enhance the efficiency and transparency of the Inquiry event, such as the use of transcription technology for Inspectors and publishing webcasts of proceedings.

Position Statement Making recording of Inquiry events available in real-time or shortly after the event would increase the transparency of such events making it possible for all interested to follow what is being said irrespective of whether they can physically attend or not.

An investigation into ‘live streaming’ of Inquiries is being undertaken by the Planning Inspectorate using recently upgraded software. This will also include exploring transcribing Inquiries. To date, the Planning Inspectorate have been exploring utilising YouTube for uploading recorded Inquiries, which also provides an auto transcribe option. Video conferencing as an option for case management engagement is also being explored. A communications plan is in place with key milestones identified. This will inform stakeholders of progress made in the development of improvements for Inquiries.

We have identified, that as a minimum requirement, having a good internet connection at every Inquiry venue is a challenge that needs addressing.

25 April 2019


Delivery Actions

Action Completed To Do Delivery Date 1. Linked to Portal

(Recommendation 1)

• Comms Plan March 2019 – June 2019


2. Review venue requirement guidance.

• Investigate 'Live Streaming'

• Transcribing Videos

• Video Conferencing


3. Put in place mechanism to monitor new/emerging technology and whether it could be used to improve Inquiry events

• Bi weekly meet with Operational Delivery Team

June 2020

Outcomes

Benefits of both ‘live streaming’ and/or transcribing of events will bring to the Inquiries process:

• Generate records of oral evidence through technology thereby increasing transparency

• Make participation at Inquiry events more efficient by enabling a degree of remote participation (e.g. parties bringing smaller teams to an event).

Recommendation 15 – The role of interested parties during the event Alongside other recommendations that will improve the transparency and clarity of the process (Recommendations 10, 12, 13 and 14), the Planning Inspectorate should develop a more effective and accessible guide to the Inquiry process for interested parties, including members of the public.

26 April 2019


Position Statement Plain English, bite-sized guides would enable first time and lay users easier and quicker understanding of the Inquiry process. This in turn would enable all interested in participating in an Inquiry appeal making relevant contributions from the start. The Planning Inspectorate is in the process of developing a series of video user guides. One for Inquiries, with recordings of Inquiries taken place in April 2019 is close to publication. The finished video will be uploaded on GOV.UK and available to all parties on the new portal and will in due course be integrated with the new portal. Over time we will also add further videos focusing on different aspects of the process considering user feedback and suggestions from interested parties as to what they would find most useful.

Delivery Actions

Delivery Actions Completed To Do Delivery Date 1. Work with Internal

& External stakeholders to test

• User video for Inquiries available on GOV.UK

• Revise guidance

• Consult with appeal parties

• Produce further bite-sized video guides and by when to produce.

May 2019 May 2019 –Sept 2019 May 2019 –Sept 2019 May 2019 –Sept 2019

2. Review effectiveness

• Gather feedback and look to continuously improve

June 2020

Outcomes Easily understandable guidance for lay users is expected to bring the following benefits:

• Timely and relevant input to an appeal from all interested parties

• Greater understanding from all interested parties on how to influence decisions potentially leading to better decisions and greater acceptance of those decisions

This recommendation correlates closely with others including:

• Enable interested parties to keep up to date with the progress of the Inquiry and access any information they need, when they need it (Recommendation 10)

• Encourage the earlier identification of Rule 6 parties (Recommendation 12)

• Improve conduct of Inquiries (Recommendation 13)

• Better use of technology to improve access to information (Recommendation 14).

27 April 2019


Recommendation 16 – Allocation of time post inquiry for the Inspector to write up the case Programming of Inspector workloads should ensure there is enough time to write up the case immediately after the close of the Inquiry.

Position Statement Writing up an appeal case immediately post the Inquiry event ensures that the information presented is still fresh in the Inspectors mind and limits the possibility of it becoming superseded by policy changes and/or critical changes arising to important evidence sets. As part of the pilot started in February 2019, the Planning Inspectorate has begun to schedule Inquiries in this new way. We are scaling up this approach as quickly as possible depending on the number of inspectors we can train and/or make available without negatively impacting on the performance recovery of other appeal types and/or delivering Local Plans and Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects to their targets. At the same time, we are in the process of modelling how long the transition from the old-style scheduling to the new way of working is likely to taken and how it can best be managed. The modelling is expected to show how long the likely ‘hump’ of overlapping Inquiry demand occurs (i.e. Inquiry events in the new approach needing to be scheduled in parallel to pre-existing events already in the system). Allied to this, modelling will also suggest a maximum number of Inquiries that can be conducted by an Inspector at any point in time. We are also seeking to improve our forward resourcing capability by improving our forecasting efforts through close monitoring of live submissions data and over time further improving this. 10 days’ early notification as introduced by recommendation 3, also greatly helps with this. Example: New Process Timeline

WEEK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

WEEK

WEEK

LPA Questionnaire

SoC from LPA & R6/Prepare Agenda

Case Conference & follow up directions

Inspector Note

Proofs of Evidence

Prep

1 Week Sitting

Write up

Ascertain average time required pre and post eventWeek(s)11-19

Start Letter

Week 14/15

Week(s) 15/16

KEY

Week 6

Week 8

Week 9

Week 10

Week 13

Week 1

Week 2

28 April 2019


Delivery Actions

Action Completed To Do Delivery Date 1. Review

Inspector scheduling process (linked to naming inspector at start date, scheduling of Inquiry)

• Feedback received from Senior Inspectors on Scenario model

• Digital model available by end March

March 2019

• Demo digital model for stakeholder feedback & input

• Report on resourcing impact to MHCLG

April 2019

July 2019

• Charting for Inspectors investigated as an online scheduling tool which will form part of the new portal

December 2019

Outcomes

Ensuring Inspectors can write up Inquiry appeals immediately post event is expected to bring the following benefits:

• Swift, robust decisions relatively soon after the event and at the latest within the timescales set by recommendation 21;

• Better understanding of resourcing implications of variations in demand to enable timely mitigating actions that allow all casework areas to maintain good performance

• Better understanding of overall resource requirement

Recommendation 17 – Decisions made directly by the Secretary of State (a) To minimise the number of cases that need to be decided by the Secretary of State, MHCLG should keep their approach to the recovery of appeals and call-in applications under review.

(b) The Planning Inspectorate should work with MHCLG to identify ways that technology can be used to speed up the process of preparing the inspector’s report to the Secretary of State.

29 April 2019


Position Statement We have engaged with MHCLG Casework on this recommendation. The involvement of the Secretary of State adds an extra stage to the determination of an appeal Inquiry, which adds more time before a decision. We will explore ways of keeping this to a minimum, including looking at efficiencies in our submission to the Secretary of State. A meeting has been arranged for key officials in April to review the current position, agree mechanisms for regular review, and establish a feedback loop with the Planning Inspectorate. The use of technology will also be important in carrying forward this recommendation (see Recommendation 14).

Delivery Actions

Delivery Actions Completed To Do Delivery Date 1. MHCLG lead –

workstream, with Casework, the Planning Inspectorate.

• Meet with key officials

• Establish feedback loop

April 2019

June 2019 – September 2019

Outcomes The benefits that this recommendation can bring include:

• Improved ways in which technology can be harnessed to reduce the burden on Inspectors in preparing their report to the Secretary of State

• Improved timescales for this stage in the process

• In line with Recommendation 14.

Recommendation 18 – Inspector availability and the management of casework The Planning Inspectorate should submit an Action Plan to the Secretary of State by April 2019. The Action Plan should set out how it will ensure that the necessary organisational measures are put in place to deliver the proposed timescale targets and wider improvements by no later than June 2020. This should include the mechanisms by which sufficient Inspectors can be made available. The Action Plan should also set out challenging, but realistic, intermediate milestones to be achieved by September 2019.

30 April 2019


Position Statement The Action Plan (this document) has been produced to provide an update on delivery of all the recommendations identified in the Review. The following chart shows the progress made on implementing all recommendations:

Whilst the Review did not prioritise between the various recommendations, many recommendations are closely linked to either or both new portal implementation and early Inspector engagement. To enable the latter and as part of the Planning Inspectorate’s efforts to recover performance generally there has been a recruitment drive for additional Inspectors, following the proposed recruitment numbers defined for the Business Case in October 2018. Nearly 200 interviews were completed in January 2019 and 106 offers made with almost all accepted.

Inquiry Review Recommendations

(Number & Headline Description)Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jul Sep Nov Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

1. Improving the submission and validation of appeals2. Reforming the statement of case

3. Streamlining the process for deciding the appeal mode to be used

4. Issuing a start letter more quickly

5. Preparing for the inquiry (start letter to start of inquiry)

6. Costs of the Inquiry

7. Statements of Common Ground

8. Requiring early inspector engagement

9. Preparation in approaching the examination of the evidence

10. The timely submission of inquiry documents

11. Inspectorate to enforce timely submission of docs including with sanctions

12. Encouraging early identification of Rule 6 parties

13. The conduct of inquiries and the role played by inspectors

14. Use of technology

15. The role of interested parties during the event

16. Allocation of time post inquiry for the inspector to write up the case

17. Decisions made directly by the Secretary of State

18. Inspector availability and the management of casework

19. The number of withdrawn inquiry appeals

20. The benefits of a policy feedback loop

21. Implementing the proposals and monitoring future performance

22. Reforming data collection and performance measurement

Inquiries Review Plan on a Page

2020

Oct Dec

2019

Jun Aug

KEY

Identifying user needs, pain points and goals

Testing ideas with users. Design and build prototypes

Pilotting the design and user testing

Live

Delivery Timeline set for Recommendation

Submission of Action Plan to MHCLG

31 April 2019


There will be several cohorts for Inquiry training to enable swift deployment subsequent to the training to embed the training in practice. Staggered cohorts also ensure the training required by other case work areas can also be delivered in a timely fashion. Delivery Actions

Action Completed To Do Delivery Date 1. Recruitment for

additional Inspectors • Short listing,

Interview, Offer

January 2019 – April 2019

2. Work collaboratively with MHCLG.

• Weekly update meeting set with MHCLG

March 2019 March 2019 April 2019

3. Produce Full Action Plan for Internal Use and Summary Action Plan for publication

• Action Plan developed and shared to group

• Summary/Exec version for publication

• PRB Sign off

Outcomes The benefit of producing the Action Plan for the end of April include:

• Detailed progress update for each recommendation

• Shared understanding on success of recruitment campaign and timing of impact expected from this

• Enables use of Control Plan to monitor and measure critical points in the end to end Inquiries process.

Recommendation 19 – The number of withdrawn Inquiry appeals The Planning Inspectorate should review the issue of withdrawn appeals and consider how the impact on its work can be minimised. To deliver this the Inspectorate should:

a) always collect information from appellants about why an appeal is withdrawn;

b) initiate an award of costs where there is evidence of unreasonable behaviour by a party in connection with a withdrawn appeal;

c) with the benefit of more detailed information, review whether further steps can be taken to reduce the impact of withdrawals on its resources and other parties.

32 April 2019


Position Statement Any work and time invested in an appeal that gets withdrawn seems wasted and abortive. However, the ability to bring an appeal to enable the resolution of issues has nevertheless been highlighted as a benefit during the Review. Better understanding is required around the causes for appeals being withdrawn and the actual costs in the wider sense caused by this. The Planning Inspectorate started manually collecting some of the data behind withdrawals in late 2018. This includes the number of withdrawals and reasons for withdrawal where reported. The volume of withdrawals is now captured through automated reporting. The reasons for a withdrawal are manually captured as the current system does not have the facility to automate this. The collected data is being used to inform how we can further improve the process and the development of any new data capturing system. The new Portal is expected to provide automated management information reporting. The start letter now refers to withdrawals, requesting that reasons for withdrawal need to be submitted and highlighting the potential implications to all parties including cost awards. Delivery Actions

Action Completed To Do Delivery Date 1. Monitor and measure

Withdrawals.

• Manual collection of reasons for withdrawals in place

• Number of withdrawals reported on through new Power Bi reporting.

December 2018 – Ongoing March 2019 December 2019

2. Investigate award of Costs for unreasonable behaviour in connection with a Withdrawal.

• Inspector input re cost awards & implementation.

• New portal development to include reporting mechanisms as set out by MHCLG.

• Put in place mechanism to analyse reasons for withdrawal and consideration of what, if anything, can be done to reduce withdrawals or get withdrawals earlier in the process.

June 2020

33 April 2019


Outcomes

The benefits of better understanding the reasons for withdrawals based on reliable data and to inform process improvements with it include:

• Reducing unnecessary work and costs involved with a withdrawal

• Change in behaviour by all involved reducing the occurrence of withdrawals over time

Recommendation 20 – The benefits of a policy feedback loop The Planning Inspectorate and MHCLG should regularly discuss the practical impact of new policy and guidance on the consideration of evidence at Inquiries with those parties who are frequently involved in the planning appeal Inquiry process.

Position Statement This recommendation requires a more proactive approach to obtaining feedback from parties frequently involved in Inquiries. MHCLG and the Planning Inspectorate have existing structures in place to discuss policy and guidance and to liaise with stakeholders. The effectiveness of these will need to be reviewed and, if necessary, a new structure will need to be designed and implemented. Whether using existing methods of liaison or new structures, MHCLG and the Planning Inspectorate will have this feedback loop operating by the end of 2019.

Delivery Actions

Action Completed To Do Delivery Date 1. Policy discussion

needed between MHCLG and the Planning Inspectorate.

• Stakeholder engagement to obtain feedback.

December 2019

December 2019

2. MHCLG and the Planning Inspectorate need to work to use an existing structure or set up a new structure to allow this to happen – how, who, what.

• Agree approach with MHCLG

34 April 2019


Outcomes The benefit of having a policy feedback loop include:

• Informing future policy and guidance

• Introduce simple changes which could address points of unnecessary concern or ambiguity

• Discuss the practical impact of new policy and guidance on the consideration of evidence at Inquiries, with those parties who are frequently involved in the planning appeal Inquiry process.

Recommendation 21 – Implementing the proposals and monitoring future performance The Planning Inspectorate should adopt the following targets for the effective management of Inquiry appeals from receipt to decision (a) Inquiry appeals decided by the Inspector

Receipt to decision – within 24 weeks - 90% of cases

Receipt to decision – within 26 weeks - remaining 10% of cases

(b) Inquiry appeals decided by the Secretary of State

Receipt to submission of Inspector’s report - within 30 weeks - 100% of cases

The Inspectorate should regularly report on its performance in meeting these timescales and what steps it is taking to expedite any cases that take longer.

Position Statement The outputs of the Inquiries Review modelling (recommendation 16) will be analysed against the Tactical Deployment data to understand whether the pool of Inspector resource is large enough to meet the demand of the new Inquiry process alongside other casework pressures. Where this highlights remaining resource pressures, to understand which casework areas are likely to be impacted and to what extent enabling informed decisions to be made on an ongoing basis. The Planning Inspectorate is also assessing the wider strategic impact of delivering the Inquiries Review recommendations which are being developed alongside the delivery of this project. In particularly the likely positive impact the wider adoption of some of the recommendations from the report can have in other casework areas. Critical for this will be understanding the impact on and feasibility of integrating this in other planning procedures, especially hearings, as well as any impact on resources. It has been agreed with MHCLG that a clear position on whether additional resources are required and the associated impact on other casework if additional resources are not provided will be presented by the end of July 2019.

35 April 2019


Delivery Actions

Delivery Actions Completed To Do Delivery Date 1. The Planning

Inspectorate lead – implementation of new timescales by June 2020 (Rec 16)

• Planning Inspectorate Performance Review

July 2019 March 2019 July 2019

2. Define impact on other casework processes

• Impact Analysis output

• Digital modelling

Outcomes The benefits of implementing the proposals and monitoring future performance include:

• Making the Inquiries process more effective and efficient whilst maintaining rigorous examinations and high-quality decisions

• Early engagement by all parties

• Greater certainty on timescales

• Harnessing technology to improve efficiency and transparency

• Control Plan to monitor, measure and continually review implementation of recommendation actions

• Help identify, and if necessary, taking forward legislative changes to ensure the full effect of these measures is achieved.

Recommendation 22 – Reforming data collection and performance measurement a) The Planning Inspectorate should use the Transformation Programme to ensure there is robust and comprehensive management and business information, which is regularly collected and reported, on all aspects of their operation.

b) In developing an improved suite of information the Inspectorate should also:

• ensure their digital case management record system records information on key variables in a consistent way;

• agree with MHCLG a new set of key performance indicators to effectively monitor the Inquiry appeal process from end to end, including the availability of senior Inspectors.

36 April 2019


Position Statement

Good quality, timely and relevant information is crucial for sound decision making and understanding system performance.

As part of its Transformation Programme the Planning Inspectorate is developing a management information/ business intelligence system that allows the capture and presentation and analysis of a vast array of data and intelligence on the performance of all casework areas, including housing Inquiries. This system will be integrated with the new Portal and Case Management system to provide readily available business intelligence.

The Planning Inspectorate has developed a new approach and suite of Key Performance Indicators to track performance across all other areas of casework. This new approach was reviewed and approved by the Planning Inspectorate Board in March 2019.

The type of information being captured by the new system is being built in an agile fashion and is expected to be continuously improved. As such it will be gradually expanded to also capture more qualitative data over time that allows a better understanding of wider trends in the planning system.

Delivery Actions

Action Completed To Do Delivery Date 1. Work with

MHCLG on requirements (policy, finance, analysts) and data quality

• Link with Recommendation 19.

March 2019 – September 2019

Outcomes

The benefits of the Planning Inspectorate having a robust and extensive data collection and performance management system will include:

• Consistent reporting mechanism

• Accurate and reliable information

• Improved understanding of wider trends within the planning system over time.

37 April 2019


Section 2 – Impact of delivering the Recommendations

Implementing the full package of the Review’s recommendations will have significant benefits for all participants in planning appeal Inquiries. There will be greater certainty about the timescales for the process and decisions will be made more quickly; the new portal will aid transparency and create a more user-friendly experience; our Inspectors will be more proactive in driving forward the Inquiry; and the process should be clearer for all interested parties. Appeal Inquiries account for approximately 2% of our overall casework, and we are undertaking organisational transformation and performance recovery programmes which will transform our overall performance and how we process appeals. We will learn from the pilot for appeal Inquiries which we are taking forward and gradually expanding applying the Review recommendations. The learning from this is being fed into the other areas of our work to generate wider benefits. We will also be mindful to ensure that improved performance on Inquiries should not result in a negative impact on any other priority work area. The appeal procedures follow a ‘logic’ which dictates that Inquiries are reserved for the most complex casework. As Inquiries take the most effort and resource to determine it is only reasonable to expect for these to take the longest to administer and issue a decision. The successful delivery of the Review recommendations is likely to disturb this approach by enabling the determination of Inquiries more quickly than hearings considering current performance. If we do nothing, this will have a negative impact on our reputation, customer experience/ satisfaction and behaviour, and on our future aspirations to charge for appeals. Current procedures for ensuring the most appropriate procedure is used to determine an appeal will be undermined. We therefore intend to resolve this problem by ensuring the expectations are met by putting extra attention towards hearings to improve their timeliness. To achieve this improvement is likely to require extra resources for a period and may either require its own project or extending the scope of the Performance Recovery Programme. Alternatively, it could be decided that the length of time required for a case to be decided should not be determined purely based on which procedure it follows. Instead it could for example be based on a new set of published priorities (e.g. focussing on housing delivery or other key infrastructure) as the key determinant for decision timings.

38 April 2019


The Planning Inspectorate is committed to implementing the Review recommendations; but we need the help of all appeal parties to make this work. As Bridget Rosewell noted in her foreword to the Review: “The changes that will make a difference are straight-forward, but their implementation will require everyone to get behind them to make them possible. Participants need to support inspectors in being more proactive and the Planning Inspectorate will need to train more inspectors to be able to respond to these needs. A change in approach is also a culture change – all stakeholders have agreed this is necessary, but they also need to support it in practice!”. Providing we all work together, and all the recommendations of the Review are successfully implemented, we are confident that we will be able to meet the Review targets of completing Inquiries within 24-26 weeks.

39 April 2019


Figure 1. Existing and recommended appeal Inquiry timetable

40 April 2019


Annex 1 - Portal Development

The Planning Inspectorate is working with the Government Digital Service (GDS) on the development of a new portal for all its casework. This will initially be an interim digital public service using a third-party tool whilst also developing a strategic portal solution that will be internally owned and managed by the Planning Inspectorate.

GDS ruled out the long-term use of a portal provided on a ‘software as a service’-basis and required it to be developed specifically for and then maintained by the Planning Inspectorate. This resulted in substantial additional procurement activity becoming necessary during late 2018/early 2019. To reduce the delaying impact of the additional procurement currently in train, GDS agreed to this interim solution but only for our ‘volume’ s78 planning appeals; not those proceeding by way of an Inquiry. Now the costs are becoming clearer, the funding of a portal solution owned and managed by the Inspectorate is currently unresolved; it is likely that additional funding will be required from MHCLG. In parallel to the further procurement activity, we have undertaken further work with users over the past 6 months. This has given us a substantially better understanding of the similarities and differences between the different appeals processes in technology implementation terms and user needs. We therefore now believe that Inquiry appeals could be easily integrated as part of the interim solution. However, this is dependent on achieving agreement from GDS to expanding the interim solution to include Inquiry appeals. We are currently in discussions with GDS about this The Inquiries Review, published on 12 February (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-planning-appeal-Inquiries-report ), flagged the urgent need for an improved digital public service for this casework (see recommendation 1). We are aware of the substantial public and Secretary of State interest in the timely implementation of the recommendations made in the Review Report. For this reason, and as it unlocks a vast number of benefits for us, we are very keen to deliver on this recommendation as quickly as possible.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-planning-appeal-inquiries-report

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-planning-appeal-inquiries-report

41 April 2019


Annex 2 - Plan on a Page

The following chart shows progress and position of all 22 Review recommendations

42 April 2019


Inquiry Review Recommendations

(Number & Headline Description)Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jul Sep Nov Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

1. Improving the submission and validation of appeals2. Reforming the statement of case

3. Streamlining the process for deciding the appeal mode to be used

4. Issuing a start letter more quickly

5. Preparing for the inquiry (start letter to start of inquiry)

6. Costs of the Inquiry

7. Statements of Common Ground

8. Requiring early inspector engagement

9. Preparation in approaching the examination of the evidence

10. The timely submission of inquiry documents

11. Inspectorate to enforce timely submission of docs including with sanctions

12. Encouraging early identification of Rule 6 parties

13. The conduct of inquiries and the role played by inspectors

14. Use of technology

15. The role of interested parties during the event

16. Allocation of time post inquiry for the inspector to write up the case

17. Decisions made directly by the Secretary of State

18. Inspector availability and the management of casework

19. The number of withdrawn inquiry appeals

20. The benefits of a policy feedback loop

21. Implementing the proposals and monitoring future performance

22. Reforming data collection and performance measurement

Inquiries Review Plan on a Page

2020

Oct Dec

2019

Jun Aug

KEY

Identifying user needs, pain points and goals

Testing ideas with users. Design and build prototypes

Pilotting the design and user testing

Live

Delivery Timeline set for Recommendation

Submission of Action Plan to MHCLG

43 April 2019


Annex 3 - Control Plan

The Control Plan will help the Planning Inspectorate assure quality is maintained in the new Inquiries process by establishing a standard for quality inspection and process monitoring.

This is a working document that is continually monitored and updated. This will monitor the critical control points for the new Inquiries process.

44 April 2019


Project Manager Date Created Date Revised

09/04/2019

Start Letter

(WK1)

Inspector Name

Date of Inquiry

Documents

required

Start Letter to LPA

Start Letter to

Appellant

Major Casework

Team

Not all cases start

in Wk 1 due to:

Inspector

availability

Need to check

Procedure

Power BI highlights cases

that need Inspectors

Forward Look also monitors

this

Agree and

implement

format of early

engagement

Inspector input

into format of

engagement

Case Officer

arrange Conf Call,

Date &

Time/Venue if PIM

Arrangements set out

in Start Letter

Inspector

Major Casework

Team

Inspector

availibility to

advise whether

conference or

note is

appropriate/exper

ience of knowing

what is most

appropriate.

Provisional wording used in

Start Letter

Forward Look monitors

position

Case Officer schedule

deputies and Managers to

provide cover if necessary.

Receive LPA

Questionnaire

(WK2)

Questionaire

received from LPA

Completed Qustionaire Major Casework

Team

Case Officer has task list

and will chase if overdue.

Receive SoC

from LPA

SoC to complete

Rule 6 Parties

Completed SoC

Rule 6 Parties

identified

Agenda for case

management

enagagement

Major Casework

Team

LPA

Delay could

impact on

Inspector ability to

prepare for case

management

conference



Rule6

Involvement

Rule 6 SoC to be

received (within

4wks)

Statements received. Rule 6 Parties

Major Casework

Team

Delay could

impact on


prepare for case

management

conference

Case Officer will chase if

overdue.

Receive agreed

SoCG

LPA submit agreed

SoCG

Inspector understands

the Parties

agreed/disagreed

positions

Major Casework

Team

LPA

Delay could

impact on


prepare for case

management

conference



Case

management

engagement &

follow up

directions

(WK8)

Agenda

Conference call

setup/roundtable

or Inspector issues

note

Directions from

Inspector

Completed Case

Mangement

engagement

Major Casework

Team

Inspector

Inspector sick

Technology failure

Parties absent

If Inspector is unavailiable

consider alternative

Inspector

Rearrange if essential

Inspector Note

(WK9)

Directions from

Case management

engagement

Inspector note to all

parties

Inspector

Proofs of

Evidence

(WK10)

Evidence from

Appellant

Evidence from LPA

Proofs of Evidence Appellant

LPA

Prep (WK13) SoC, SoCGs

Proofs of Evidence

Completed

preparation for Sitting

Inspector

Sitting

(WK14/15)

Oral evidence to

clarify/amplify

SoC, SoCG, PoE.

Cross-examination

of parties.

Questions relating

to the case.

Sufficient evidence

received to make a

robust decision.

(Responses to

questions asked).

Inspector

Write up

(WK15/16)

All the above

relevant case

information and

responses to

questions raised

during sitting.

Robust decision on

case.

Inspector

Inquiries Review Control Plan

Core Team Members Project Lead

Process StepProcess Step Input

(s)Process Step Output (s)

Process Step

OwnerREACTION PLANSAMPLE

CONTROL METHOD

CONTROL METHODS

Measurement System for

Process Evaluation SIZE FREQ.

Out of Control

Conditions