Ask-a-planorak #1 - Bridget Rosewell CBE

Bridget Rosewell CBE - where do we start? Economist-par-excellence with a glittering litany of positions across the public and private sectors, Commissioner for the National Infrastructure Commission leading its project on Northern connectivity and the East West corridor from Cambridge to Oxford, and - let’s not forget - author of the 2018 Rosewell review into planning inquiries.

As one eminent commentator said this week - “we should listen to Bridget”. There’s no doubt about that!

In light of the Planning Inspectorate’s recent proposal to take 6 months for widespread roll-out of digital hearings and inquiries, Bridget answers 10 questions for #planoraks everywhere about the reforms she has spearheaded, and PINS’s current approach to virtual appeals.

(1) 16 months after your review of planning inquiries, which of the reforms you recommended do you think have worked out particularly well?

The best part has been getting on top of the early appointment of an inspector and setting up a case conference.  That seems to have been key to what has been a remarkable effort in getting down the time for Inquiries to be completed.

(2) In January 2020, PINS told us the average planning inquiry lodged after 1.4.19 took only 23 weeks from validation to decision – 7 weeks quicker than hearings, and only 2 weeks slower than written representations appeals. How do you react to those shortening timescales?

My review was started because the development industry said that the length of time to complete an Inquiry was a reason behind slow delivery of housing schemes.  So shortening the times means that the objective has been met.  It remains to be seen whether this has accelerated housing delivery, and of course coronavirus is now a new reason (or excuse?) for slowing things down.

(3) Which of your recommendations have so far worked less well or not yet worked at all?  

The ease of technology access at PINS was a worry, and they have now changed their strategy so this is still a work in progress.  There needs to be consultation around allowing appellants to pay for the Inquiry location – or indeed now to provide the service and bandwidth to enable online discussions, whether roundtables, hearings or inquiries.

(4) In the current lock-down, PINS has refused to issue start letters for new inquiries “in accordance with the Rosewell reforms”, i.e. so that the targets for timely determination of inquiries which you recommended are not missed. How do you respond to that approach?

With dismay!  However, I believe that this has now loosened up.

(5) As you know, the lock-down’s consequences for all corners of the development industry have already been very damaging, and in particular for housebuilders. How important do you think the role of planning appeals will be in helping the economy to recover?

Making sure that we not only continue to streamline the approach, but also accept the need for housing and get the guidance for Inspectors right will be key here.

(6) On 28th April 2020, PINS announced its “aim” to hold digital inquiries and hearings for “most cases”, but not for 6 months, i.e. November-December 2020. At present, other than a handful of trial cases, no inquiries or hearings are being held. What do you think of PINS’s stance?

I understand that this is now changing.  I have offered to help convene discussions to accelerate a move to digital here.  It needn’t take this long, nor would it be unfair to have more digital hearings.

(7) PINS’s particular concern has been over involving the public in inquiries using e.g. video-conferencing. As you know, many local planning authorities have already adopted virtual decision-making, as has the planning court. Do you share PINS’s concerns on public involvement, and do you have thoughts on how those concerns could be addressed?  

Of course we should be concerned about public involvement.  However, almost everyone has a telephone and under lockdown or even relaxed lockdown access can be easier for the vulnerable than a public meeting.  My mother is 96.  She uses Skype quite easily!

(8) Do you have any views on whether the video-conferencing technology we’re all learning to use could assist planning inspectors conducting inquiries even after lock-down?

Face to face meetings and particularly cross examination will always be best.  But in many circumstances, digital may offer more access.  This should be a matter for the case conference and joint decision making.

(9) If you were in charge of PINS for the day – a challenging time to take over! – what would be the first change you’d like to make?

One day would not be enough!  So in that day I would want to collect from all staff a) what is the most important change you would now make and b) what would be worst change that you could make.  Let’s hope the list would not overlap.

(10) What would you like the legacy of your review of planning inquiries to be into the future?

I would like to have moved PINS into greater innovation, more confident Inspectors willing to take some managed risks in the interests of speed, efficiency and decision making.  I would also like the legacy to be a PINS which is more outward looking and more aware of the context of their decisions and the ‘bigger picture’.

Thank you so much for your work, Bridget. And stay well, #planoraks.