The BPF is the trade association of the property industry in the UK. As such it speaks for a broad membership of companies and individuals who own, develop, manage and invest in property. The BPF represents the views of the whole industry, both commercial and residential. Its membership comprises all the major property companies and property owning financial institutions, together with the professions serving the property industry. The property assets held by BPF's members are valued in excess of £70 billion.

  The efficiency and performance of the planning system has a direct impact on the efficiency and performance of the UK property sector. Inevitably this relationship reflects on the economics and viability of property and property investment, with the latter increasingly international and therefore as prepared to invest in Bonn as Birmingham if the returns are better. The continued well being of the UK property industry and in turn, as an essential factor of production, the UK economy, depends on continued improvements and efficiencies in the planning system.

  With regard to the specific performance of the Planning Inspector, the BPF is pleased to be able to inform the Committee that, beyond the attached points, members' general impression and experience of the Inspectorate is a positive one. However this assessment only holds true when the performance of the Planning Inspectorate is considered in isolation. The reality is that the performance of the Inspectorate depends on the performance of many associated parties such as the Secretary of State and this should be borne in mind throughout the Inquiry.

Consistency of Decisions Made

  BPF welcomes the Committee's examination of the consistency of decisions made by Planning Inspectors throughout the regions. There is a perception amongst members that the more experienced Inspectors or those drawing on technical expertise in a particular area, demonstrate a high level of consistency.

  Concerns over consistency are felt towards the less experienced Inspectors, those generally handling the smaller applications and BPF believes there may be a case for more guidance to assist in this area.

The Relationship between the Inspectorate and Government Offices

  The BPF notes that the Planning Inspectorate's performance in meeting its performance indicators is generally improving.

  Regarding applications for which the Secretary of State's decision is material, we appreciate that it is generally the larger cases that are called in by the Secretary of State and therefore those likely to be more protracted. We see this as all the more reason for the Secretary of State to respond in kind to the Inspectorate by following performance indicators of its own, which could only assist in minimising delays for which the Secretary of State's decision is material.

The Use of New Technology

  Significant time and cost savings for all parties can be made through the use of the latest information technology systems such as email and telephonic conference calls. The Planning Inspectorate should be encouraged to adopt these systems wherever possible.

Changing Agendas and Guidance

  During the course of a Planning Inspectorate's consideration of a particular planning application, it is not uncommon for one or more policy guidance note or consultations to be issued. It is important that the Government should make the Inspectorate aware which are key, even though in draft form, and may therefore be material in the Inspectorate's current deliberations.

Inspectorate Performance and Public Inquiries

  The level of information and performance statistics provided by the Inspectorate on the large cases, those often leading to public inquiry, should be improved. Whilst public inquiries are a relatively small proportion of the Inspectorate's caseload, it is these for which scrutiny of performance of the Inspectorate is most important due to their often protracted nature.

Public Hearings and Disorder

  Members have observed a disturbing trend towards public disorder during public hearings. At the very least, this results in disruption of proceedings during public inquiries.

  BPF would recommend that training of Inspectors, highlighted by the Committee as an area under review, should include training to anticipate and mitigate confrontations and disorder. BPF would also recommend that the venues of controversial public hearings are considered with care as well as that of Order of Appearance.

William McKee

Director General

February 2000