The RTPI is seeking alternatives to LMRBs that could be implemented by CLG and DCMS to address the drivers behind the LMRB proposals.  These alternatives do not have to be mutually exclusive: indeed, more than one of those presented below could be combined.

• Do you have alternatives in mind?  Click here to email policy

Option 1: Develop and Evaluate the Existing Pilot ‘Fast Track’ Appeals System

In January 2008, the Planning Inspectorate started a pilot ‘fast track’ system for managing householder appeals: targeted at one of the key applicant groups likely to be subject to LMRB. This system aims to enable decision making in eight as opposed to the current fourteen week period for small householder appeals. The performance of this pilot should be evaluated before the commencement of any Local Member Review Body scheme. It is possible that it could be extended to other target groups of appellants.

Benefits

• Increases speed and reduces administration
• Builds on work in progress
  
• Likely to be lower cost than LMRB
  
• Retains public confidence in an independent appeal system

Disbenefits

• Does not directly increase local political accountability

Option 2: Provide ‘Community Character Statements’ to Appeal Decision-Makers

Some local politicians express concern about the current appeal system on the basis that they consider it does not provide sufficient weight to local community or political views about the important aspects of a local place. They see national policies and technical considerations over-riding local considerations. Community character statements could be prepared, enabling local businesses and residents to work with their elected members to identify a succinct summary of the character of their place. What do they value and wish to keep? What do they want to change? How should their place develop in future? Such statements would become supplementary planning documents and planning inspectors would be required to consider them before making an appeal decision.

Benefits

• Likely to be lower cost than LMRB
  
• Retains public confidence in an independent appeal system
  
• Enables local communities and politicians to see that their views about their place are directly relevant in and appeals
• Particularly relevant in heritage and conservation related appeals

Disbenefits

• Does not necessarily speed up appeal decision making

Option 3: Monitoring Changes to Householder Development Consents

Changes to householder permitted development are likely to deliver changes in the number of minor applications and hence in minor appeals.  These should be monitored closely, as they may impact on underlying trends.  It may well be that these changes will in part obviate the need to change local and minor appeal mechanisms to release resources for development plan and major case work in PINS.

Benefits

• Builds on reform in progress
  
• May demonstrate sufficient changes in underlying trends to obviate the need for additional local appeal mechanisms
  
• Retains public confidence in an independent appeal system

Disbenefits

• None immediately apparent

Option 4: Local Voluntary Mediation and Arbitration

This option would enable minor cases subject to relevant criteria to be able to opt into a parallel mediation and binding arbitration scheme to the current statutory appeal system, where if necessary, an appeal could be determined following mediation and an attempt to obtain a 'settlement by consent', by an arbitrator.  

Both parties would have to agree to follow this procedure.  There would need to be clear requirements to ensure that mediators and arbitrators were both qualified and independent.  However, if such a system was developed on a professional fee basis paid by the appellant, whilst it could potentially be a little more expensive for the appellant, it would be likely that a mediation could proceed within days of a planning refusal and a significant number of small cases could be removed from the PINS system.

It seems unlikely that such a system would handle more complex cases with significant numbers of third parties, where public interest questions would normally suggest a hearing or public inquiry.  

Benefits

• Increases speed and reduces administration
• Likely to be lower cost than LMRB, although this assumed a full fee charge out to the applicant
  
• Retains public confidence in an independent appeal system

Disbenefits

• Has the potential to increase costs to individual appellants
• Not likely to be well suited to more complex, multi-party matters
• Does not directly increase local political accountability

Author:

Rynd Smith

Publisher:

The Royal Town Planning Institute

Date:

26-Jun-08

Categories:

Practice, Policy 

Sections:

The RTPI

This article has been read 1611 times.