Martin Goodall's Planning Law Blog: Barn conversions again

Martin Goodall's Planning Law Blog: Barn conversions again:

'via Blog this'


In my capacity as consultant to financial services firms I see so many inconsistencies in decisions handed down from the regulators, the Ombudsman and the compensation scheme that baffle me, planning is no different.

Let's call it regulatory arbitrage.

I have followed particular inspectors and found they offer conflicting views within weeks of previous decisions even when using the same circumstances to argue for or against an appellant.

This is worse than an LPA postcode lottery, this is unacceptable service from PINS. But what do you do about it?

My solution would be to have more than one inspector but even then there is no guarantee of consistency so spending a shed (or barn) load of money on an appeal which in logic should follow precedent and be allowed only to find that something odd happens and you have lost and set a new precedent yourself.

Of course the argument is that the Financial Ombudsman Service decides each complaint on its own particular facts and merits, so does the Planning Inspectorate apparently, both allow one person to make a final decision but at least the FOS has a two or even three tier system of checks and balances. Not that this ends in a logical conclusion!

Is it right that a planning inspector can be judge, jury and executioner without any real independent scrutiny?

I deal with planning obligations contained within a legal agreement, these agreements must be lawful and enforceable yet PINS uses inspectors who are not lawyers, they treat the appeal or 'complaint' as a matter to be determined in accordance with planning law instead of English or EU law.

I have been told that there are changes ahead in the way appeals are handled in Wales, I look forward to seeing a system that is quicker and less cumbersome but ultimately it just needs to be consistent, please.

While I am writing, this is just a thought after studying website visitor stats, could your publicly displayed thoughts on all things planning attract attention from your adversary and prejudice the outcome of your next case?