§ Ms Estelle MorrisTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what were the factors which produced an increase in the daily rates charged by the planning inspectorate of his Department in September 1991; and what were the mechanisms for its approval;
(2) for what reason an increase to five days' writing time per day of sitting was imposed by his planning inspectorate for its attendance at the 1991–92 public inquiry into the Birmingham unitary development plan; and what account was taken in deciding on the increase in writing time of the formal request for the report to be concise;
(3) what was the cause of the delay of the report of his planning inspectorate at the public inquiry into the Birmingham UDP;
(4) if he will make it his policy for fees charged by the planning inspectorate to local authorities to be limited to three writing days per sitting day.
§ Mr. BaldryThe provision of information on development plan inquiries is the responsibility of the planning inspectorate. I have asked the inspectorate's chief executive, Mr. Stephen Crow, to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from H. S. Crow to Ms Estelle Morris, dated 20 April 1994:
The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about the public inquiry into the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan.It may be helpful if I explain that the public inquiry into objections to the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan sat for 35 days between 19 November 1991 and 14 February 1992. The Inspector spent 5 additional days in carrying out post-inquiry site visits. The Inspector's report was despatched to Birmingham City Council on 6 October 1992, and took 112 working days to complete.Normally Inspectors are able to complete their inquiry reports within a time period of three reporting days per sitting/site visit day, hence the 3:1 guideline used by the Planning Inspectorate. The Inspectorate did not impose an increase to "five days writing time per day of sitting" for the Inspector to complete his report on the inquiry he was appointed to hold. The Inspector, aided by an assistant Inspector because of the size of the task, completed his report in a ratio of 2.8 reporting days to sitting/site visit days. The ratio of reporting days to inquiry sitting days was only 3.2.I would not agree that the Inspector's report was unduly delayed. I understand that, although Birmingham City Council had asked for the report to be made available by the end of June 1992, no undertaking was given that this would be achieved. The inquiry was a complex one, and in the circumstances I consider the Inspector and assistant Inspector did well to complete their report in the timescale achieved, and indeed they did so within the normal guideline of 3 reporting days per sitting/site visit day. In any case though I would stress that this is only a guideline, and can be affected by many unpredictable factors which are mostly outside the Inspector's control.The Inspector's report was written in the concise form now generally adopted, summarising objectors' cases and the Council's response. This approach was instrumental in helping the Inspector's to produce the report in the short time noted above.You also asked about the increase in the daily fees charged for Inspectors taking plan inquiries, effective from September 1991. This increase, the final stage in a series of phased increases designed to effect recovery of the full costs of supplying Inspectors for development plan inquiries, was approved by the Minister then responsible for planning matters and advised to all local planning authorities engaged in development plan inquiries. This charge applied to the time spent by Inspectors on preparation work, inquiry sitting days, travelling time, site visits and report writing. It is the Secretary of State's continuing policy that fees charged by the Inspectorate for the services of Inspectors to take 589W development plan inquiries should reflect the full cost of the service provided to local authorities. The fees are subject to regular review.