The role of the Inspector and how many appeals are allowed
We explain the possible reasons for the change in the rates of allowed appeals.
The role of the Inspector
Planning Inspectors act as independent decision-makers appointed by the Secretary of State. They decide appeals in accordance with the legal requirement to determine them in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. An important material consideration is the National Planning Policy Framework which contains national planning policies. In addition, Inspectors work within the principles of openness, fairness and impartiality as set out in The Planning Inspectorate’s Code of Conduct.
How many appeals are allowed?
The Planning Inspectorate is aware of recent commentary about the proportion of appeals that are allowed having fallen.
Statistics about our performance are published regularly.
This article and the supporting data are solely concerned with planning appeals (excluding householder and commercial appeals) to the end of December 2020. For context, over 13,000 of these appeals were decided in 2019 and over 9,000 were decided in 2020. This lower figure is due to the impact of the pandemic.
The data shows that there has been a drop in allowed planning appeals from 2018 onwards. Between April 2010 and September 2018, the average was 33% with quarterly variations between 30% and 36%. From October 2018 until the end of December 2020 the average was 25%.
What might be the reasons for the change in the rates of allowed appeals?
We consider it important to stress that there are a number of possible reasons that have not contributed to this trend.
Firstly, Inspectors are independent decision makers and there has been no instruction to dismiss more appeals. It is for the Inspector alone to decide about the weight to be attached to any relevant factor and The Planning Inspectorate does not issue separate advice in this respect. There has also been no internal change made to the approach to decision-making as this relies on working within the established legal and policy framework.
National policy may indicate the weight that should be attached but otherwise, having regard to the evidence provided, Inspectors use their own judgement to assess the impacts that a proposal would have and how much weight to give to material considerations or to any conflict with the development plan.
There has been no change in the criteria used to assess the most suitable procedure and therefore no deliberate increase in the number of appeals decided by written representations. Furthermore, the new Rosewell processes have not affected the outcomes of appeals decided by inquiry.
We have also not discerned any significant differentiation between the different broad types of local planning authority area – shire, unitary, metropolitan district, London borough, national park or county.
However, we have identified several factors that may contribute to the trend for proportion of allowed appeals to fall. These are discussed in the following paragraphs.
As a starting point the proportion of appeals allowed following hearings and inquiries has always been higher than for written representations. For example, in the first quarter of 2010 the figures for appeals allowed were 31%, 40% and 48% for written representations, hearings and inquiries respectively. Since October 2018 until the end of December 2020 the average figures have been 24%, 41% and 46%.
The number of appeals decided by written representations has increased over time and so this has affected the overall proportion of appeals allowed. For example, in the first quarter of 2010, 82% of appeals were decided by written representations but in the third quarter of 2020-21 (the latest period for which data is available) the proportion was 95%.
The change in allowed rates coincides with the publication of the revised National Planning Policy Framework in July 2018. It is difficult to accurately assess the impact of this together with increasingly up-to-date local plan coverage but the greater emphasis on design quality in the revised Framework and the likelihood that more local planning authorities are able to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply may have played their part.
From January 2018 to March 2020 we decided over 1,800 telephone kiosk appeals and 85% of these were dismissed. This influx (which accounted for 7% of appeals received over that period) skewed the approval rate downwards by approximately one percentage point.
It is also likely that the number of prior approval appeals have increased over the last 3 years and some of these will have been dismissed purely on technical grounds because of a failure to accord with relevant legislation rather than due to any planning objection.
Recent legal judgments have increased the number of cases requiring appropriate assessment to be undertaken because of the potential impact on habitats sites. This sets a high bar and mitigation also has to be properly secured. Consequently, we believe that this has led to some schemes being dismissed that might previously have been allowed.
Conclusions
The National Planning Policy Framework indicates that the planning system should be genuinely plan-led and that where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan, permission should not usually be granted. Furthermore, when subsequent appeals are dismissed then there may be scope for a revised development proposal to be submitted to the local planning authority to overcome the identified objection.
However, we will continue to monitor the trends in the rate of allowed appeals and keep our training guidance under review.