Should we get rid of PINS…or lawyers?

I’m not trying to needle anyone (sorry couldn’t resist that) but it’s a question that came to me just as I was drifting off to sleep. Whether we should get rid of the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) or lawyers.

What sparked the idea was a spate of recent cases where High Court judges have overruled Planning Inspectors’ decisions. Put brutally, one person thinks another person is wrong. Both are highly skilled in their professions and both can’t be right.

So, in my new scheme of things, if developers do not like a planning authority’s decision, then they have to make a choice:

Go to appeal OR go to the High Court. They can’t do both.

I can hear the screams now. Calm down lads and lasses. You’re not all going to be out of work. 

Take this case. A bungalow in the Guildford Green Belt applied for an extension and the council refused it. Off to appeal and the Inspector granted it. Off to the High Court and the judge quashed the appeal.

This takes time…a lot of it – with officers, consultants, solicitors, barristers, and money…an awful lot of it.

Surplus inspectors could be redeployed to work in councils to provide much needed extra resources to planning teams. Chief planners are constantly moaning about the lack of quality applicants. 

But how about m’learned friends, as they would be overrun by people bypassing the appeal system. Sorry for being slightly cynical about this, but I’ve never heard of an instructing solicitor turn down work. Don’t worry, they’ll cope. 

The effect of this would be to do what everyone wants to do: speed up the planning system.

But this is unprecedented. Not at all. It happens all the time in large companies when they want to fire people, sorry, downsize. The fastest and most effective way to do it is to strip out a layer of management.

So, if you have directors, associate directors, general managers, senior managers, and junior managers, you get rid, say, of the general managers and then have reduced costs and better and speedier decision-making.

This is radical thinking. But radical thinking is what’s needed and even if the concept is not utilised, then at least it will get people thinking. It can’t go on like this.

Now I’ll go back to bed and try and get some sleep. 

Have a good weekend.

Tom