Independent Planning Appeals Tribunal: Establishment

STATES OF JERSEY

INDEPENDENT PLANNING APPEALS TRIBUNAL: ESTABLISHMENT

Lodged au Greffe on 12th February 2013 by Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade

STATES GREFFE

2013   Price code: C  P.26

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

1. to agree that an Independent Planning Appeals Tribunal should be established  with  full  jurisdiction  to determine  appeals  against decisions of the Minister for Planning and Environment made under the  Planning  and  Building  (Jersey)  Law  2002  entirely  on  their planning merits, with the exception of deciding points of law arising from  such  appeals,  with  the  new  Tribunal  to replace  the  present provisions in the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 which require all appeals to be decided by the Royal Court;
2. to request the Minister for Planning and Environment to bring forward for approval by the States detailed proposals for the establishment of the new Tribunal by the end of June 2013 and to further request the Minister, if the proposals are adopted, to bring forward for approval the necessary amendments to legislation to give effect to the proposals by  the  end  of  2013  with  a  view  to enabling  the  Tribunal  to be operational by June 2014 at the latest;
3. to request  the  Minister  for  Treasury  and  Resources  to assess  the relevant budgets of the Planning and Environment and Law Officers Departments, and those of the Bailiff 's Chambers and the Judicial Greffe,  in  relation  to the  existing  resources  allocated  to these departments to deal with planning appeals with a view to reallocating these existing resources to the operation of the Independent Planning Appeals Tribunal in 2014, with the Tribunal then being accountable to the Chief Minister for public finance and manpower purposes.

DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE

REPORT

Introduction

1. Jersey is the only jurisdiction in the British Isles not to have a planning appeal system  which  is accessible  to ordinary  people  at  low  cost,  which  judges appeals on their planning merits, and where decisions are made by people with relevant specialist experience.
2. Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England and Wales all have such a facility. The Republic of Ireland and New Zealand also have dedicated appeal arrangements.
3. In  Jersey  our  Minister  for  Planning  and  Environment  announced,  on 6th December 2011, that he would introduce a fairer planning appeals system. The Minister  promised  to consult  on  a  new  merit-based  planning  appeal system that is less expensive for appellants than the current Royal Court-based system. This, he told us, was to ensure greater equity in the planning system and offer greater independent challenge on planning decisions. The Minister has since made many public statements declaring his intention to publish a White Paper, but publication is overdue.
4. The timescale  of  the  required  law  changes  in Jersey,  and  Guernsey's successful experience in setting up a Planning Appeals Panel accountable to their Chief Minister, suggests this is likely to take us until June 2014 to set up. The purpose  of  my  proposition,  which  I  would  expect  the  Minister  for Planning  and  Environment  to support,  is  to seek  States  approval  to the establishment of such a tribunal in Jersey and impose targets for the Minister for Planning and Environment and the Minister for Treasury and Resources to achieve, thus ensuring that during the life of this States, we achieve this important and very long overdue reform in the interests of ensuring natural justice in planning matters.
5. This is not the first time the States have considered, or given its approval to, the principle of setting up an independent Planning Appeals Tribunal, even if the States have never got as far as establishing the tribunal, as the following brief history shows.

Appeals provision in the Planning Law

6. The Island  Planning  (Jersey)  Law  1964,  which  was  repealed  in 2006, historically  provided  a  right  of  appeal  to the  Royal  Court  for  applicants refused  Planning  consent.  The  statutory  basis  for  appeal  being  that  the decision was unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case. This system has operated in Jersey for nearly 50 years.
7. As part of a major review of the Planning Law in the early 2000s, the appeal arrangements, which had been subject to public criticism, came under detailed review  by  the  Planning  and  Environment  Committee  of  the  day.  The Committee researched planning appeal arrangements elsewhere. Their review identified that Jersey's planning appeal provisions needed to be made more accessible to appellants and to enable the merits or otherwise of each appeal case to be judged on these full merits alone.

8. During the preparation of the drafting instructions for the new Planning and Building  (Jersey)  Law,  very  extensive  public  consultation,  including  the adequacy of the Royal Court appeal system, was undertaken. The drafting instructions  and  draft  Law  were  both  subject  to public  review.  With  the possible exception of some lawyers, there was almost universal support for the principle of setting up an independent tribunal system to replace the Royal Court, with the new tribunal deciding appeals based on their planning merits. The draft Law approved by the States during 2001 included such appeals provision being carried out by a new body to be established, entitled the "Planning and Building Appeals Commission".
9. The political debate on the draft Law included the benefits of extending these improved appeal arrangements to third-party objectors to applications to allow them to appeal against approvals on neighbouring properties as is done in Ireland and the Isle of Man. An amendment to the draft Law was adopted from former Deputy C. Scott - Warr en, affording limited appeal rights to third- party objectors having an interest in land within 50 metres of the application boundary.  In  2001,  the  Planning  and  Building  (Jersey)  Law  200-  was approved by the States to replace the previous Law, subject to an Appointed Day Act to be approved by the States.
10. Before the Appointed Day Act was enacted by the States, uncertainties over the expected cost of the Planning and Building Appeals Commission led to a political debate when the appeal arrangements were revisited. This led to 4 years' delay in introducing the new Planning Law, which was not done until further  amendments  to the  Law  were  approved  by  the  States.  It  was successfully argued by the proponents of the amendments that the Planning and Building Appeals Commission would become an "expensive planner's court" and that the Royal Court Jurats were more than able to carry out this task with no additional expense.
11. The Planning  and  Building  Appeals  Commission  with  full  jurisdiction  to decide appeals based on their full planning merits never happened. The Royal Court and 1964 grounds for appeal on the grounds of unreasonability were substituted in the new Planning and Building Law. This allowed the new Law to come into force in July 2006, initially with first-party appeals only and in 2007 for third-party appeals.
12. At  the  same  time  it was  recognised  that  the  Royal  Court  appeal  process needed to be adapted to make it more accessible to appellants. A modified procedure for planning appeals was enacted as part of modification to the Royal Court Rules and a new Practice Direction was introduced by the Royal Court. This provided protection to planning appellants against costs being awarded against them in such cases, and a truncated court procedure was adopted.

Problems with the Royal Court Appeals system

13. We have had 6 years' experience of the Royal Court appeal provisions as enacted in the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002. The statistics show the following –

Of  the  97 appeals  lodged,  55 cases  did  not  go  to  court;  appellants  either withdrew their appeal, or did not have their appeal decided by the Court. Of those appeals which did proceed, a small proportion was successful. These figures are cause for concern and question the adequacy of the Royal Court appeal system for the following reasons –

1. The proportion  of  planning  applications  being  appealed  is extraordinarily  low.  For  comparison,  Guernsey  handles  a  similar number of planning applications. Its published performance statistics show 1,514 applications for the third quarter 2012–13, compared to 1,630  in Jersey  for the last reported  year (2010). Yet  Guernsey's Independent Appeals Panel reported statistics which show between 4 and  5 times  the  number  of  appeals  in Jersey.  This  could  suggest greater consistency of planning decisions in Jersey and hence a much greater level of satisfaction with Jersey's planning system. Personally I doubt it. The reason is the greater accessibility of the appeal system in Guernsey.

The Isle of Man has an independent appeal system including third- party appeals. In their independent review of their planning system of 2008, I&DEA reported that 11% of their decisions are appealed, 3% of decisions are appealed in Guernsey, 8% in Ireland. In Jersey our rate of appeal is only 0.6%.

2. The statistics  also  show  a  very  low  rate  of  successful  appeals  in Jersey, In Guernsey 23% planning appeals are successful, in the Isle of Man 50% and in the U.K. 35%. In Ireland 47% of decisions are varied and 30% are reversed. Only 12% of appeals are successful in Jersey. This suggests our legal ground for appeal of unreasonability compared with "on its merits" is far too restrictive and too high a bar.
3. These statistics are symptomatic of underlying problems inherent in the Royal Court system, which I have considered further based on my personal experience in helping several appellants prepare documents for appeal, albeit unsuccessfully.

Problems reported by third-party appellants

14. The changes  made  to  the  Royal  Court  Rules  and  Practice  Directions introduced  at  the  time  of  the  new  Law  in 2006  have  been  only  partly successful in simplifying procedures for planning appellants.
15. The Royal  Court  Rules  impose  very  lengthy  and complex  procedures requiring  the  preparation  of  extensive  legal  documents.  This  requires  the preparation  of  a  notice  of  appeal,  a  sworn  affidavit  in response  to the Minister's own affidavit, a reply to any additional affidavits lodged by the Minister and first parties who join such appeals, a written submission of the case proposed  to be argued  at  the  hearing  identifying  the  points at issue between  the  parties  and  responses  to requests  from  the  court  for  further particulars after a hearing.
16. The modified appeal procedure allows insufficient hearing time to refer to all these  documents.  This  prevents  important  matters  from  being  adequately considered,  as  experience  shows  they  are  usually  not  referred  to in the hearings. Most of the prepared material seems to provide background reading for the court. There are quite short time-limits for the preparation and service of these documents and they do require some expertise in drafting. It is not necessary to be legally qualified to do so, but some experience does help. This leads most applicants to incur considerable expense in obtaining professional help.
17. Experience  has  shown  that  the  costs  of  preparing  the  required  appeal documents by a law firm are prohibitive for third parties. I have heard of figures being quoted of cost from £10,000 to £20,000 to prepare documents, and  from  £30,000  to £50,000.  This  very  high  cost  was  quoted  at  the Construction  Industry  Council  seminar  last  year, which  I  attended,  where there  was  overwhelming  support  for  the  establishment  of  an  Independent Planning Tribunal. Most applicants cannot afford such sums. Therefore they have no choice if they decide to appeal, but to attempt a DIY job as a litigant in person, and they may also seek help in drafting from volunteers who have experienced this process but who are not permitted to assist them in court.

18. Qualified architects and surveyors who are permitted by the court to represent appellants  may  be  less  expensive  than  lawyers,  but  those  in professional practice are likely to be inhibited in their presentation of appeals. This is because of the risk of not wanting to upset the Minister and Planning Officers on whom their professional practice depends receiving a fair hearing on their future applications. The Royal Court Rules also restrict the persons who can represent  appellants  to lawyers  and  persons  with  appropriate  professional qualifications. They do not permit a friend of the appellant or an elected member from representing their constituents.
19. It  is recognized  that  not  all  Jersey  lawyers  in  practice  have  specialist knowledge and experience of planning law and practice, and I have heard reports of clients incurring large costs which have turned out to be largely unnecessary.
20. The Royal Court has case law available on the interpretation of the legal grounds for appeal, unreasonability. In my view and in the view of others more qualified than I, Royal Court judgments in planning appeals frequently show inconsistent and contrary interpretations of planning policy compared with other judgments in similar circumstances. I can only conclude that this reflects the differing views of presiding judges. The Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 sets the appeal test as being "unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case". This is an unnecessarily high bar. It should be sufficient only that the decision was wrong to succeed in an appeal.
21. These judgments are technically open to review by the Court of Appeal. This is only likely in the case of a developer challenging a successful third-party judgment. The Attorney General has informed the Assembly that the modified court procedure for planning appeals does not apply. No matter how much a third party appellant felt aggrieved by a Royal Court judgment against them which they considered to be unjust, they would face the risk of financial ruin if they challenged it.
22. Despite these shortcomings, the Royal Court seems at their best in identifying administrative failures or breaches of fair Planning process. However, much of  the  Court's  judgment  seems  to boil  down  to judging  opinion  on  the interpretation of  planning  policies.  Experience has  shown that,  in  hearing appeals,  too  much  weight  is  given  to the  Planning  Officer's  subjective opinion. It is the only expert opinion available to the Minister, and although it may be challenged by third parties, itis untested by peers or professionals at the time of the original planning decision.
23. In Royal Court appeal proceedings, the Planning Officer's opinion is therefore usually permitted to override the opinions of others who are equally well qualified  outside  the  Planning  Department.  This  is because  appeal considerations are limited to information presented by Planning Officers at the time to the Minister. This prevents evidence being considered in support of the appellant and does not allow professional witnesses to challenge planning evidence on technical grounds, e.g. design reviews. In reality, the Minister never appears at hearings, it is the Planning Officer's opinion as documented in affidavits, which counts. Planning Officers are not required to appear in person,  and  their  evidence  is not  even  subject  to  challenge  by  cross- examination. The limited duration of the court hearings prevents this.

24. Planning  appeals  are  usually  heard  by  a  judge  and  2 Jurats.  Jurats  are generalist and are unlikely to have up-to-date and detailed knowledge of the Island Plan policies or the procedures of the Planning Department; neither are they property specialists, nor do they usually have a property professional background, e.g. architects, surveyors, etc.
25. The presentation of a Royal Court case even under the modified procedure in a  courtroom  is intimidating  for  appellants.  My  experience  has  been  that appellants are highly stressed by the formality of court processes, and this seriously affects the presentation of their case. I believe this deters many people from exercising their appeal rights.
26. The court's consideration of points arising from technical drawings is difficult to follow, and from my observation at hearings one wonders how the court could form an accurate opinion of such matters. The application drawings are not  on  open  display  in the  courtroom,  nor  are  modern  audio-visual  aids available to look at drawings or to enable either party to refer to them to explain points.
27. Planning Officers are bound to be strongly influenced by developers and their agents with whom they regularly work and have well-established working relationships.  Well-resourced  developers  do  not  face  the  inequality  of resources which third-party appellants face. Such first-party appellants may launch  complex  appeals  against  the  Minister's  decision  which  are  not considered under the modified procedure for planning appeals. This may be because points of law are at issue or the case is complex. The possible risk of a share of costs being awarded against the third party in the event of the Minister losing such an appeal effectively prevents third parties from applying to join the appeal.
28. There has been a recent case where changes have been made to the application which was previously the subject of the judgment in favour of a third party appellant, and the development has now been approved. In another case, the process  failures  which  were  previously  cited  by  the  court  as  reason  for judgment in favour of a third party is subject to token compliance and later approved. This illustrates the artificiality of unreasonability as a basis for appeal, bringing the appeal process into disrepute. If the judgment was solely on the planning merits, such aberrations could not happen.
29. First-party applicants are treated more favourably than third parties, as they have  2 bites  of  the  appeal  cherry.  The Planning  Department  provides  an informal appeal process to applicants whose applications are refused. This provides a full planning merits appeal to the Planning Applications Panel meeting. This may go some way to explain the low numbers of first-party appeals. However, no such process is afforded to third parties wishing to appeal against an approval given to a neighbour. They only have the statutory appeal open to them.
30. There are long delays in the court processes, and judgments take too long to deliver.

Problems for first-party appellants in the current system

31. The problems also affect first parties appealing against refusals, particularly modest applications.
32. In the event of a third-party appeal, first-party applicants have their consents frozen until the appeal is decided, and suffer very substantial delays created by the complexity and over-formality of the current appeal process. Experience has shown it usually takes many months for the Royal Court to conclude a third-party appeal.

Other problems of the current system

33. Other problems of the current system affecting the Court include –

1. There is insufficient court time to deal adequately with each case.
2. A backlog of cases arises.
3. The court  are  frequently  having  to assist  litigants  who  are unrepresented and not used to legal and court procedures.
4. The nature of the cases is essentially administrative and does not really fit in the type of work to which the court is well suited.
5. The costs  of  court  administration  are  high,  and  priority  for  the valuable court resources should go to criminal matters and significant civil disputes.

Effects of the current appeals system on the Planning Department

34. It is submitted that resources would be better applied seeking consistent timely planning decisions and quality outcomes. Such improvements require a wider review  of  the  Planning  Department,  but  it  should  be  recognized  that  the presence  of  a  Royal  Court  appeal  regime  has  a  significant  effect  on  the Department. I believe the appeals process has encouraged a tendency towards compliance,  tick-box  process-bound  regime  in the  Planning  Department, where  the  process  being  followed  may  become  more  important  than  the outcome of the application.

Resources and cost

35. The Planning Department has 2 full-time qualified Planning Officers handling appeals. I have been advised that the annual cost of appeals to this Department is approximately £231,133, comprising staff costs of £166,647, overheads of £37,889, and an average annual cost of compensation payments £26,381. The States MTFP also included provision in 2011 for costs awarded against the department of £180,000.

36. I have been advised by the Law Officers' Department that their time-recording system was replaced in September, and therefore comprehensive case costs on planning appeals are not yet available. Two members of the Law Officers' Department staff appear for the Minister in planning appeals. The Department estimates this takes up 10% of H.M. Solicitor General's time, and 25% of the time of a solicitor. On this basis, direct staff costs, including £8,072 staff overheads, total £46,514, non-staff overheads, including support staff, amount to £11,708. Total costs are £58,222.
37. The Bailiff 's Chambers have advised me that in 2012 the direct costs of a Commissioner  sitting  on  6 planning  appeals  were  £9,510,  including  case preparation and judgment. In 2011 this cost was £6.340 for 4 appeals; and in 2010 it was £7,140 for 5 appeals. These figures do not include the direct costs associated with the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff , who sat in 6 appeals in 2012, but I am advised their costs cannot be attributable to planning appeals as they are employed full-time and would be dealing with other court matters in any event.
38. The Judicial Greffe has provided comprehensive information on direct and indirect staff costs. The staff members involved with planning appeals are: the Master  of  the  Royal  Court,  who  decides  the  mode  of  appeal  and  may determine an appeal on the papers; the Deputy Judicial Greffier and Assistant Judicial Greffier, who provide procedural advice to unrepresented appellants; the Greffier Substitute, who attends and records the court decisions; and the Master's secretary, who provides clerical support. The estimated staff cost is £17,439 or 0.95% of the total staff costs of the Department. The proportion of overhead costs is £4,884. Total costs are £22,193 per annum.
39. The combined annual cost for dealing with the present number of planning appeals  advised  by  all  4 departments  totals  £321,058  per  annum.  The information  provided  also  indicates  that  if the  number  of  appeals  were significantly increased under our current system from the present 11 appeals in 2012, there would be a commensurate substantial increase in this annual cost.
40. This annual cost compares unfavourably with the published annual cost of Guernsey's Planning Appeal Panel, which amounts to less than £100,000 per annum in dealing with a very much greater number of appeals (Source Annual report 2011).

Guernsey Appeals Panel's Expenditure and Income 2009–2011

2009  2010  2011

£  £  £

Interview costs, on-Island training and JSB Course  26,410

Recruitment of new Professional Members, including advertising and interview costs

General administration and stationery

Payments to Panel Members – including monthly retainers, attendance fees for preparing for and sitting on appeal hearings and drafting and reviewing Decision Notices

Travel and accommodation costs for Panel members Operational costs (room hire for appeal hearings, etc.) Staff salaries

Total Expenditure

Income from Fees

8,352

960  1,410  1,038 16,700  48,070  50,867

210  1,870  1,618 870  4,050  3,503 12,550  31,150  32,232 57,650  86,350  97,610 --  --  9,651

The proposed Independent Appeals Tribunal

41. In this report I have made the detailed case for the replacement of the existing planning appeals system. I have not recommended the detailed structure, but set  out  some  principles  upon  which  the  Independent  Planning  Appeals Tribunal  should  be  based.  I  consider  that  this  task  is more  appropriately carried out by the Minister for Planning and Environment, using the resources of  his  Department,  who  so  far  have  had  14 months  to study  the  detailed options. If my proposition is adopted, the Minister would have ample time to complete this work.
42. I propose the Minister should be required to bring forward for the States' approval  details  of  the  best  structure  to establish  an  Independent  Appeal Tribunal for planning appeals for Jersey.
43. I propose that the Minister's proposals for the Planning Appeals Tribunal should be based on the following principles, which are expanded upon in this report.

1. It should provide appeals for both first and third parties.
2. It should have full jurisdiction to make binding planning decisions.

3. It  should  be  independent  of  the  Minister  for  Planning  and Environment,  but  accountable  to the  Chief  Minister  for  resources only.
4. It  should  employ  tribunal  members  on  a  part-time  basis,  ideally including a legally qualified chairman, with a mix of appropriately qualified  and  experienced  persons  including  local  and  off-Island, together  with  local  lay  members,  appointed  by  the  States  on  the recommendation of the Chief Minister.
5. Appeals should be decided on their merits judged against the policies of the Island Plan.
6. It should operate using informal processes, following the practices of the administrative tribunals as followed by the Judicial Studies Board in the U.K.
7. Hearings should be open and transparent and publicly accessible by lay people, and not require lawyers or professionals by necessity.
8. Processes should be as simple as possible, consistent with ensuring natural justice for appellants.
9. Remuneration should not be excessive and should be commensurate with  ensuring  the  minimum  cost  necessary  to secure  quality personnel.
10. It should be supported by a part-time secretariat independent of the Minister.

44. I suggest we learn from the experience of Guernsey, which in 2009 set up its Planning Appeals Panel which is independent of government for first-party appeals  only  based  on  their  full  planning  merits.  Their  Panel  originally comprised local members, and has a part-time administrator on their Policy Council staff who shares work with other tribunals in Guernsey. Following recent retirements, they have appointed U.K. qualified planning inspectors to supplement their local members.
45. Full details of the Guernsey Panel are published on their website and may be accessed using the following links.

http://www.gov.gg/article/4345/Planning-Appeals http://www.gov.gg/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=80936&p=0

46. Guernsey  has  succeeded  in  recruiting  to its  Appeals  Panel  well-qualified citizens on modest financial arrangements. It is chaired by a Guernsey-based lawyer,  has  other  qualified  lawyer  members  and  planning/property professionals.
47. I should disclose that I was reserve member of that Panel and served for 2 years, stepping down early in 2011. My experience convinced me that this system provided access to justice in planning decisions at low cost.

48. The original 2001 proposal to establish a Planning and Building Appeals Commission in Jersey included the appointment of a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman and an Executive Officer, together with sessional Commissioners paid at judicial rates. The cost, at that time, was thought to be circa £400,000 per annum, which would increase substantially as a consequence of third-party appeals. This cost was considered by the States to be unacceptable.
49. The actual level of costs now being incurred under the Royal Court appeal system isin the region of £321,000, but dealt with only 11 appeals in 2012. This cost will increase significantly if the number of Royal Court appeals were to increase. Guernsey's Appeals Panel contained the combined cost of 3 years of operation for 2009–2011 to £242,000 per annum, handling 4 times the number of appeals that Jersey handled. In bringing forward new proposals, the  Minister  should  provide  greater  access  to planning  appeals  in Jersey, which until the consistency of our planning decisions is improved, will result in an increase in the number of appeals, but contain this within the present annual cost of £321,000 annually.
50. The independent  appeals  panel  proposed  should  ideally  be  made  up  of qualified  professionals  and  local  lay  persons  with  a  planning/property background, served by a part-time secretary who could be shared with other tribunals. There is a strong case for the chairman being a qualified lawyer.
51. Members of the tribunal should receive the training which is provided in the U.K. by the Judicial Studies Board.
52. I believe there will be local people with the right experience who will come forward to serve on a Planning Appeals Tribunal. Unfortunately, a judicial rate of pay would work against the benefits of providing the public with an administrative  review  tribunal.  Because  of  the  importance  of  planning decisions to our community and the strength of feeling in support of the proposed tribunal, I believe there are altruistic and knowledgeable public- spirited citizens in Jersey who would be prepared to undertake this work at a lower, more sustainable, rate of remuneration.
53. The tribunal should provide an informal hearing with points of law being dealt with by reference to the Royal Court, and tribunal decisions made on their planning merits would be final.
54. Planning appeals would be determined entirely on their merits and be judged on the facts of the application and all available evidence, against the Island Plan  policies.  Independent  judgments  by  suitably  qualified  professional persons on planning policies would receive equal weight to subjective opinion of Planning Officers.
55. Hearings would be held in a normal committee meeting room, there being no place for imposing the gravitas of a courtroom in planning appeals.
56. The appellant should be completely free to choose who they want to represent them  in planning  appeals,  and  restrictions  based  on  formal  qualifications should be removed.
57. There should be no power to award costs against any party.

58. Further information on planning appeal systems elsewhere can be accessed via the following web links. Ireland and the Isle of Man have third party appeals.

http://www.pleanala.ie/ http://www.gov.im/cso/appeals/?menuid=20431

England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all have variants of the U.K. Planning Inspectorate system for first-party appeals only; the following web links may be helpful.

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/appeals/planningappeals http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/planning/Appeals http://wales.gov.uk/consultations/planning/planningappeals/?lang=en http://www.pacni.gov.uk/index/making-appeals.htm

Financial and manpower implications

The  Independent  Planning  Appeals  Tribunal  would  take  over  the  work  presently carried out by the Planning Department, the Law Officers' Department, the Judicial Greffe and the Bailiff 's Chambers in respect of planning appeals. My proposal is that by 2014 the existing financial resources would be consolidated and redeployed to serve the Independent Planning Appeals Tribunal. I have requested details of present total annual costs from each department, which are detailed in paragraphs 35–39.

Costs per annum £

Planning Department  231,133 Law Officers' Department  58,222 Judicial Greffe  22,193 Bailiff 's Chambers  9,510 Total:  321,058

The total annual cost for the present number of appeals is estimated at approximately £321,000 per annum. Guernsey's Planning Appeals Panel handles 4 times the number of appeals as Jersey and has contained their cost to £100,000 per annum. It ought to be possible for the costs of an increased number of appeals in Jersey dealt with by a Planning  Tribunal, instead  of the  Royal  Court, to be  contained  within  the  States current budget.

I would expect tribunal members to be appointed on a sessional or retainer basis. The number of appeals is likely to increase to a maximum of 50 first-party and 50 third- party appeals annually until the consistency of planning decisions improves. I estimate that based on an average of 3 tribunal members for a one-day hearing plus half-day preparation  and  follow-up,  provision  for  about  450 person-days  will  be  required, which should be possible from within the present budget. The start-up costs including training required in early 2014 would be in the order of £30,000 – £40,000. Present administrative staff would likely be reallocated from existing roles.