Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Inspecting the inspectors

This entry analyses the inspectors that have been appointed to examine nationally significant infrastructure project applications.

I don't mean psychoanalyse, I just mean analyse statistically, although I'm sure inspectors' minds would be an interesting topic. Perhaps they'll all turn out to be virgos or something. Rather, it is the three most recent inspector appointments that have piqued my interest in this area.

On 17 March, a single inspector was appointed to examine the Whitemoss landfill project in Lancashire, despite it having received 3,297 representations, the second highest number. Secondly, a single inspector was appointed to examine the Norwich Northern Distributor Road project, despite her already being the single inspector examining the Knottingley power station project, and thirdly, the Swansea tidal lagoon has had a panel of the maximum five inspectors appointed, despite 'only' having 256 representations.

Of course it's not just a numbers game - the complexity of the application may well have, and ought to have, more sway than the number of objections it received. Nevertheless, the representations are some indication of the work that an inspector will have to do.

What are the stats? I've always got a few of those up my sleeve, perhaps it's something to do with my name. There have been 86 appointments of inspectors for 43 applications so far, involving 41 different individuals, 13 women and 28 men. Fourteen inspectors have been appointed once, 13 twice, ten three times, and four - Gideon Amos, Elizabeth Hill, Emrys Parry and Glyn Roberts - four times.

25 projects have had a single inspector appointed, 14 have had three inspectors, just one has had four inspectors - the East Anglia Offshore wind farm - and three have now had five appointed, the Swansea Tidal Lagoon, the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station and the Thames Tideway Tunnel. Those are the only numbers that are allowed, although the forthcoming Infrastructure Bill is expected to start allowing two inspectors to be appointed.

Of the five applications to have inspectors appointed but which were either refused in the end or withdrawn before the end, all of them had panels of three inspectors. I'm not quite sure what that means, but it probably signifies something. Perhaps the single inspector projects are too small to go wrong and the five inspector ones are too big to fail.

Overlaps

What about overlaps? I've done a rough and ready calculation, where I deem an inspector to be 'active' from the date of the Rule 6 letter inviting people to the preliminary meeting and the date that the recommendation is issued to the Secretary of State. Actually they are active a bit longer than that, because their dates of appointment are a few weeks before the rule 6 letter is issued (they write it, after all) and are given in the rule 6 letter, but I haven't been recording those dates as we go along and can't be bothered, I mean don't currently have the resources, to do it now.

By these calculations, 11 inspectors have been active on two applications at the same time. I find this a little odd. I don't think it saves costs to re-appoint the same people in this way, unless inspector training is very expensive. I wouldn't have thought there would be a shortage of people available, but I suppose there may be some oddballs who don't want to get immersed in the Planning Act 2008 for some strange reason.

I accept that it is of course in most cases not a full-time job to examine an application, but it will partly mean that examination timetables are dictated by inspector availability rather than what is best for the applications under consideration. Inspectors will no doubt be working on non-NSIP work at the same time in any event. What is a little annoying is that the 'clarified' fees regulations mean that the daily rate for examination fees will be charged twice for the same person on the overlap days.

So there you have it. I would rather that inspectors were not active on more than one application at the same time, and indeed they usually aren't, and I hope that this is not an increasing trend.