ANUMBER of amendments to the planning appeals system contained in the Planning Act 2008 have come into force.

Among the changes, which are aimed at increasing the efficiency of the planning appeals service, is the introduction of a power to make costs awards in all types of appeal, and for the Secretary of State to determine the appeal procedure.

It is no longer possible for an appellant to choose a particular appeal procedure i.e. written representations, hearing or public inquiry.

Instead, the Secretary of State (through the Planning Inspectorate) will make the decision as to which procedure is most appropriate to any particular appeal, having regard to indicative criteria published on the Planning Inspectorate’s website.

The decision must be made within seven days of receipt of a valid appeal.

The appellant will still get the opportunity to indicate their preference on the appeal form; the local authority will do likewise in its questionnaire.

However, the important point is that the appellant has effectively lost the right to insist upon a hearing or inquiry.

The Government has asked Apos (the Advisory Panel on Standards) to monitor the operation of this new regime and to investigate any complaint about Planning Inspectorate determinations of appeals procedures.

Information gathered as a result of this monitoring and investigation role will inform the Secretary of State’s annual review of how the power is being exercised and the criteria to be applied.

It remains to be seen how consistently the Planning Inspectorate applies the criteria in the case of hearings. However, we have recently had experience of our request for a hearing being refused on one appeal, yet accepted on another very similar appeal.

We remain in doubt as to the exact circumstances in which a hearing will be appropriate.

It is clear when the appeal should proceed by way of written representations. Equally, it is clear when an inquiry would be appropriate. But it is much less clear when hearings will be the most appropriate forum for an appeal.

According to the indicative criteria, a hearing is appropriate where questions need to be asked by the inspector i.e. it is necessary to test the evidence or to clarify issues by questioning, but there is no need for formal cross examination or for legal argument, and the hearing will not last more than one day.

It is difficult to envisage cases where the inspector will need to ask questions to probe the issues or evidence, but not require cross-examination.

Many cases which call for legal submission, or where there is a factual dispute, can be adequately dealt with in practice by an inspector on written representations.

Only time will tell how the new regime is operating in practice, but it may well be that the hearing is now an endangered species.

■ Barney Corrigan is the head of town and country planning at BHP Develop and can be contacted on 0191-221-0898.