These are Department of Planning Director Trevor Leach's responses to our questions about Ombudsman Arlene Brock's annual report for 2007:

Q: Does the Department of Planning think the Ombudsman's criticisms about a lack of transparency are fair? If not, why not? And if so, does it intend to do anything to improve transparency?

A: Any criticism of lack of transparency should be focused and it is difficult to respond to such generalisation. The department provides a wide range of services and is certainly not averse to accepting any meaningful and reasonable suggestion that improves our relationship with and service to the public.

Planning and building files are readily available for public scrutiny. Indeed, in the case of planning files, the relevant planning regulations prescribed the information that forms part of the public record.

Q: Does the department accept Ms Brock's conclusion that it has shown a "consistent reluctance to seek reasonable resolutions that serve the public"? If not, why not? And if so, does it intend to do anything to change this?

A: The Department of Planning often has a very difficult job striking a balance between the desires of an applicant and the laws and regulations of development as described in the Bermuda Plan.

It is also often the case that a very small number of contentious planning cases are highlighted in the media. This would give the impression that in most applications the applicant feels the department is reluctant to seek reasonable resolutions that serve the public. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I think it is important to give some context to the level of dissatisfaction with the department. In 2007, the Ombudsman received 13 complaints relating to the Department of Planning. Of these, two complaints were dismissed without being investigated. In two cases there was found to be no maladministration on the part of the Planning Department and eight cases remain outstanding. The Ombudsman's report indicates that only four complaints involved some degree of maladministration. However, in 2007 the department received 1,047 applications comprising 939 development planning and 108 subdivision applications respectively and the Development Applications Board made decisions on 1,038 applications.

In addition, 1,134 building permit applications were received and the same number processed; 8,740 site inspections were done and 189 elevator inspections completed. 499 completion certificates were also issued. A further 212 enforcement property searches were also completed.

So for there to be only a handful of legitimate complaints after thousands of applications, inspections and permits and certificates issued, it could be argued that the department is doing a good job in serving the public.

To my knowledge the department has never declined to accept any reasonable recommendation to bring to a matter to resolution; to do otherwise, would be counterproductive. When necessary the department has been diligent in seeking the appropriate advice prior to implementing any recommendation.

Q: Does the department agree that its "default reaction" to the Ombudsman's inquiries was to deny mistakes, justify or, in one instance, unfairly blame junior staff? If not, why not? And if so, does it intend to change?

A: I am unaware of the case in which blame would have been apportioned to a junior officer. Indeed, all the cases that have come to attention since assuming the position of director have been acknowledged, the necessary information provided and where practicable and permissible, the department has accepted the recommendations. In those cases, any errors made were acknowledged without identifying or attributing blame to any particular officer. Ultimately, the director is accountable.

Q: How come Ms Brock found that her inquiries to the department were going unanswered (the same way, she claims, that the public's did)? If not, how could she claim that? If so, are changes being made so people's telephone calls, letters and communications from lawyers are not going unanswered?

A: The Office of the Ombudsman has been provided with the information in respect of all queries. There have been occasions when the department has not been in a position to provide responses within the time frames stipulated and appropriate extensions were sought. However, such occasions have been the exception.

Regrettably, our current staff resources do not necessarily allow for the timely response to all telephone calls, e-mail and letters.

Q: In all the above cases, if changes have already been made, please indicate.

A: Changes are always being examined within the department in an effort to constantly improve our service to the public. However, one of our major challenges has been in staffing.

Q: Criticisms have also been made consistently over recent months about the increasing length of time to turn around planning applications. Why is this? Staffing shortages have been blamed previously. Is anything being done to put that right? And is anything being done to better keep people informed about decisions?

A: There are a number of reasons why applications are sometimes delayed in the planning process. A problem that is experienced by the Department of Planning and several other Government departments is that often applications are incorrectly filed; required information is not submitted or inaccurate information has been given. There is a high incidence of incomplete and improperly filed applications that have contributed to inefficiency in the system.

However, effective February 4, 2008, the department introduced a vetting system for planning and building applications. The vetting system involves the thorough scrutiny of applications before they are accepted into the system. Applications that do not meet the basic requirements are now being returned to the agent/applicant.

All relevant information, including the application checklists have been posted on our website www.planning.gov.bm.

There are several vacancies in the department, which include the Assistant Director, Administration and Control and the Planner positions. However, we are working assiduously to fill all vacant posts. In addition, I have met with all the agents who submit applications to the department and appraised them of our staffing issues and keep them informed of developments on a timely basis.

Additional comment: The department recognises its importance as a monopoly public service provider and will strive to provide the best service possible. We are sensitive to the public criticisms and will be taking necessary steps to improve the delivery of our services. Short and medium term measures are underway to alleviate staff shortages and over the long-term there is commitment to a wider institutional review.

Asked for a reaction last night, Ms Brock focused on the response to the "default reaction" question, and pointed out that the instance of blame placed on a junior officer was before Mr. Leach's arrival.

She added: "Despite voluminous legal and other information given to the department explaining what the Ombudsman may recommend and what the department may implement under ss. 15 and 16 of the Ombudsman Act, the department maintains a view that the only 'permissible' remedies are those specifically prescribed in the planning and building statutes.

"We will invite the department to attend the 'Remedies' session of the upcoming Caribbean Ombudsman Association conference to learn more about this issue."