Planning Bill

On Clause 190, I have not seen the Minister’s letter and I should be grateful for a copy. I indicated my intention to oppose Clause 190 only towards the end of last week and that may be why I have not received it. It was an oversight that that was not done earlier. I may be persuaded, but there is a point of principle here about a right to be heard and a right to go face-to-face with the inspector who will make the decision. The noble Baroness will know that one suggestion for dealing with the unreasonable use of the right of oral representation would be to make use of the costs order. I have had a look at the criteria proposed by the Government for the three types of response to an appeal set out in the consultation document. As regards written representations being those which can reasonably be argued and understood by all parties, what is reasonable to a third party is often not so to the applicant or objector. We are talking about the applicant. I am not using this as a basis for arguing about the rights of appeal for objectors. Things look very different when you are the applicant. On when hearings will be suitable, the criteria suggest when the applicant or, in the case of enforcement, the appellant does not consider it necessary to be legally represented. I would say, ““and does not intend”” to be legally represented. These are fine points. The point of principle is a right to be heard, as well as a right for the local planning authority to call for an oral hearing. There is a wider public interest aspect to this. On his other amendment in this group, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to local planning authorities not taking decisions in order to avoid politically difficult situations locally. But when something is politically controversial, local people will want an assurance about thoroughness and effective investigation, and the opportunity to make their own position plain. I may be persuaded when I have heard the Minister’s arguments, but I am distinctly worried by Clause 190.