Planning Bill

These are important issues and I am sorry if some noble Lords did not receive the famous letter. I shall make sure that they are sent it anyway, but now I shall speak for the record and thus tell noble Lords what was in it. The right to be heard raises serious issues and I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that the Bill provides for it. Essentially the clause requires the Secretary of State to determine the procedure by which appeals and calling cases under the Town and Country Planning Act, the Listed Buildings Act and the Hazardous Substances Act should be considered, while Schedule 10 sets out consequential amendments to those Acts. I shall set out the reasoning for this and make clear the safeguards that are in place, but first I shall give a bit of background, which I am sure noble Lords will appreciate. The existing appeals system is under severe strain and does not always serve as well as it might the purposes of those who choose to appeal. It can be disproportionate in the way it handles cases. At the moment, parties are allowed to select the procedure by which a case can proceed—written representations, a hearing or an inquiry—regardless of the suitability of the process to the complexity of the case. Under the present system, even the simplest cases such as appeals relating to dormer windows or boundary walls can proceed via a hearing or an inquiry when written representations would be just as appropriate and certainly speedier. I submit that they would also be much less stressful for all concerned. The use of disproportionately complex methods of appeal in cases that do not necessarily warrant them results in inefficiencies and delays, as well as a lack of credibility. It is important that we introduce more proportion and clarity into the appeals system so that the procedures reflect relative complexity without putting anyone at a disadvantage. Ensuring that all cases are dealt with using the most appropriate appeal method will lead to quicker decisions and will save everyone time, stress and money. In practice, this proposal would allow the Planning Inspectorate to use its delegated powers to determine on behalf of the Secretary of State the appropriate procedure for each case, whether it is a local inquiry, hearing or written representations. I shall now go through the safeguards that are built into the process to ensure that the right and acceptable procedure is selected for each case. Clause 190 would simply enable the Planning Inspectorate, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, to apply published criteria which Ministers have approved to determine the most appropriate procedure for appeals and calling cases. We are talking about transparency here. These criteria have already been consulted on in our consultation paper, Improving the Appeals Process in the Planning System: Making it Proportionate, Customer Focused, Efficient and Well Resourced. We will keep it under review, and further consultation obviously may be appropriate from time to time. These criteria are there for all to see and they will operate in a spirit of transparent fairness. The principal parties, being the applicant, the appellant or the local planning authority, will be invited to indicate in the early stages of a case the procedure that they believe is most appropriate, and why. Any representations made by the parties as to the procedure they think is most appropriate will be taken into account by the Planning Inspectorate when making a decision—the right to be heard is clearly in place. Only in cases where there is a disagreement between the parties as to what is best and the planning inspector’s procedure team as to what procedure should be used will a professionally qualified inspector at assistant director level be called on to make the final decision. The parties will be informed of the method that the inspectorate considers the most appropriate and why. With all their huge experience, I am sure that we can trust them not only to come to the right decision but to communicate that decision in a way that people accept as trustworthy and efficacious. In addition, I will be asking the Advisory Panel on Standards, which supports us across the planning system, for the Planning Inspectorate to look at any cases of complaint and report to me on how the system operates in practice. So we will be monitoring it through APOS. In tandem with this provision, we have already said that we will extend the costs regime, which currently applies to hearings and inquiries only, to the written representation procedure. This will ensure that, regardless of the procedure pursued, applicants and local planning authorities will have an opportunity to seek an award of costs in cases where unreasonable behaviour by another party has caused them unnecessary expense. I appreciate what the noble Lord said about having been persuaded by the process as set out in my letter. I believe genuinely that this does not deprive people of the right to be heard. It makes provision for proper choice and proper arbitration when there is a problem. Certainly people will have the right to be heard. Case law demonstrates that the right to be heard can be satisfied by the provision of evidence through written representations. Cases that do not need an oral hearing could be fairly and effectively handled by means of written representations with no loss of quality or equity in the process or the decision. Obviously the outcome will depend on how convincingly the inspector finds the planning merits, not the method of their presentation. In this way we will ensure that people in vulnerable groups are given a fair hearing and an opportunity to put forward their case. That may well mean that a hearing or inquiry is appropriate even where this would not normally be justified by the complexity of the case.