My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and other noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion on this amendment. It is accepted practice that all parties to an appeal should normally meet their own costs, but cost awards may be made by the planning inspectorate if a party behaves unreasonably. There are no special circumstances that apply to onshore wind farm appeals compared with appeals against other forms of development, nor is it clear why there should be. This proposal to require appellants to pay all parties’ costs for onshore wind farm appeals will treat wind farms differently from any other types of development. It would create pressure to extend the provision to other types of development. What will it achieve? Is it meant to encourage more proposals for wind farms to be refused, irrespective of their merits? Local planning authorities will already consider whether a proposed wind farm is acceptable in terms of their development plan and other considerations. These can include national planning policy and relevant planning issues raised by local communities.
I appreciate that wind farms can be controversial, but that in itself is not a reason to refuse them. Wind farm developers, like local communities, should expect a level playing field. Local planning authorities should be confident in refusing development that is clearly contrary to an up-to-date development plan, and defending their decision at appeal. It is our intention that local plans will become more prominent in decision making, and there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development at the heart of the planning system.
I have just been handed a note that the Minister is to revise the costs awards circular—circular 03/09—to make sure that it is clear that where a local planning authority refuses a development proposal on the grounds that it is contrary to an up-to-date development plan and there is no issue of conflict with national planning policy, there should be no grounds for an award of costs against the local planning authority.
I trust that with these remarks the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Localism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Shutt of Greetland
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 20 July 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Localism Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
729 c1429 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 17:38:35 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_764563
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_764563
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_764563