Localism Bill

My Lords, the present appeal system is unbalanced. Developers have an untrammelled right of appeal against the refusal of any planning application by a local planning authority. The appeal goes to a planning inspector—usually at a public inquiry—who hears the case as if for the first time. He can reverse the local planning authority’s decision on whatever grounds he chooses. Local communities, on the other hand, have no right of appeal. Once a planning permission is given by the local planning authority, that is the end of the story. Prior to the general election, that was a situation that both the parties now in government recognised was unfair and promised to redress. Open Source Planning, which set out Conservative planning policy, promised to make the system symmetrical both by allowing appeals against local planning decisions from local residents—the broad purpose of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter—and by limiting the grounds on which developers could appeal to, first, where the correct procedure had not been followed, whereby cases were to be dealt with by the Local Government Ombudsman, and, secondly, where the decision contravened the local plan. I believe that Liberal Democrat policies were similar. Both those policies would have advanced the principle of localism; both have now been abandoned by the Government. The arguments they use are incoherent. In opposing the third-party right of appeal, the Minister said that he wanted fewer appeals to the Planning Inspectorate and more decided locally. In that case, why not limit the developer’s right of appeal? Planning policy has been captured by the Treasury, which seems to believe that any balance in planning policy threatens economic growth, and the Treasury is no doubt being cheered on by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, desperate to carpet the country with its useless wind farms. I wholeheartedly support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Parminter, which seeks to reintroduce a community right of appeal. Such a right of appeal must clearly be circumscribed in some way and, as she explained, the amendment limits those entitled to appeal to local ward councillors and local parish councils. However, there is one condition that my noble friend has introduced which I question, and I have tabled Amendment 170CCA to remove it—namely, that an appeal can go forward only if the planning officer recommends refusal. In other words, only in cases where the local authority had granted a planning application against the recommendation of the planning officer would the community right of appeal come into play. For the community, everything would hinge on what the planning officer recommended. If the planning officer recommended acceptance, and the local authority endorsed that recommendation, then the community would have no right of appeal. That seems to me to give too much power to the planning officer. I do not see why it is the unelected planning officer who will in effect be able to decide whether there is any right of appeal against the decision of the local planning authority. If my amendment, and that of my noble friend to which mine is an amendment, were adopted, the effect would be that, whatever the recommendation of the planning officer, the community would have a right of appeal against decisions of the local planning authority. That seems to me to be more democratic. Amendment 170CF, the other amendment in my name, seeks to deal with the developers’ right of appeal. That was suggested to me by the CPRE. I do not feel committed to it in its present form; indeed, I can see that there are reasons why it might be preferable to have a simpler amendment that would require any appeal to be confined to where the original decision by the local planning authority had contravened the local plan. If the refusal of the local planning authority were in conformity with the local plan, the developer would have no right of appeal. That would put Conservative and perhaps also Liberal Democrat policy back to where it was before the election. It would also chime with what Ministers keep saying about their wish to make the local plan sovereign, as my noble friend has pointed out. Would the Minister be tempted by such an amendment? On the other hand, if the Government were to persist in their refusal to allow a community right of appeal, and at the same time do nothing whatever to limit the current right of appeal of the developer, so allowing the present unlevel playing field to be maintained, they would have revealed their words about wishing to ensure that fewer decisions go to public inquiry to be much empty waffle. The intentions that they express to give primacy to local concerns would be exposed as insincere, sacrificed to the Treasury's false belief that this is the way to get economic growth going and to the lunacy of the Government’s climate change fanatics.