New Clause 27 - Qualified third party right of appeal
Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill
9:10 am
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe, Labour)
I am afraid that I am in a rather hot and sticky state this morning, Mr. Hurst. It was not the prospect of the Committee's deliberations that got me excited, but the fact that I had to run here; I am not as fit as I thought I was.
I ask the Minister to take my comments as an opportunity for reflection. I am not threatening to side with what the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said about third-party rights of appeal, but I think that he made some interesting points that are worthy of an ongoing debate. Indeed, a debate has been taking place on such planning issues for some time.
We have two issues to grapple with. One is the democratic nature of the planning system, and where responsibility and accountability lies for taking decisions. The other is the need for an efficient and
quick planning system that will deliver the appropriate decision promptly to those who have made planning applications.
The objection to third-party rights of appeal against planning decisions has always been that it would slow down the system, making it unworkable, bureaucratic and cumbersome. It has therefore been resisted by Governments of all political persuasions. However, in some respects, it is worth reflecting whether some change might be made.
The Opposition have raised the interesting question of allowing third-party rights of appeal in certain limited areas. The first case that comes to mind is a departure from the unitary development plan or, in future, the local development framework—a decision in which the local authority has a direct interest. Such a limited right of appeal would not hold up many cases, but it would probably address the concern sometimes legitimately held by local people that their views are not properly taken into account.
Generally speaking, local decisions should be taken by local authorities. I think that we ought to look on the other side, and consider whether some rights of appeal might be removed. I shall give an example of what might happen under the current system of unitary development plans. A group of people may object to the local authority's allowing building on a certain piece of land. The local authority may decide to incorporate that piece of land into the UDP for housing purposes. The individuals concerned go through the appeal process. They raise their objections, and the case eventually comes to a final hearing before an inspector. They win their case, and as a result that area of land is not zoned for housing. The UDP shows it as open space, or it is put to some other use.
It is technically possible that within a few weeks of that, the local authority can make a planning application for housing on that piece of land. As I understand it, that can be stopped in two ways. First, the Secretary of State can call in the decision, but if the piece of land is relatively small that may not happen. Secondly, the individuals may go for a judicial review because the local authority had breached its planning obligations in its handling of the case. However, for such a small group of people, judicial review is not an easy or cheap way of challenging such a decision.
In the few cases in which the existing plan for the area has clearly been breached, and the local authority has an interest in doing something that might be seen to run counter to its planning interests—in other words, it will make money out of the sale of the land—we may need to examine the potential problem of third parties not having a right that they can exercise through a judicial review; if it were decided that the Secretary of State would not call in the proposal, there would not be another way forward.
There is another side to the coin: if the Government really want to speed things up, will any thought be given to removing the right of appeal from an applicant when the local authority's decision is absolutely in line with the current plan for the area? If a local authority turns down an application, why should
there be a right of appeal if that decision is completely in line with the current UDP or the future local development plan? If we put the two together, we might end up with far fewer appeals and a far quicker process. I throw that up as an idea for discussion, because I have sometimes wondered why an unappointed official or inspector with no accountability at local level should have rights when the local authority has taken a decision completely in line with existing plans, which the Secretary of State has also approved.
The issue is worthy of debate because there are interesting conflicts relating to quick and proper process, and where democratic accountability lies, on which the Minister might like to reflect.