Clause 78 - Validity of strategies, plans and documents
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
4:45 pm
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
We now move to part 8. Clause 78(2) says:
''A relevant document must not be questioned in any legal proceedings except in so far as is provided by the following provisions of this section.''
In other words, the provision would fetter the courts' discretion as to how they interpret the Bill. That is an affront to democracy, and I would be grateful if the Minister—if she is listening—could tell us what legal precedent there is for the provision. It seems to be quite wrong that a Bill can fetter a court's discretion in that way. If there is legal precedent in primary legislation for such a provision, I should be interested to know whether the High Court or a higher court has overturned or varied it, or indeed whether that would be possible.
Subsection (3) lays out what may be considered by a court, and amendment No. 447 would add to it:
''(c) any decision relating to a policy has been unreasonably arrived at.''
If a decision has been ''unreasonably arrived at'' by an authority, surely the court should have the discretion to consider the matter and make a judgment. Amendment No. 448 would extend the period mentioned in subsection (4) from six weeks to 12 weeks. Six weeks is an unreasonable period; it is an incredibly short time in which to get the relevant advice about whether there is a case to take to the High Court and to enable the applicant to see whether finance could be raised, which would probably be necessary since such applications are very expensive. Will the Minister inform the Committee of precedents in other legislation for a six-week period?
Amendment No. 449 would insert a new subsection (8A), stating:
''The appropriate authority shall be liable to pay compensation to the aggrieved person if the High Court finds in favour of the aggrieved person.''
It seems right that if, once an applicant has gone through this expensive legal procedure, the High Court finds in their favour, it should be possible for it to award compensation. I see nothing in clause 78 to the effect that the court may award compensation, but the prospect of its doing so would be a significant deterrent to any public body that was inclined to act in an overbearing fashion.