Clause 160

Planning Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 6:30 pm on 29 January 2008.

Alert me about debates like this

Determination of procedure for certain appeals

Amendment proposed: No. 480, in clause 160, page 88, line 8, leave out ‘appeal’.—[Mr. Dhanda.]

Photo of Eric Illsley Eric Illsley Labour, Barnsley Central 6:45, 29 January 2008

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 481 to 512.

Clause stand part.

Government amendments Nos. 514 to 534.

Schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.

Photo of Clive Betts Clive Betts Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe

I have one question for my hon. Friend, to which I am sure that there is an answer. I scratched my head a little on reading Government amendment No. 493 because it ends with provision to

“amend, repeal or revoke any provision made by or under this Act or by or under any other Act.”

That is a little wide-ranging. It appears to be saying that once the Committee has deliberated and the House has voted, the Minister can do anything that he wants about anything. Have I got that wrong?

Photo of Parmjit Dhanda Parmjit Dhanda Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government

I dare say that my hon. Friend has got that wrong. I do not have that amendment before me, but I think that we will discuss elements of that when discussing the next group of Opposition amendments. I hope that that will add more clarity.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 481, in clause 160, page 88, line 9, leave out ‘appeals’ and insert ‘proceedings’.

No. 482, in clause 160, page 88, line 11, leave out ‘an appeal’ and insert ‘proceedings’.

No. 483, in clause 160, page 88, line 11, leave out ‘is’ and insert ‘are’.

No. 484, in clause 160, page 88, line 12, leave out ‘appeal’ and insert ‘proceedings’.—[Mr. Dhanda.]

Photo of Dan Rogerson Dan Rogerson Opposition Whip (Commons), Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

I beg to move amendment No. 585, in clause 160, page 88, line 17, leave out paragraph (c).

Photo of Eric Illsley Eric Illsley Labour, Barnsley Central

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 586, in clause 160, page 89, line 10, leave out paragraph (c).

No. 587, in clause 160, page 89, line 38, leave out paragraph (c).

Photo of Dan Rogerson Dan Rogerson Opposition Whip (Commons), Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

The amendments arose from a discussion with the Town and Country Planning Association regarding the issue of appeals being conducted through submissions by writing, rather than by an inquiry or hearing. I share its concern. That tendency is an unhappy one because it does not allow for the sort of cross-examination that we have discussed under previous amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. Perhaps it is more efficient for the Planning Inspectorate to deal with written evidence, but it does not necessarily mean that it is the best way of getting appellants’ views across. I wanted to see whether the Minister is prepared to accept the point and to justify widening the use of representation by advisers as the basis for an appeal, as opposed to the more conventional methods through a local inquiry or a hearing.

Photo of Bob Neill Bob Neill Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Deputy Chair, Conservative Party

I broadly support the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s observations. The current cope under certain circumstances for agreement to be made and for further appeals to be dealt with through written representations is adequate. We do not wish to move further than that because generally we think that it is an option that should be available to the parties. As we have stressed throughout the Committee, when developments deeply affect people’s livelihoods, their communities and sometimes their homes, the right to put their own case in their own way and to cross-examine and make representations should not be lightly removed. We do not think that the justification is made.

Photo of Parmjit Dhanda Parmjit Dhanda Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government

The effect of the clause is to ensure that the Planning Inspectorate will use its delegated powers to determine the appropriate procedure for each case on behalf of the Secretary of State. The current system allows the principal parties to select the procedure. However, in appeals appellants often choose a hearing for cases that could just as appropriately be determined via the written representations method or an inquiry for cases that could be considered at a hearing.

For example, an appellant might insist on an inquiry or a hearing for an application relating to a boundary wall or a dormer roof extension when the vast majority of such cases do not raise complex policy issues and can be effectively dealt with by written representations instead. We want to ensure that the procedure used is proportionate to the complexity of the subject matter, hence this clause. 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 to the process and the decision. The outcome will depend on how convincing the inspector finds the planning merits, not the method of their representation.

Clause 160 would 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 appeals procedure. The criteria would be consulted on and regularly reviewed. They would ensure that any case that is complex, controversial, and thus would benefit from a hearing or an inquiry, would be dealt with in that way. They would also ensure that people in vulnerable groups were given a fair opportunity to put their case, which might mean that a hearing or inquiry would be appropriate even when it would not normally be justified by the complexity of the case.

The measure in its entirety, with the option of determination by written representations, is crucial to the delivery of a more proportionate and efficient system. We estimate that it would yield cost savings of around £2 million a year to the Planning Inspectorate and £700,000 a year to local authorities. Applicants and appellants would benefit from a reduction in the time taken to determine their cases. I therefore propose that the amendments should be rejected.

Photo of Dan Rogerson Dan Rogerson Opposition Whip (Commons), Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification. It is important to get it on the record that there is a hierarchy of forms of appeal. In coming to a decision as to which one would be appropriate, regard will be given to the complexity and importance of the issue. Hearings and inquiries would be very much the norm for complex and important cases. I am somewhat reassured. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 485, in clause 160, page 88, line 19, leave out ‘an appeal’ and insert ‘proceedings’.

No. 486, in clause 160, page 88, line 20, leave out from ‘period’ to end of line 21.

No. 487, in clause 160, page 88, line 23, leave out ‘appeal is’ and insert ‘proceedings are’.

No. 488, in clause 160, page 88, line 25, after ‘appellant’ insert

‘or applicant (as the case may be)’.

No. 489, in clause 160, page 88, line 29, at end insert—

‘(aa) an application referred to the Secretary of State under section 77 instead of being dealt with by a local planning authority in England;’.

No. 490, in clause 160, page 88, line 38, leave out ‘an appeal if it is’ and insert ‘proceedings if they are’.

No. 491, in clause 160, page 88, line 39, leave out ‘an appeal’ and insert ‘proceedings’.

No. 492, in clause 160, page 88, line 40, leave out ‘it’ and insert ‘the proceedings’.

No. 493, in clause 160, page 88, line 41, at end insert—

‘(9) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (7) to—

(a) add proceedings to, or remove proceedings from, the list of proceedings to which this section applies, or

(b) otherwise modify the descriptions of proceedings to which this section applies.

(10) An order under subsection (9) may—

(a) contain incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional and transitory provision and savings;

(b) amend, repeal or revoke any provision made by or under this Act or by or under any other Act.”’

No. 494, in clause 160, page 89, line 2, leave out ‘appeals’ and insert ‘proceedings’.

No. 495, in clause 160, page 89, line 4, leave out ‘an appeal’ and insert ‘proceedings’.

No. 496, in clause 160, page 89, line 4, leave out ‘is’ and insert ‘are’.

No. 497, in clause 160, page 89, line 5, leave out ‘appeal’ and insert ‘proceedings’.

No. 498, in clause 160, page 89, line 12, leave out ‘an appeal’ and insert ‘proceedings’.

No. 499, in clause 160, page 89, line 13, leave out from ‘period’ to end of line 14.

No. 500, in clause 160, page 89, line 16, leave out ‘appeal is’ and insert ‘proceedings are’.

No. 501, in clause 160, page 89, line 18, after ‘appellant’, insert

‘or applicant (as the case may be)’.

No. 502, in clause 160, page 89, line 22, at end insert—

‘(aa) an application referred to the Secretary of State under section 12 instead of being dealt with by a local planning authority in England;’.

No. 503, in clause 160, page 89, line 27, at end insert—

‘(8) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (7) to—

(a) add proceedings under this Act to, or remove proceedings under this Act from, the list of proceedings to which this section applies, or

(b) otherwise modify the descriptions of proceedings under this Act to which this section applies.

(9) An order under subsection (8) may—

(a) contain incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional and transitory provision and savings;

(b) amend, repeal or revoke any provision made by or under this Act or by or under any other Act.”’.

No. 504, in clause 160, page 89, line 29, leave out ‘appeal’ and insert ‘certain proceedings’.

No. 505, in clause 160, page 89, line 31, leave out from ‘which’ to ‘to’ in line 32 and insert

‘proceedings to which this section applies are’.

No. 506, in clause 160, page 89, line 33, leave out ‘appeal’ and insert ‘proceedings’.

No. 507, in clause 160, page 89, line 40, leave out ‘an appeal’ and insert ‘proceedings’.

No. 508, in clause 160, page 89, line 41, leave out from ‘period’ to end of line 42.

No. 509, in clause 160, page 90, line 2, leave out ‘appeal is’ and insert ‘proceedings are’.

No. 510, in clause 160, page 90, line 4, after ‘appellant’ insert

‘or applicant (as the case may be)’.

No. 511, in clause 160, page 90, line 7, at end insert—

‘(7) This section applies to—

(a) an application referred to the Secretary of State under section 20 instead of being dealt with by a hazardous substances authority in England;

(b) an appeal under section 21 against a decision of a hazardous substances authority in England.

(8) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (7) to—

(a) add proceedings under this Act to, or remove proceedings under this Act from, the list of proceedings to which this section applies, or

(b) otherwise modify the descriptions of proceedings under this Act to which this section applies.

(9) An order under subsection (8) may—

(a) contain incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional and transitory provision and savings;

(b) amend, repeal or revoke any provision made by or under this Act or by or under any other Act.

(10) The power to make an order under subsection (8) is exercisable by statutory instrument.

(11) No order may be made under subsection (8) unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.

No. 512, in clause 160, page 90, line 8, leave out ‘appeals’ and insert ‘proceedings’.—[Mr. Dhanda.]

Clause 160, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.