Committee stage in the Lords
- Speaker
Lord Jenkin of RodingConservative- Quote
- had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 413A:
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour- Quote
- I will take advantage of the noble Lord’s courtesy and give the Government’s arguments for withdrawing Clauses 177 to 180. The clauses all relate to provisions for established local member review bodies, which were intended to determine certain planning appeals, instead of the Secretary of State as now. They make provision for local planning authorities to have mandatory schemes of delegation for certain types of planning application. They have attracted much debate, which I will bypass by outlining the Government’s position. As I signalled at Second Reading, we have listened carefully to stakeholders’ views on this proposal. Many professional bodies, including the RTPI, RICS and RIBA, were particularly concerned about the implications of the proposal and are delighted that we have listened to their views and to those of others. On that basis, we concluded that although local member review bodies may bring some benefit through devolving power to local councillors to decide appeals on planning proposals with only local impacts, they risk distracting local authorities, particularly when, as I am sure we all agree, there is an urgent need for them to focus on strategic plans and issues. I therefore propose that Clauses 177 to 180 do not stand part of the Bill.
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Jenkin of RodingConservative
- Quote
- A number of other amendments are grouped with this amendment. I do not know whether other noble Lords wish to speak to them. I shall simply refer to Clause 190. The Minister has written me a long and extremely helpful letter about the appeal procedure and the appellant choosing the procedure for handling their case. Much of what she said is persuasive, so I do not wish to pursue it, although other noble Lords may wish to do so. Amendment No. 433A is about fees. I entirely understand the principle of paying a fee for making an appeal to cover part of the cost of the Planning Inspectorate handling the appeal. However, I cannot support charging an appellant when the reason for the appeal is the failure of the local authority to decide the application. That is double jeopardy. In all too many cases, non-determination is a positive decision by the local authority. It enables the authority to evade the local political difficulty of making an unpopular decision and shifts the burden on to the inspectorate. In the present environment of control over local authorities—we are still living very much in a target culture—many local planning authorities resort to avoiding making decisions on more complicated applications so as to ensure that they are able to meet the target for processing applications within eight weeks of receipt. That is, as it were, working to the target. In those circumstances, it would be very unfair to levy fees on the appellant because in the end he was driven to appeal. Perhaps the noble Baroness is able to argue why that is right. I would argue that it is quite wrong in those circumstances. The local authority should bear the costs.
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat- Quote
- On Clause 190, I have not seen the Minister’s letter and I should be grateful for a copy. I indicated my intention to oppose Clause 190 only towards the end of last week and that may be why I have not received it. It was an oversight that that was not done earlier. I may be persuaded, but there is a point of principle here about a right to be heard and a right to go face-to-face with the inspector who will make the decision. The noble Baroness will know that one suggestion for dealing with the unreasonable use of the right of oral representation would be to make use of the costs order. I have had a look at the criteria proposed by the Government for the three types of response to an appeal set out in the consultation document. As regards written representations being those which can reasonably be argued and understood by all parties, what is reasonable to a third party is often not so to the applicant or objector. We are talking about the applicant. I am not using this as a basis for arguing about the rights of appeal for objectors. Things look very different when you are the applicant. On when hearings will be suitable, the criteria suggest when the applicant or, in the case of enforcement, the appellant does not consider it necessary to be legally represented. I would say, “and does not intend” to be legally represented. These are fine points. The point of principle is a right to be heard, as well as a right for the local planning authority to call for an oral hearing. There is a wider public interest aspect to this. On his other amendment in this group, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to local planning authorities not taking decisions in order to avoid politically difficult situations locally. But when something is politically controversial, local people will want an assurance about thoroughness and effective investigation, and the opportunity to make their own position plain. I may be persuaded when I have heard the Minister’s arguments, but I am distinctly worried by Clause 190.
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Cameron of DillingtonCrossbench- Quote
- I, too, oppose the Question that Clause 190 stand part of the Bill and point out that I have not seen the letter. I gather that this proposal was first aired through government consultation on the planning White Paper in 2007 when 81 per cent of businesses and 60 per cent of professionals and academics viewed the proposal negatively. However, the Government seem to be pursuing it in this Bill. A fairly powerful disincentive already exists in terms of costs and the additional delays associated with hearings and inquiries, so I should have thought that to do away by law with the party’s choice of hearing is not satisfactory. I do not see how the Planning Inspectorate can best judge from afar whether cross-examination is needed because the case will depend on a multiplicity of factors. For example, it may be that the local planning authority has decided similar applications differently and the appellant wishes to cross-examine on that. Equally, it may be something said by officers in pre-application discussions or an aspect of how the officer or the committee handled the determination that is in dispute. All these matters might merit cross-examination, and I do not see how the Planning Inspectorate can necessarily judge them. Recently, for example, there was a successful enforcement appeal by inquiry where one of the reasons cited by the inspector for disagreeing with a previous inspector who had considered the same development on appeal following the application stage was the fact that the previous appeal had been determined only by written representations. That example demonstrates the need for appellants to have the right to demand a hearing if they wish to spend their money in that way.
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- These are important issues and I am sorry if some noble Lords did not receive the famous letter. I shall make sure that they are sent it anyway, but now I shall speak for the record and thus tell noble Lords what was in it. The right to be heard raises serious issues and I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that the Bill provides for it. Essentially the clause requires the Secretary of State to determine the procedure by which appeals and calling cases under the Town and Country Planning Act, the Listed Buildings Act and the Hazardous Substances Act should be considered, while Schedule 10 sets out consequential amendments to those Acts. I shall set out the reasoning for this and make clear the safeguards that are in place, but first I shall give a bit of background, which I am sure noble Lords will appreciate. The existing appeals system is under severe strain and does not always serve as well as it might the purposes of those who choose to appeal. It can be disproportionate in the way it handles cases. At the moment, parties are allowed to select the procedure by which a case can proceed—written representations, a hearing or an inquiry—regardless of the suitability of the process to the complexity of the case. Under the present system, even the simplest cases such as appeals relating to dormer windows or boundary walls can proceed via a hearing or an inquiry when written representations would be just as appropriate and certainly speedier. I submit that they would also be much less stressful for all concerned. The use of disproportionately complex methods of appeal in cases that do not necessarily warrant them results in inefficiencies and delays, as well as a lack of credibility. It is important that we introduce more proportion and clarity into the appeals system so that the procedures reflect relative complexity without putting anyone at a disadvantage. Ensuring that all cases are dealt with using the most appropriate appeal method will lead to quicker decisions and will save everyone time, stress and money. In practice, this proposal would allow the Planning Inspectorate to use its delegated powers to determine on behalf of the Secretary of State the appropriate procedure for each case, whether it is a local inquiry, hearing or written representations. I shall now go through the safeguards that are built into the process to ensure that the right and acceptable procedure is selected for each case. Clause 190 would simply 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 procedure for appeals and calling cases. We are talking about transparency here. These criteria have already been consulted on in our consultation paper, Improving the Appeals Process in the Planning System: Making it Proportionate, Customer Focused, Efficient and Well Resourced. We will keep it under review, and further consultation obviously may be appropriate from time to time. These criteria are there for all to see and they will operate in a spirit of transparent fairness. The principal parties, being the applicant, the appellant or the local planning authority, will be invited to indicate in the early stages of a case the procedure that they believe is most appropriate, and why. Any representations made by the parties as to the procedure they think is most appropriate will be taken into account by the Planning Inspectorate when making a decision—the right to be heard is clearly in place. Only in cases where there is a disagreement between the parties as to what is best and the planning inspector’s procedure team as to what procedure should be used will a professionally qualified inspector at assistant director level be called on to make the final decision. The parties will be informed of the method that the inspectorate considers the most appropriate and why. With all their huge experience, I am sure that we can trust them not only to come to the right decision but to communicate that decision in a way that people accept as trustworthy and efficacious. In addition, I will be asking the Advisory Panel on Standards, which supports us across the planning system, for the Planning Inspectorate to look at any cases of complaint and report to me on how the system operates in practice. So we will be monitoring it through APOS. In tandem with this provision, we have already said that we will extend the costs regime, which currently applies to hearings and inquiries only, to the written representation procedure. This will ensure that, regardless of the procedure pursued, applicants and local planning authorities will have an opportunity to seek an award of costs in cases where unreasonable behaviour by another party has caused them unnecessary expense. I appreciate what the noble Lord said about having been persuaded by the process as set out in my letter. I believe genuinely that this does not deprive people of the right to be heard. It makes provision for proper choice and proper arbitration when there is a problem. Certainly people will have the right to be heard. Case law demonstrates that the right to be heard can be satisfied by the provision of evidence through written representations. 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 in the process or the decision. Obviously the outcome will depend on how convincingly the inspector finds the planning merits, not the method of their presentation. In this way we will ensure that people in vulnerable groups are given a fair hearing and an opportunity to put forward their case. That may well mean that a hearing or inquiry is appropriate even where this would not normally be justified by the complexity of the case.
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord TylerLiberal Democrat- Quote
- How does the Minister propose to ensure that third parties, who may be local representatives, are built into the system so that they can make representations to seek a full hearing rather than simply a decision based on written representations? I, for example, as a local councillor, have several times appeared at planning inquiries to represent the views of the local community as opposed to the planning authority or the applicant. That can be the deciding factor.
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- I am sure that provision can be made for that. However, because I do not have the detail of how it fits into the sequence of the process, I shall write to the noble Lord about it. It is an important point for all the reasons he has given. Indeed, third parties would not be disadvantaged by this proposal. They would still have the opportunity to put forward representations on a case regardless of the procedures selected. As now, these representations will be taken into account by an inspector. I am grateful to my officials for enabling me to put that on the record. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, spoke to Amendment No. 433A and asked how we justify introducing an appeal fee—a general regime in which appellants pay a fee for pursuing a planning appeal even when they were appealing against a failure by the local planning authority to determine a planning appeal or a listed building application. That is the burden of the amendment. I had better read that again. The effect of Amendment No. 433A within a general regime in which appellants paid a fee for pursuing a planning appeal would be that those appealing against a failure by a local planning authority to determine a planning appeal or a listed building application would be exempt from such fees. The noble Lord asked me to justify the original intention.
- Time
- 21:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Jenkin of RodingConservative
- Quote
- Does that mean that if a planning inspector finds that a local authority has behaved unreasonably in the circumstances I described a few minutes ago, simply declining to make a decision and so running out of time, the inspector will then have the power to order the local authority to bear the whole cost? Is that right?
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- Yes; I shall repeat the point. In those circumstances, if there is evidence that a local planning authority has acted unreasonably in a non-determination case, the applicant could seek an award of costs as part of the appeal proceedings. As I say, I think the Planning Inspectorate will be on the qui vive for that, to maintain its own high standards. We are bringing forward government Amendment No. 434 in response to concerns expressed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the scope of the power in new Section 303ZA in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to amend, repeal or revoke other legislation. As currently drafted, there is the power for regulations made under new Section 303ZA to amend, repeal or revoke any provision made by or under the TCPA or by or under any other Act. This amendment limits that power so that regulations can amend, repeal or revoke provisions under the TCPA or any other Act only in order to make provisions to the effect of paying, or failing to pay, an appeal fee or incidental supplementary consequential transitional or transitory provisions and savings. Amendment No. 434 therefore reflects the committee’s suggestion to restrict the scope of the power. I turn to government Amendment No. 435. Clause 196 contains a power for the Welsh Ministers to make provision by order to apply England-only provisions in Wales. The Welsh Ministers are aware of the Government’s decision to drop local member review bodies in England and do not wish to proceed with the proposal in Wales. Amendment No. 435 therefore removes the local member review body provisions from the list of those that could be applied to Wales by order.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Jenkin of RodingConservative
- Quote
- Nobody has actually said, in the course of the debate, how grateful we are to the noble Baroness for having withdrawn the whole clause. It was clearly running into considerable difficulties and she has had the wisdom to take it back. [Amendment No. 413A not moved.] Clause 177 negatived. Clause 178 [Determination of applications for certificates of lawful use or development by officers]: [Amendment No. 413B not moved.] Clause 178 negatived. Clause 179 negatived. Clause 180 [Determination of listed building applications by officers]: [Amendment No. 414 not moved.] Clause 180 negatived. Clause 181 agreed to. Schedule 7 agreed to. Clause 182 agreed to. Clause 183 [Removal of right to compensation where notice given of withdrawal of planning permission]:
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 415 and 416:
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 417:
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 419:
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 431:
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 432:
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 433:
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 434:
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Earl CathcartConservative- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 434A:
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Livsey of TalgarthLiberal Democrat- Quote
- While I agree with the noble Earl that this should be debated, surely the principle involved—that we now have an elected Assembly in Wales—means that the Assembly must have the power exercised in this clause. Indeed, I cannot see a case for removing either matter 18.2 or 18.3 from the Bill. It is very important that the Assembly has this power as the primary legislative body in Wales. Contrary to what the noble Earl says, there is good communication between the Assembly and local authorities and between the Assembly and national parks. There is a big case in the area where I live, in my former constituency of Brecon and Radnor, about a planning application, which clearly should not have been passed by the local authority. The Assembly has rightly intervened, much to the agreement of the communities affected, because enforcement was inadequate in that case. I agree that this needs debate, but surely the principle of devolving power to the Assembly for planning matters in this way must be right, in that we in Wales elect Members of the Welsh Assembly and give them responsibilities. This surely should be one of them.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- I am very grateful that we have had an opportunity to debate Wales in this Chamber—and grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth. I cannot comment on how the other place organises its time, but we can make up for it this evening in the quality and forensic nature of our debate on why we need this very important clause. I shall not rehearse the whole argument for devolution—I will if noble Lords insist, but time is getting on—as I think that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, has already done so very well. I would like to pick up on a phrase that the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, used. He said that this is not a question of acquiring power for the sake of it but that Wales needs this for a strong and compelling reason, which is to make sure that the whole of its planning system is functional. I think that was the burden of what the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, said. Amendments Nos. 434A and 434B were debated at some length in Committee in the other place. They would mean that the National Assembly for Wales could only legislate on plans about the development and use of land in Wales which had been prepared by Welsh Ministers and not those by local planning authorities. The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, raised concerns that the case had not been made to transfer powers from this place to the National Assembly for Wales in relation to plans prepared by Welsh local authorities. I think that the phrase used in the other place was that Welsh Ministers were somehow seeking to centralise and hoover up power and thus reduce the discretion of Welsh local planning authorities. The whole point of this is that the Welsh Assembly Government are committed to a plan-led system. Its distinctive development plan system is still in its infancy, with local development plans as introduced in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 forming the cornerstone of the land-use system in Wales. For that system to work effectively, national level plans, such as the Wales spatial plan and local development plan, need to work coherently with each other, just as they do in England. While local planning authorities must have regard to the Wales spatial plan when preparing their local development plan, the National Assembly for Wales is currently unable to make changes that it feels would best serve the distinctive planning system now being established in Wales. That is of course what the Bill seeks to do. The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, proposes that the National Assembly for Wales would have framework powers in relation to plans made by Welsh Ministers but not for this other vital part of the land-use plan system—local development plans. Allowing the Assembly to operate in relation to Welsh Ministers but not local planning authorities is a recipe for fragmentation and dysfunction. These amendments would develop an incoherent and inconsistent approach between the two tiers of plan-making in Wales. Plans made by Welsh Ministers that could be applied at national levels would not flow down to the local level. The priorities would not be reflected through the Welsh planning system. This Chamber would not want that. We are very aware of the importance of a coherent and integrated plan-making system. Certainly, it would not be acceptable for the National Assembly for Wales. Clause 195 has a compelling purpose. It gives the Assembly the tools necessary to manage and oversee the planning system in Wales, which is, quite rightly, a devolved matter. It would enable the Assembly to prescribe what a local development plan must set out, the matters to which local planning authorities must have regard when preparing local development plans, the preparation requirements, including consultation, the independent examination of the plan, and powers for the Welsh Minister to intervene if a plan is considered unsatisfactory. Those are very important plans at this formative stage of land-use planning at a local level in Wales. The powers will allow the Assembly to continue, update and adapt the land-use plan system in Wales; that includes the local develop plan and its relationship with the Wales spatial plan. The Welsh Local Government Association supports these framework powers. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, will feel that there are indeed compelling reasons why the clause is in the Bill and he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Earl CathcartConservative
- Quote
- I thank the Minister for her response. The safest thing for me to do at this stage is to report back to my noble friend Lord Glentoran. No doubt we will need to read the Minister’s response and reflect on the issues. At this stage, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 434B not moved.] Clause 195 agreed to. Clause 196 [Power to make provision in relation to Wales]:
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 435:
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness ThorntonLabour- Quote
- I beg to move that the House do now resume. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. House resumed.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗