Planning Bill

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.