Planning Bill

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. I sympathise with what I think is the underlying sentiment here, not least because the noble Lord spelled it out: that people should not have to pay for an appeal because a local authority fails to act. However, we have to look at the situation that, in practice, local authority planners find themselves in. In introducing an appeal fee our intention is to transfer part of the cost of running the appeals service from the general taxpayer to those who might actually benefit. That principle is applicable whatever the reason for an appeal or its eventual outcome, and any fee would be payable to the planning inspector to offset the costs of providing the appeals service. It is worth recalling the real impact of this, because I think it will give the noble Lord some comfort. Local authorities have already reduced the time taken to determine planning applications. Around 80 per cent now consistently meet their target timescales for determining applications, so the number of appeals against non-determination should be relatively small. In any case, where applications are not determined within the prescribed timeframe, it may not just be default laziness or anything like that; it may be because planning officers are trying to resolve some concern about the application that would otherwise mean that it had to be refused. So it is not wholly the fault of the planning authority in many of these instances. If an authority fails to determine a case within the prescribed period, an applicant has the option of continuing to negotiate an outcome with the authority. Frankly, that may be quicker than going to appeal. The prospect of paying a fee to appeal should encourage applicants to continue negotiations with local authorities; it could be a positive incentive, and could discourage appeals that are made for, shall we say, tactical reasons. 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. The Planning Inspectorate intends to adopt a rigorous approach to such cases to ensure that appellants are not unfairly penalised, and I think we can meet the objections of the amendment. Before we introduce an appeal fee, we will be consulting on the detail of the proposed regime. We will certainly reflect on the concerns that have been raised in this House and will take them into account in developing the fee options. It is also worth the House recalling that fee regulations made under this section would be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses. We have built in a series of important safeguards to get it right, to protect people from carelessness and to give them options—sometimes better options. These safeguards will also ensure that we have a robust arrangement by way of consultation and parliamentary activity.