Clause 52. (Hansard, 22 May 1968)

§ Mr. MacDermot
I beg to move, Amendment No. 116, in page 43, line 35, to leave out subsection (3) and to insert— (3) A Planning Inquiry Commission shall, for the purpose of complying with section 51(6)(b) above, hold a local inquiry and they may hold such an inquiry, if they think it necessary for the proper discharge of their functions, notwithstanding that neither the applicant nor the local planning authority desire an opportunity of appearing and being heard. This Amendment discharges two undertakings given in Committee— firstly, to make it clear that any inquiry held by a planning inquiry commission under Clause 5l(6)(b) should be a local inquiry and not a hearing; and, secondly, to empower the commission to hold a local inquiry even when none of the statutory parties entitled to demand that one do so.

§ Mr. Allason
I have two questions which arise from the drafting. First, must a local inquiry be held by a member of a planning inquiry commission? Secondly, can the local inquiry only be held within the restrictions of Clause 51(6)(b), which is limited if, as stated here, neither the applicant nor the local planning authority desire to appear to some person having made representations? Is it the case that another person cannot bo heard in cases where a Government Department proposes to make a direction for development by a local authority or statutory undertaker or, alternatively, where it proposes itself to develop?
It would seem that, if these cases are excluded from the local inquiry in cases where neither the applicant nor the local planning authority desire an appeal, there is an unnecessary restriction here, because it may well be that, in the circumstances of the two latter cases, some outside body would have good reason for asking for an inquiry. It would appear from the wording that it would not be entitled to get it.

§ Mr. MacDermot
The answer to the first question is, "Yes". The inquiry will be heard by a member of a commission.
The hon. Gentleman's second question was a little complicated, and I am not sure if I got it absolutely clear. Perhaps I can answer in this way: There will only be a right to demand an inquiry in cases in which at the moment, there would be a right to a local inquiry if the planning application or appeal had not been referred to a planning inquiry commission.
There will be the same right to inquiry but no more. As a result of the Amendment there will be the additional power of making representations before a third party, to make representations to the Planning Inquiry Commission, which would have the power, on its own initiative, to hold an inquiry, even though none of the people statutorily entitled to demand one had done so.

§ Mr. Allason
The hon. and learned Gentleman has not quite taken my point. Under Clause 51(6)(b) it is confined to the cases in Clause 5l(1)(a)(b), while (c) and (d) are expressly excluded by the 766 terms of subsection (6)(b). In those circumstances it would appear that the third party is excluded.

§ Mr. MacDermot
The third party is excluded, even if the matter is not referred to the Planning Inquiry Commission. The right to demand an inquiry is co-extensive with the present right under existing planning law. What we are doing in the Amendment is vesting power in the Commission to hold an inquiry. This opens a door to third parties, or there is a possibility of the door being opened for them by the Commission.