PROCEDURE ON REFERENCE TO A PLANNING INQUIRY COMMISSION (Hansard, 23 October 1968)

§ Mr. Skeffington
The effect of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be to make concurrent inquiry procedure in a matter which is referred to the planning inquiry commission available only with the agreement of everyone wishing to be heard at either inquiry. The Government's view is that this is far too restrictive. This is an important power which saves much time and expense in circumstances where there is an opportunity to hold concurrent inquiries. This is obviously sensible where it is appropriate, as it is in many cases.
To say that this could not be done if any person who may have a right to be heard objects would put the provision in jeopardy, at the mercy of anyone who might take a whim of one kind or another, thus denying the benefits of this provision to the ordinary citizen, to local authorities, and to statutory undertakers which might be proceeding, for example, under the Electricity Acts in the case of a power station.
1475 We all know from personal experience at inquiries that there is often the person who—sometimes for disinterested reasons, sometimes for very interested reasons—does not want the matter to proceed. That goes too far and I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. Graham Page
This is an important point, but I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said about the Amendment being rather wide and that perhaps anybody could frustrate a reasonable proposition that two inquiries be held at the same time. However, a man might have some small planning application in respect of land which is to be the subject of a planning inquiry commission. He may be involved in months of inquiry, being represented all the time—rather like the man in the orchestra with the triangle, who sits there for the whole symphony poised with his little striker until he reaches the point at which he has to strike the triangle.
Somebody may want to build a garage in his back garden, but his house may be in the area which is being considered for a new London airport. He will be swept into that inquiry, an inquiry which perhaps is not going on just at one place. They may be looking at various parts of the country to decide on the best site for the new airport. So he, who has a house at Stansted, may have to follow the inquiry around in its investigations of other areas all round London to find where the aerodrome should be.
Could the Minister satisfy us by giving the House assurance that he will issue a circular or give directions to those involved in the commission that they should not force an applicant for planning permission on some minor matter into a large planning inquiry commission where the expense may he prohibitive to him? This could be restricted to the applicant himself. Our Amendment goes wide in saying that anybody might refuse his consent to a combination of inquiries. We should be happy with an assurance that it will be the general practice of a commission of this sort not to sweep small planning applications into the net of the whole commission and make an applicant pay enormous costs in waiting for his small part to be decided.

§ Mr. Skeffington
I speak again by leave of the House. I should like to con- 1476 sider what the hon. Member has suggested. It is the Minister who takes action where it seems appropriate that there should be two investigations under one umbrella. Often the planning inquiry commission may itself be holding a local inquiry as part of its investigation. On such an occasion no doubt the individual to whom the hon. Member referred could be heard, certainly at less expense than if there were two inquiries. The fear that this procedure might add to the expense is not real.
I should like to look at the point the hon. Member has raised, but I remind him that the Minister will consider this question and can use discretion about where and when this procedure is appropriate.