§ 11. Mr. Sumbergasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against the refusal of planning permission were made to his Department during the last year for which there are recorded figures; how many of these were successful; and in how many of the successful cases costs were awarded to the appellant.
§ Mr. Patrick JenkinDuring 1983 there were 13,699 appeals against or in default of planning decisions. A total of 11,221 appeals were determined—not all of which were received in 1983. Of these, 3,633 were allowed in whole or part and 31 awards of costs were made in favour of appellants.
§ Mr. SumbergI thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the widespread feeling of unfairness, particularly among private individuals and small companies, of the fact that there is no automatic right to costs on a successful appeal? Will my right hon. Friend consider revising practice so that anyone who succeeds on a planning appeal is not out of pocket?
§ Mr. JenkinI understand my hon. Friend's concern, but a planning application is an administrative matter, not a contested legal action. It is right that costs should be awarded only when one of the parties has demonstrably caused unnecessary and unreasonable expense. The Government work to criteria recommended by the Council on Tribunals.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursAs there is evidence that some developers carry out works that are not the subject of planning permission, will the Government consider introducing legislation to provide for mandatory demolition, especially as many local authorities lack the guts to take action on their own initiative?
§ Mr. JenkinThat is a matter for the individual planning authority. Power exists to require the demolition of work that is not authorised by valid planning permission.
§ Mr. ChapmanDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the development control system would be more beneficially and effectively applied if he made it his practice more frequently to award costs, not only against local planning authorities for taking unreasonable time to announce decisions or making decisions obviously not based on proper planning policies, but against appellants who make repeated applications and cause undue and unfair manpower and money resources to be used?
§ Mr. JenkinIt is a question whether a person acts unreasonably. If a person acts unreasonably and demonstrably causes unnecessary and unreasonable expense, costs are awarded. The development control system, about which my hon. Friend knows a great deal, should not be regarded as a type of court action in which the costs follow the event. The normal rule is that costs lie where they fall.