Planning Appeals: Improved Service (Hansard, 16 July 1981)

§ Lord Gisborough
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, we have made substantial improvements since taking office, despite a 40 per cent. increase in the volume of appeals. Improved productivity in the department has enabled us to contain this increase and still reduce the times taken to determine cases. However, we believe there is scope for much 1373 further improvement, and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State announced on Tuesday of this week in another place a whole new range of fresh initiatives designed yet further to improve the service provided on planning appeals.

§ Lord Gisborough
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very satisfactory Answer; and it is good news that there are still further plans to improve the productivity of the department in dealing with appeals. Is my noble friend aware that planning authorities are often loath to grant planning permission for the conversion of rural barns for rural industries because of the danger of precedent being used at subsequent appeals to get other rural industries nearby; and is he satisfied that the precedent argument is not being overused to get incorrect planning decisions?

§ Lord Bellwin
Again, my Lords, as I said in answer to the last Question, one would need to have specific instances brought to one's attention to be able to give a thoroughly satisfactory reply on a specific case. But in general may I refer my noble friend to a recent circular, Development Control—Policy and Practice, which in fact asks local authorities to look favourably on proposals to find new uses for disused agricultural buildings; and, yes, planning permission should be refused only if there are specific and convincing planning objections to an individual proposal. The question of precedent really should not arise, and each case should be decided on its merits.

§ Baroness Birk
My Lords, would the Minister agree that the improved performance by local authorities is in fact far greater than that of central Government, for would he not also agree that, while central Government have taken on additional staff for the work, particularly part-time inspectors, local authorities have had to achieve their improvement with fewer staff and reduced financial resources?

§ Lord Bellwin
No, my Lords, I would not agree. I gladly pay tribute to the fact that local authorities have made a contribution to this improvement—I am very pleased to acknowledge that—but I think I should also say, in view of the point that the noble Baroness makes, that in fact the Government's actions certainly have focussed the attention of local authorities on this issue; and I think I would be entitled to refer to the increasing productivity in the DoE planning inspectorate. In fact, in terms of the number of appeals that they have had to deal with, they have gone up by some 20 per cent. and the time factor has been materially improved.

§ Baroness Birk
But, my Lords, is the Minister denying that local authorities have had to speed up this work—and they have a great deal of work to do with regard to planning appeals—with fewer staff and less financial resources?

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, as always, the noble Baroness fails to take into consideration the improved efficiency of local authorities, and it is that, I would suggest, which is a material contribution to the improved performance to which I have gladly paid tribute.

§ Lord John-Mackie
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the circular that he mentioned gives local authorities the right to refuse everything in the green belt and conservation areas irrespective of whether or not there are buildings there?

§ Lord Bellwin
No, my Lords. The Government have said—and I am glad to confirm this yet again—that the circular in question makes it quite clear that there is no departure that is envisaged from current policies restricting development in green belts.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, would the noble Lord be prepared to take on board the other side of the problem when people wish to make appeals against planning decisions—tenants' associations and such like—but discover that they cannot afford to do it, and therefore the local authority wins hands down? Would he not consider the possibility of aiding such local voluntary organisations which wish to make appeals against planning decisions but cannot afford to do so?

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, I can only assume that the noble Lord is referring to the difference in making appeals other than by written statement, and, if he would care to bring to my notice specific instances, I should be glad to have a look at them.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the statement made by the Leader of the Greater London Council to the effect that no further permissions will be granted by the planning authorities of that council for office development in London? Does he anticipate, therefore, a very considerable increase in the volume of appeals to his department arising from that view, and can he also anticipate its effect on rental values in the City of London?

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, I feel that we are going rather wide of the original Question. I am aware of the statement to which the noble Lord refers, and it may indeed have both effects that he mentioned. In both circumstances, I think that would be a rather unfortunate situation.