Planning Permission (Hansard, 10 April 2002)

Lord Renton
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce legislation giving third parties rights of appeal in planning cases in which those parties have interests defined by the legislation.

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, as we said in our planning Green Paper, published on 12th December last year, a third party right of appeal against the grant of planning permission could add to the costs, delays and uncertainties of planning. We believe that the right way forward is to make the planning system more accessible and transparent and to strengthen the opportunities for community involvement throughout that process. Proposals to achieve that were set out in the Green Paper.

Lord Renton
My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply, perhaps I may point out that if we treasure our environment, as we all do, what is set out 410 in the Green Paper does not do enough to protect it. Is it not right that if a parish council, for example, is deeply upset by the effect that the grant of planning permission could have, it is prevented from appealing? Is not the right of appeal by the parish council—and by other people who are affected—well worth paying for and waiting for?

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, I strongly agree with the noble Lord that it is important that third party rights, in any planning application that concerns them, are given the fullest possible consideration. However, the Government differ from him in believing that it would be much better for the concerns of third parties about what they believe would be the effect of a planning development to be thoroughly considered before a decision is taken. The Green Paper goes to considerable lengths in that regard. First, it insists that there is better consultation and involvement of the public, including parish councils, in plan-making processes. Secondly, it insists that developers are required and expected to consult the public even before a planning application is submitted, particularly in relation to major applications. Thirdly, it seeks to ensure that the relatively small proportion of local authorities that currently do not allow the public to address a planning committee before it makes its decision change their practices so that before a committee makes a decision anyone who feels that he has a legitimate concern is given the fullest possible opportunity to express it. The Government are committed, subject to consultation on the Green Paper, to bringing in those changes. We believe that they will achieve the objective that the noble Lord seeks without the cost and delays that a formal right of appeal would give.

§ Lord Borrie
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the absence of third party rights of appeal dates from the early 19th century—and outmoded—view that a landowner has the right to do anything that he likes with his territory with the minimum of restriction? Surely today it is an accepted principle that the rights of neighbours and parish councils, which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, mentioned, and the rights of others in the area should be at least as important. The absence of third party rights of appeal means that those rights often go by default.

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, I am pleased to be educated about the alleged origin of the absence of third party rights. A characteristic of the planning system since 1947 has been that, in relation to an application, the rights of individuals and organisations that are not the landowner are considered by the local authority as part of its duties. We should consider the effects of introducing the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Based on the experience in Ireland, we should expect at least a doubling in the number of planning appeals. One can easily see that planning appeals would be submitted by people who wished to frustrate a development vexatiously or were trying to benefit their own commercial advantage. I am sure that that 411 would not be so in all cases. However, the system would be open to abuse, as has been evidenced elsewhere.
The central issue is to try to ensure that the public are properly involved in a planning decision before it is made and that local authorities act in a most open and reflective manner that builds public confidence. In that way decisions are kept at local level rather than being taken to the courts, which we do not consider to be desirable.

§ Baroness Scott of Needham Market
My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that the widespread perception of the proposed reform of the planning system is that it puts the needs of business ahead of both environmental and social considerations? Does he accept that under those circumstances some third-party right of appeal would go a long way towards reducing that fear?

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, I believe that such fears are misplaced. We shall have a better opportunity to discuss these issues at more length next Wednesday when we are to debate the planning Green Paper. The Government are not biased towards developers; they are biased towards good development. Development is not necessarily bad. The Government are seeking to bring about appropriate development which local communities believe is in their interests, as judged by locally elected councillors.
With regard to the specifics, for example, a number of changes are set out in the Green Paper which would limit developers' powers: the end to twin-track applications; the end to repeat applications; a new requirement for openness; and an expectation that they consult the public seriously before they submit applications. These are not measures that a government biased towards developers would introduce.

§ Lord Hylton
My Lords, I welcome what the noble Lord said about comments being received before and not after decisions are made. Therefore, will the Government resist anything that would delay still further the planning process? Does he accept that the existing law on property, through its concept of injurious affection, already provides substantial protection?

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, yes, I do. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is absolutely right. The delay by some authorities is one of the thrusts of the Green Paper. It tries to achieve more expeditious planning considerations while strengthening the public's right of involvement and appeal.