§ 100. Mr. Abseasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs in how many planning appeals in Wales during the last year he rejected the recommendations of his appointed inspectors; and in how many cases in Wales during the last year, despite the contrary recommendations of his inspectors, he found in favour of the planning authorities.
§ Mr. H. BrookeIn 12 cases I rejected the recommendations of my inspectors. In 6 of these 12 cases I found in favour of the planning authorities, against the inspector's recommendation.
§ 101. Mr. Abseasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether it is with his approval that, after the close of publicly conducted planning appeals in Wales, planning authorities, without the consent of the appellant, are subsequently permitted to make private written representation to the inspector of the Minister.
§ Mr. H. BrookeMy inspector makes his report to me on the basis of what takes place at the public inquiry. But I cannot stop anyone from making representations to me at any time. If, after the inquiry, I receive representations from one side raising a fresh point which might be relevant to my decision, it is my invariable practice to give the other side an opportunity of seeing and commenting on these representations before I reach a decision. Should it seem necessary I would reopen the inquiry.
§ 102. Mr. Abseasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will direct his inspectors to exclude hearsay evidence in planning appeals and conduct such appeals as far as may be 137W practicable with an observance of the rules of evidence now prevailing in civil courts.
§ Mr. H. BrookeThe object of a planning inquiry is to bring out all the information necessary to enable me to reach a decision. The present procedure is designed to achieve this object without unnecessary expenditure of time and money by the parties. Adoption of the hon. Member's proposal would make it difficult for appellants and other interested persons to present their case without incurring the expense of legal representation, and might lead to the exclusion of useful information on purely technical grounds. I would invite the hon. Member's attention to the conclusion of the Franks Committee that at these inquiries strict rules of evidence were not required.