§ Mr. HigginsTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what obligations he imposes on those to whom he has delegated responsibility for planning decisions to hear oral evidence.
§ Mr. BaldryThe procedures to be followed by inspectors holding inquiries are set out in the Town and Country Planning Appeals (Determination by Inspectors) (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1988. The rules give certain parties, such as the local planning authority, the appellant and the owner of the appeal site, a statutory right to appear at the inquiry. Any other persons wishing to appear, for example local residents, may do so at the inspector's discretion.
§ Mr. HigginsTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against planning decisions by the Worthing borough council have been allowed by him or the planning inspectorate in each of the last five years.
§ Mr. BaldryThe information requested is as follows:
Planning appeals decided: Worthing borough council Year Appeals decided Appeals allowed Percentage allowed Worthing Percentage allowed England 1987–88 34 14 41.2 37.6 1988–89 56 20 35.7 36.7 1989–90 64 19 29.7 33.4 1990–91 75 22 29.3 33.6 1991–92 50 13 26.0 33.7
§ Mr. HigginsTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what criteria he delegates decisions on planning appeals to the planning inspectorate.
248W
§ Mr. BaldryAll planning appeals, except for a few exceptions, are transferred to planning inspectors for decision. However I do have the power to "recover" jurisdiction. Normally this power is only exercised in cases involving large scale development and where issues of more than local importance are likely to be raised. The criteria for recovery are published in the 1986 White Paper "Planning: Appeals, Call-In and Major Public Inquiries" (Cm 43).
§ Mr. HigginsTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why the planning inspector dealing with the appeal against the granting of planning permission for the Homebase store on land at Littlehampton and Yeomans road, Worthing, failed to take oral evidence from those opposed to the last-minute change of plans put forward by the applicants.
§ Mr. BaldryThe question of an alternative layout for the proposed development arose towards the end of the four-day public inquiry. As a result it was not possible for the inspector to hear further evidence from all those who had already appeared at the inquiry without an adjournment. This would have prolonged the time before the appeal was determined. However, to ensure that local objectors views about the alternative layout were taken into account, the inspector arranged for them to be given an opportunity to make written representations to him before he made his decision.