Clause
162
Fees
for
appeals
Robert
Neill:
I beg to move amendment No. 425, in
clause 162, page 91, line 40, after
(2), insert
Except for an appeal
under section 78 of this Act or section 20 of the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 against the failure of a
local planning authority to take a planning
decision,.
I
shall be brief. It is unjust to expect applicants to pay the local
authority a fee when they are making the appeal only because the local
authority failed to take a decision in the first place. It is a
non-determination scenario and it is not equitable to expect the
applicants to fork out on that basis. The amendment is designed to deal
with that situation.
Mr.
Dhanda:
I sympathise with what I perceive to be the
underlying sentiment of the hon. Gentlemans argument: that
people should not have to pay for an appeal because a local authority
fails to act. Although the Government cannot accept the amendment, our
intention is to transfer part of the cost of running the appeals
service, from the general taxpayer to those who might benefit. That
principle is applicable, whatever the reason for an appeal or its
eventual outcome.
7
pm
Robert
Neill:
I am sorry, but I cannot accept
the Ministers reasoning. To my mind it is thoroughly unjust,
whatever the reason, to expect an applicant to bear the cost of an
appeal that they did not bring about. If the local authority fails to
act, it is the local authority and the public purse that should bear
the burden.
Mr.
Dhanda:
If there is evidence that a
local authority has acted unreasonably, which I think is the hon.
Gentlemans point, and it has done so in a non-determination
case, the applicant can seek an award of costs from the Planning
Inspectorate. The Planning Inspectorate intends to adopt a rigorous
approach to such cases, to ensure that appellants are not unfairly
penalised. I therefore believe that we can meet the objectives of the
amendment and propose that it is rejected. At the same time, however,
the principle of the clause is
important.
Mr.
Llwyd:
I thank the Minister for giving
way, I know that the hour is rather late. Not so long
agoprobably 10 or 12 years agothe then Government
introduced a measure that would allow the applicant in a successful
planning appeal to recover his or her costs in full, emulating what the
courts understand as costs follow the event. In one of
the first awards of that kind in north Wales, I was responsible for
acting for the appellantI am not bragging, but pointing out
that this measure winds the whole thing back. A person might now appeal
against an action by the local authority, which might not be an
unreasonable action but an action that is found to be invalid by the
appeal tribunal. If the appellant then wins the appeal on ordinary
grounds, without any unreasonable action by the other side, that
appellant will have to bear his or her own costs. I am left dumbfounded
by that idea, to be
honest.
Mr.
Dhanda:
I think that I have made clear
the circumstances in which an applicant could get their money back, but
at the same time the system must be sustainable to deal with the number
of appeals currently in the system. The appellant has something to gain
if they have paid to have their appeal and are successful. I appreciate
that we have had a consensual afternoon, but we might have to agree to
disagree on this particular issue.
Robert
Neill:
We will consider what has been said. I
am still very unhappy, as is the hon. Member for
Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. I am not seeking to get through the whole
afternoon without a Division for the sake of it; we are close to
pressing the amendment to a Division because we are unhappy with the
principle of the proposal. When an applicant does not have any control
over whether the planning authority determines or not, they should not
have to run the risk of forking out for an appeal, in the hope that
they can then claim the costs back. That is wrong, and unless there is
further movement we will pursue the matter further on Report. I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
162 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Further
consideration adjourned.[Mr.
Watts.]
Adjourned
accordingly at four minutes past Seven oclock till Thursday 31
January at Nine
oclock.
|