TUESDAY 28 MARCH 2000

MR DAVID COX

  160. But is not the logic of your position that there should not be a right of appeal on either side? How can you justify the right of the developer to have a right of appeal and not the objectors?
  (Mr Cox) Because it is the developer who is going to do something about the result of any decision.

  161. Wait a minute. Say that again.
  (Mr Cox) The developer is applying for the planning permission. If granted, he will presumably build his houses or whatever he is wishing to do.

  162. Yes, but the people already living there or the people who might be third parties and who at the moment do not have a say, you are saying should not have a say?
  (Mr Cox) They have a say through their members and through the local plan.

  163. But supposing an abattoir goes on to a site. The people building the abattoir stand to gain a substantial profit as a result of building it. The people next to it in other properties may well lose considerable value to their property. In terms of people's property rights, surely they are equal and therefore they should equally have the same rights to appeal against a decision which is made by the local authority, which should be either that both sides have a right of appeal or nobody has a right of appeal?
  (Mr Cox) I have to say that I regard the local planning authority as being the representatives of those people.

  164. Are you saying to us that if there was a right of appeal it would clog up the system totally?
  (Mr Cox) It would mean that there was a great deal of uncertainty as to when a final position had been reached.

  165. But you could say that the local council makes a decision on Monday and anyone who wants to appeal that decision has to get it in by a certain time, and that is what applies at the moment. If someone in favour of it wants to make an objection to the turning down decision he has to get it in within a certain time, so the objectors could get it in within a certain time.
  (Mr Cox) Their third party appeal?

  166. Yes.
  (Mr Cox) Yes. I do not know if you are aware what has happened recently in the courts. For judicial review they brought down the time period by which you must start proceedings basically because the courts are saying that planning is a system which requires speed of certainty.

  167. But could not a planning inspector look at a an appeal brought by a group of third parties all getting in together, because it would usually be like that if it was people who lived there, and give a decision like he would if a developer appeals, yes or no?
  (Mr Cox) Absolutely.

  168. How can you say that we would never be able to determine the case? We would, would we not?
  (Mr Cox) No. What I was saying was that if there were always a right for third parties to appeal there would be considerable uncertainty about whether a final decision had been reached by local members on any application.

  169. But that goes for developers.
  (Mr Cox) You pointed out an inconsistency there.

  170. I think so.
  (Mr Cox) Developers are not going to appeal against a grant of planning permission, obviously, and it becomes pretty obvious fairly soon what they are going to do about a refusal.

  171. But there would be a process whereby vexatious litigants would be screened out, would there not? Let us face it, it would not proceed on a silly basis. They would be screened out. There would be a strict timetable for putting in an appeal. It could even be the next day, could it not? It would be a speedy process: the third parties and the applicant could appeal and be heard on the same basis and a decision made; that would be it?
  (Mr Cox) I absolutely agree with you, that if it is decided that either the human rights legislation or for other reasons there should be a third party right of appeal, the inquiry system can deal with that.

  172. But you are suggesting that the volume might go up very substantially?
  (Mr Cox) I think it would, yes.

  Chairman: On that note, I thank you very much indeed.