Proceeding contribution from Lord Borrie (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 19 July 2011. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Localism Bill.
Localism Bill
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, for his support for this amendment and for that of my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton on the opposition Front Bench. I am bound to say that I am a bit disappointed by the Minister's response, most especially when he said that in London, which is the route followed by the Bill itself, there have not been that many judicial review claims—I think he mentioned five. A great substance of my argument is that judicial review is a most unattractive route for anybody concerned about a decision against them by the local planning authority, because it is expensive and very challenging. It is not a real right of appeal. The rest of the country has a real right of appeal. The anomaly that exists at present—recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Black, and by my noble friend Lord McKenzie—is not recognised by the government Front Bench. It is an anomaly to have a difference between London and outside London especially, in my submission, in the context of a Localism Bill. When the emphasis is on local government and local associations, it would be so much better and simpler to have a magistrates' court appeal. The noble Lord has said that magistrates' courts are very busy, but he will know that that partly arises because there are many closures of them by government decision. That is undoubtedly the case. That decision may be supported on the basis of saving money, and in some towns and areas I would accept that there is an argument for saying, ““The magistrates' court here is not fully occupied, so it could be closed down””. However, the Minister's point is that magistrates are already overloaded with work and cannot take on what would be very sensible new work, providing access to justice for those who feel that they needed to appeal against an unfair, unreasonable or difficult local planning authority decision. Of course, I withdraw my amendment at this stage but I think the Minister will realise that we are not happy with his decision, and I hope that he will rethink the matter in due course. Amendment 157 withdrawn. Amendments 158 to 166 not moved. Amendment 166ZA Moved by
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 729 c1311
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Community development Advertising Conservation Infrastructure Electric cables Local government Planning permission Planning Public consultation Referendums Railways Property development Parish and town councils National parks Local plans Travellers Urban areas Infrastructure Planning Commission National policy statements Community infrastructure levy
- Legislation
- Localism Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 17:39:12 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_763307
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_763307
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_763307