The big society should mean stronger rights to challenge bad planning decisions

19 August 2010

As the government begins to explain what the 'Big Society' might mean for local communities, the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and the Environmental Law Foundation (ELF) are calling on ministers not to pull a U-turn on their promise to rebalance rights of appeal in the planning process[1]. Currently the only way for local people to question bad development granted planning permission, is in the high court, neither a cheap nor expedient option. Conversely, developers enjoy an unlimited right to appeal planning decisions.

CPRE and ELF are calling today for a new, limited public right of appeal against bad decisions. This is a vital right if the 'Big Society' is going to deliver a bigger role for local people in the planning decisions that affect them, without the huge risk of having to go to court. Alongside this call, the two organisations are also publishing a new guide, 'Plan B: How to challenge bad developments in court,' that explains the only way currently available for concerned members of the public to challenge bad planning decisions, through the High Court.

Paul Miner, CPRE senior planning campaigner says: "The Big Society should be about having stronger rights and more affordable remedies to counter bad planning decisions. Going all the way to the High Court for local issues is just ridiculous. It’s often risky, expensive and should strictly be a last resort.

"A limited public right of planning appeal doesn’t stop all new development as some claim. But developers will have to meaningfully negotiate with local communities to ensure that development happens."

The government is currently preparing a fundamental reform to the planning system to devolve more power down to local authorities and communities. While this process continues, the guide 'Plan B' will give local people the tools they need to challenge bad development.

Paul Miner continued: "If a bad development has got planning permission, it’s not the end of the story. Mounting a challenge in court is expensive and very risky, but it can be done."

Though the scope for challenging planning decisions in court is very limited, and the process is highly risky, legal challenges to planning decisions can be successful.

For example:

• CPRE's Oxfordshire branch successfully applied to quash a regional planning policy calling for building on Green Belt land around Oxford;
• Villagers in Cornwall formed into a company and proved that the local council had not properly analysed the damage a proposed development would cause to the environment;
• In Redcar, local people won the right to designate land as a village green and thereby prevent the development of 300 houses.

Debbie Tripley, chief executive of ELF, says: "Britain is signed up to the Aarhus convention. Citizens have the right to be involved in environmental decision-making but without public right of appeal, this has had little to no impact on ordinary members of the public."

A public right of appeal already exists in Australia, New Zealand, and the Republic of Ireland. In most cases this right allows community groups to put their case against a bad planning decision without having to employ lawyers and risk being billed for the other side’s costs. In Ireland, public appeals against planning permission in 2008 got conditions changed on new development in 60 per cent of cases, and proposals refused in nearly all the remainder.

Download: ‘Plan B: How to challenge bad developments in court,’: http://www.cpre.org.uk/filegrab/Judicialreviewandplanningdecisionsedvii0810.pdf?ref=4332

---

Press releases, papers and documents published on this page are the intellectual property of an organisation unrelated to Central Lobby. We promote their parliamentary and political campaigning activities as they are subscribers to the Central Lobby service.

As such, Central Lobby does not edit, endorse, or attempt to balance the opinions expressed on this page. The content of press releases and other such types of content are the responsibility of the originating organisation.