4. What discussions has the Counsel General had with the Minister for Housing and Local Government on steps the Welsh Government could take to ensure a fair and equitable hearing at planning inquiries? OAQ53498

The regulations for planning hearings and inquiries have recently been reviewed and already provide for a fair and equitable hearing. 

I'm sorry, I have to disagree on that one, and I think there are probably about 1,500 objectors, many residents and locally elected councillors in Aberconwy who would disagree with that, simply for the fact that I, along with many democratically elected members, have spent a lot of time and have worked to oppose controversial housing developments in Aberconwy. These were where applications came forward for land not designated to be in the local development plan, subjected to an inquiry, and yet, before a decision was made, at the eleventh hour, when 'Planning Policy Wales—Edition 10' came in, despite us being able to contribute to the original application and the hearing, we were not allowed, nor were the 1,300 others of us, to make representations. Only the local authority and only the developer were invited to come forward with new evidence.

Now, that is contrary to other parts of the UK. The reason given for this is that the evidence was Welsh Ministers' policy. Clearly, that is unfair and unreasonable, when subsection 47(7) of the Town and Country Planning (Referred Applications and Appeals Procedure) (Wales) Regulations 2017 allows representations to be invited when there is any new evidence. But, in this instance, Welsh Ministers have decided that that isn't correct.

So, I'm going to ask you again whether you would look again at this, as the Counsel General, because I think it is—well, it is—a flaw in our legislation here in Wales, and whether you would perhaps work with the Welsh Government, in particular the Minister for Housing and Local Government, to look at reviewing this situation. Because we need a system in Wales, as regards our planning system, where there has to be fairer planning inquiries, because it's a very expensive procedure, and it's one that, in this instance, on two very weak applications, but very strongly fought applications by the developer, we saw legislation in Wales that has actually really disadvantaged us in my constituency. So, it's something that I will continue fighting on until I see that legislation changed, but I would ask you, in your position, whether you would support us on that. 

I'm aware that the Member has been in correspondence with the Government in relation to that matter. I'm obviously not in a position to comment on the specific application that the Member has described in her supplementary question. But the appeals procedures have been reviewed and updated in 2017, and, obviously, were subject to extensive consultation before coming into force, as is change in Welsh Government policy. So, whenever Government policy changes, including planning policy, that is itself subject to extensive public consultation, and so is excluded from that specific obligation to reconsult.

The planning inspectorate in Wales has acquired a reputation for excellence and it significantly outperforms the planning inspectorate in England, to which she alluded in her question, in terms of accuracy and timeliness, and that within a framework that allows planning inspectors the ability to go above that legal minimum in the legislation. And, given that reputation, we don't intend to constrain that. 

Counsel General, you'll have heard it said before that access to justice is a bit like owning a Rolls Royce—everyone can have one. And I think our planning system is a bit like that at the moment. I've recently had inquiries where large development companies, represented by QCs and a host of expensive experts, are stood against the Ramblers' Association and local citizens. And it seems to me—. Why are they paying those vast amounts of money? Well, the first thing is they can. Some of our housing development companies are robbing the population, exploiting the shortage of housing. The fact that one particular company is recently reported as making £66,000 per house as a profit—no wonder they're able to pay their chief executive £32 million per annum. So, it seems to me that we have a system that is being bought up by those who stand to make enormous profits out of it, and the issue is not about the procedural fairness of the process, but the ability of people to be fairly represented and to have a fair say within that process. And I think those of us from all parties who engage in this process will see a gross injustice. The planning system has been bought up by the incredibly wealthy corporate companies, and what I'd ask is not so much the fairness of the process, but perhaps the mechanism of representation. Why isn't it the case that one of these big housing development companies, who stand to make tens of millions of pounds out of their developments, should also pay into a fund to enable local representation of local communities and local groups, because, until something is done, we have a gross unfairness within the system?

The Member identifies a very important point of principle and a question of access to justice, which I know he has pursued in this and other contexts. The question is: without control over the levers which best deliver access to justice in that context, what can we do as a Government to ensure that the points at which that advantage can be exercised are minimised as far as possible within the constraints that we face? And the plan-led system that we have relies on adopted current development plans, which have been subject to consultation, and community consultation before adoption, and that community engagement in the development of the local development plan obviously is welcomed, encouraged, to ensure that it contains policies that reflect the aspirations of the community.

But I recognise the point that he makes that that imbalance in representation is a challenge to the fairness in that system.