In correspondence with us , the Department of the Environment set out the reasoning behind the proposal and the way in which they saw it being implemented .sx The new power was to be aimed specifically at minimising the occasions on which a planning inquiry or hearing was held when , they said , the written representations procedure would suffice to ensure that the issues were properly examined and a correct decision reached .sx There was no intention to limit or inhibit the 'reasonable' exercise of the right to be heard and the new power was not intended as a general deterrent to the exercise of that statutory right , although it would encourage a greater public awareness of the resource implications of the exercise of the right .sx Policy guidance would set out the categories of cases which might initially be regarded as suitable for the written representations procedure , and these categories would include many of the planning appeals in which a hearing was offered in response to a party's exercise of the right to be heard .sx In addition , the Department proposed to introduce an 'early warning' system for appeals where an appeal party was at risk of being ordered to pay costs .sx If one of the parties notified the Department of their intention to seek their costs because they considered an inquiry unnecessary , or in certain other cases where the Department themselves considered an inquiry unnecessary , the other party would be warned that they might be at risk of an award of costs if they continued to insist upon the exercise of the right to be heard .sx The Department pointed out that , initially , the provision would apply only to the exercise of the right to be heard by way of an inquiry , since section 322 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ( the '1990 Act' ) , giving the power to award costs at hearings ( as distinct from inquiries ) , was not yet in force .sx However , the policy was that section 322 should be brought into force as soon as practicable .sx 1.60 Our views .sx Our fundamental objection to clause 24 was that it would , in our view , act as a strong and general deterrent to the exercise of the statutory right to be heard .sx We thought that there might be a ( possibly small ) number of cases where , on the documentation available before the commencement of the inquiry , it would be feasible to take the view that they could be dealt with satisfactorily by means of the written representation procedure .sx But this did not in our view justify the new provision , the effect of which we thought would be , and would certainly be perceived to be , to put every party appealing who insisted on the right to be heard at risk of being condemned in costs on the basis of conclusions drawn after the event .sx While a general discretion to award costs such as the Secretary of State at present has in respect of planning inquiries was acceptable , it was wrong in principle for a statute effectively to confer a right to be heard with one hand and to attempt to limit its exercise by the proposed means with the other .sx The Government's intention not to deter the 'reasonable' exercise of the right to be heard was belied by what we thought would be the actual effect of their proposals , since , whether or not that exercise was reasonable , it appeared to us that nothing could save a party from being condemned in costs if , after the event , an Inspector had the power to conclude that that party was mistaken , and that the hearing did not add to what would have been available to him on the papers .sx 1.61 Moreover , the Departmental information relating to the way in which the proposal was to be implemented accentuated our misgivings .sx Their proposals for a warning to be given to parties in all cases where the other party to proceedings made an application for costs , or where the Department considered of their own motion that such an application might be made , could only be regarded as an extra deterrent in the nature of a threat against the exercise of the right to be heard .sx We thought that the unconstrained expression of the power in the legislation , together with these glosses upon it , would act as a particular deterrent to small developers , who , perhaps in some instances without the expertise or the professional advice available to express themselves fully on paper , prefer to put their case to an Inspector in person .sx We pointed out that no parallel power was proposed for Scottish legislation because , as we understood , it was not thought to be needed :sx there the bringing into force of the provision equivalent to section 322 of the 1990 Act ( power to award costs in respect of hearings ) had been considered sufficient for the purpose .sx 1.62 The Government's change of policy .sx Our views were conveyed to the Department through interchanges of correspondence with them , including a letter from our Chairman to the Minister of Housing and Planning .sx Our own misgivings about clause 24 were paralleled by those expressed by both the Bar and The Law Society .sx During the Committee stage of the Bill in the House of Lords , the expressions of concern voiced by some members , which to a substantial degree reflected our own concern , let to the Government's undertaking to review the clause in the light of our observations and the views expressed by members .sx In the event , the Government announced their intention at the Report stage not to proceed with the clause .sx We were pleased and encouraged that the Government had listened to criticism of clause 24 and responded in this way .sx 1.63 Award of costs for late cancellations of inquiries .sx In place of the withdrawn proposals , the Government brought forward a new provision to enable appeal costs to be awarded , at the Secretary of State's discretion , where the behaviour of either of the two main parties in appeal proceedings resulted in cancellation of a local inquiry or hearing after formal notice of the opening date had been given to the parties .sx This provision was designed to enable other appeal parties to recover their abortive expenditure in preparing for an inquiry or hearing which had had to be cancelled because one of the principal party's actions .sx As the Government put it , the proposal would remedy the absence of anything in the planning legislation enabling the Secretary of State to order that 'wasted' costs be recovered from the party responsible .sx 1.64 In principle we welcomed this new provision ( now in section 30 of the Act , inserting a new section 322A in the 1990 Act) .sx But we thought that its implementation would require great care ; for example , there are cases where it is only at a late stage in the proceedings that the full strength of a local authority's case is revealed to an appellant , and in such circumstances late withdrawal could not be described as unreasonable behaviour .sx The Department assured us that they were aware of these dangers and that revisions to the Costs Circular , upon which we would be consulted , would make clear that an award of costs would only be made if there had been 'unreasonable' behaviour in the particular circumstances of the case .sx 1.65 Conclusion .sx The changes in the legislation in passage recorded in the preceding paragraphs came about because our representations , in common with representations from other interested bodies , had the requisite effect and we record this , therefore , as an appropriate example of the exercise of our advisory function .sx But the principal reason for setting out in some detail our views on these legislative proposals is that it enables us to emphasise the value of the right of an appellant against an administrative decision to have his case heard if he so wishes and the need for vigilance in maintaining the unimpaired effectiveness of that right .sx .sx 1.66 Other changes .sx A substantial number of matters in the Bill were of interest to us and will involve the exercise of new regulation-making powers upon which we expect future consultation .sx However , our comments here are confined to those items where we found the need to make detailed observations to the Department .sx 1.67 Simplified Planning Zones .sx A provision which caused us some concern stemmed from proposals put forward in a consultation paper entitled " Simplified Planning Zones :sx Streamlining of " , issued by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office in August 1990 .sx Provision for simplified planning zones ( SPZs ) was introduced by the Housing and Planning Act 1986 , and is now contained in the 1990 Act .sx In brief , an SPZ is an area where an SPZ scheme is in force .sx Where such a scheme has been adopted , or approved by the Secretary of State , the effect is that planning permission is deemed to be granted for development specified in the scheme or for any development of any class so specified .sx An SPZ scheme ceases to have effect at the end of a period of 10 years after its adoption or approval .sx The procedure leading up to the creation of an SPZ had hitherto , under the 1990 Act , involved the holding of a public local inquiry or hearing to consider objections in cases where objectors wish to be heard by an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State .sx The Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 applies to such inquiries or hearings .sx 1.68 SPZs have not so far proved very attractive to authorities and developers .sx According to research commissioned by the Department of the Environment , received before but published after issue of the consultation paper , SPZ procedures were widely perceived as cumbersome and time-consuming , and it was thought that this might be dissuading some authorities and developers from embarking on schemes .sx The Department nonetheless still saw SPZs as a potentially valuable mechanism for encouraging inner city regeneration .sx The consolation paper accordingly put forward proposals for streamlining the procedures .sx The salient features were :sx making public participation before deposit of a scheme optional ; .sx removing the requirement to hold a local inquiry ; and .sx earlier publication of notice of intention to adopt a scheme .sx 1.69 Our main concern with the proposals was that which would remove the requirement to hold a local inquiry where objectors wish to be heard .sx We thought that strong justification would be needed for such a proposal , bearing in mind particularly the major implications of SPZ designation , which opened to question the relaxation of safeguards at the time of initial consideration .sx The grant of permission by an adopted scheme can have very wide social , visual and other environmental impact without the public or any affected person having a right to object or to a public inquiry after the scheme has been adopted .sx We did not consider that the interest in urban regeneration should be allowed to override genuine planning objections .sx Under the new proposals , subject to the Secretary of State's powers of intervention to direct an inquiry or to call in a scheme for his own decision , it would be entirely at the discretion of the authority whether to hold an inquiry .sx Their only obligation would be to consider objections and to publish a reasoned statement of their decisions on objections and of any modification they proposed .sx This would leave objectors with scant redress if they had continuing objections and no opportunity to air them further .sx We also questioned whether it was right in principle that the decisions whether or not to hold a public inquiry should lie ( subject to the Secretary of State's powers of intervention ) with the authority , since when the authority was itself the landowner , it would have the major interest in the proposal for an SPZ and might be thought to have an interest in avoiding the opportunity for independent scrutiny at a public inquiry .sx 1.70 The Department sought to allay our concerns .sx While they remained of the view that there would be cases in which neither the volume nor the weight of objection justified an inquiry , in the light of our comments they decided that it would be advisable for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to planning authorities on the circumstances in which it would be desirable for a public inquiry to be held to consider objections to a draft scheme :sx for example , where a scheme constituted a substantial departure from the development plan or raised strategic planning issues ; where a scheme was the subject of substantial local controversy ; or where it involved a substantial area of land in the authority's ownership and there were objection to the authority's proposals .sx