| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Michael Mates (East Hampshire) : I rarely speak in environment debates. Before the Whips rush off to sound the alarm bells, let me assure my hon. Friends that I have no intention of moving an amendment to the Bill. I had intended to speak later about enforcement, but, as the subject has arisen during our current debate, it may be more convenient for me to say now what little I have to say.
I agree with the Government that it would have been wrong to criminalise the enforcement process, although I well understand the reasons given by some of my hon. Friends. We are looking for a deterrent. I have a suggestion which I hope the Government will consider and, if they deem it sensible, will introduce in another place.
On so many occasions, development companies or individuals flout the planning laws and do something that they know they should not be doing. They may, for instance, put a caravan in a field, knowing perfectly well that such an action requires permission. They hope that, by extending the enforcement process--by appealing, and using various delaying mechanisms-- they will be able to leave the caravan there for a long time. With any luck, they will be allowed, if they are persistent enough, to continue to do what they have already done illegally.
Although I do not think that that should become a crime, I believe that the Bill would provide a deterrent if it provided that no council should be able to consider allowing planning permission to someone who had breached the planning law until he had stopped doing so. That would mean that no retrospective application for a caravan to be allowed to remain on a field- -or a barn that had not been erected for agricultural purposes--could be even considered until the object in question had been removed.
Mr. Keith Speed (Ashford) : I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend is saying. However, I was involved in such a case. It lasted for six years, and goodness knows how many letters were written to the Department. The trouble was that the ownership of the caravan changed every other week. It belonged to a travelling family : ownership switched from the old lady to the son, and so on. Trying to establish responsibility for it was a lawyer's nightmare.
Mr. Mates : Only rapid and forthright enforcement can solve problems like that. I am not talking about anything as blatant as my hon. Friend's example. There are people who will defy the law and go on doing it. Others, as a matter of policy, will dig footings without permission so that they can then say that they have started something.
Column 472
Until those footings have been removed and the land has been restored, nothing should be allowed to be started retrospectively. After several years--because of a change in the control of a council or planning authority, for instance--something that was known to be wrong when it was done becomes right. I do not believe that anyone should be able to negotiate with the planning authorities on that basis when they have themselves been in breach of the law.Mr. Mark Wolfson (Sevenoaks) : My hon. Friend's suggestion would obviate a problem that I have encountered. That problem has arisen when a breach of planning permission has been taken to court by the district council, and the court has refused to make a decision while planning permissions have not yet been decided.
Mr. Mates : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not want to go through all the possible examples ; I am sure that every hon. Member will know of one that has affected him or her professionally. I am making a general point about the frustration experienced by local authorities when people have defied them, and then embarked on a process with which they must co-operate because of the present state of the law.
If we can change that, we need not go as far as creating a criminal offence. The deterrent will be provided : as long as the offending breach is there, no one--not the courts, not the local
authorities--will consider regularising the position. Planners must start again, as does the honest citizen, by doing what is proper and applying to do something before they do it. I acknowledge that I am rather late in putting this suggestion to my hon. Friends. I went to the Department of the Environment some years ago with it, but at the time Ministers were not in the same listening mode as I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is in now. I hope that the Government will consider my suggestion if they think it appropriate and do something about it in the other place.
Mr. Yeo : This has been a formidable debate. Much more interest than I had imagined has been evinced in this humble new clause which we have tabled to deal with the problem in a way which we believe will be effective.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), who acknowledged his interest in the matter at the start of his speech, will be aware--although the House may not be--that his predecessor in his role as parliamentary adviser to the National Federation of Demolition Contractors was none other than my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. In view of the advancement of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) from the post of adviser to the federation to his present post in Government, I look forward to welcoming my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West to the Front Bench again shortly.
I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West confirm that the National Federation of Demolition Contractors is not against the aims of the new clause. I emphasise to him and to other of my hon. Friends who spoke in the debate that, where planning permission has been granted for a replacement building on a site, even if it is the site of a dwelling house, it is not necessary to seek specific permission to demolish the dwelling house. The fact of granting permission for a new building on the site
Column 473
which can be constructed only after the existing dwelling house has been demolished will remove the need to go through any further process.Some of the anxieties which have been expressed about delays may prove to be misplaced. The majority of responsible developers and, after the new clause has been passed, even irresponsible developers will find it much quicker and more convenient to seek permission for the building or development with which they wish to replace an existing dwelling house before attempting to demolish it. Therefore, they will choose to seek planning permission. Once they have obtained permission, they will be free to press on with the demolition without further delay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West spoke about dangerous buildings. It is an important point which I hope that we shall address when we consult about how the provisions that we are introducing will be implemented. There is a real issue at stake. I undertake to consider it carefully during the consultation.
Sir Anthony Durant : Bearing in mind my interest, will the Government issue a consultative document to the National Federation of Demolition Contractors so that it can express its views?
Mr. Yeo : Of course I shall ensure that the federation receives our consultation document.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) raised a constituency problem. He managed with some ingenuity to make a speech which it seemed had been prepared for the new clause which was not called. His speech gave the House a chance to recognise what a vigorous champion of his constituents' interests he is. I cannot comment on the specific cases that he raised. However, as he knows, I have written to him today to emphasise the powers that all local authorities have on compulsory purchase. Section 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 gives local authorities powers of compulsory acquisition where that acquisition would be in the interests of the better planning of the area. Such compulsory purchases must be confirmed by the Secretary of State.
I recognise the problem which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North- East identified. The powers that the local authority has can be used where the redevelopment would be carried out not by the local authority or any other statutory body but by a private developer. I hope that he will draw those powers to the attention of his local authority and ensure that if it is possible for it to use them in the cases to which he referred, it will do so, as it is so clearly in the interests of his constituents.
My hon. Friends the Members for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and for Torbay (Mr. Allason) raised several points which seemed in some respects similar to the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East. As I said, we shall consult local authorities. I am sure that they will advise us if they feel that their powers of enforcement are inadequate. However, existing enforcement powers are being put to good use already. There are plenty of examples of local authorities taking successful enforcement action to require the demolition of an unauthorised building.
In today's press, hon. Members may have seen that a building described by the developers as a cow shed which was constructed at a cost of £350,000 and contained
Column 474
windows and fireplaces--perhaps for fires to keep the lambs warm in their early months of life--was required to be demolished. It was an unlawful development and it has now been blown up. The developer has lost his £350,000 house as a result of the vigorous enforcement action taken by the relevant planning authority. There have been several other such examples. I shall not go through the whole list now, but the House should be assured that many local authorities are making effective use of existing powers, even before they have the benefit of the new clause.6.15 pm
As hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee--of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay was not one--will know, the Bill contains a fair number of additional enforcement powers which greatly strengthen the position of local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) suggested that the Government had hoped to put the Bill through its Standing Committee in a day. I assure the House, and hon. Members who served on the Committee will recognise, that there is no possibility of any Standing Committee on which my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams serves completing its proceedings in a day. A year would probably be nearer the mark. However, in the end my hon. Friend showed great restraint, as he did again in his speech today.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams for his congratulations to us on responding to the anxieties that people have expressed about demolition. I share his anxiety about the delay, but, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West, in practice, I do not believe that it will prove to be a major difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) made an interesting suggestion of a 12 -week limit within which local authorities should consider applications. Thereafter, applications would be deemed to have been approved. I shall reflect on that point. In practice, the vast majority of delays will arise on applications for redevelopment rather than specifically for demolition, so I hope that long delays in considering applications for demolition will not be a frequent problem. I shall certainly reflect on my hon. Friend's suggestion.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams asked about the consultation process. I cannot give him a precise date. We certainly wish to implement the proposals as soon as possible, so I hope that the consultation process will be completed during the summer. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) expressed his opposition to criminalisation. I was interested in his suggestion that local authorities should refuse to consider applications where some unlawful development has commenced. My initial thought is that it would be a sweeping measure. In some cases, a minor and technical breach of planning control occurs inadvertently when some new development takes place before planning permission has been granted. It might be rather sweeping to say that no application for any development can be even considered while the technical breach exists. However, I shall certainly reflect on my hon. Friend's suggestions.
Mr. Mates : I do not wish to be misunderstood. I do not suggest that, if a developer or individual makes a mistake and goes wrong after being given permission, the matter cannot be put right. I suggest that, if a developer sets off
Column 475
to do something without permission, he cannot do so inadvertently. If one digs footings for a house, one knows that one must have permission to do so. If one sets up a caravan park, one knows that one requires permission to do so. When a development is undertaken without permission ab initio and deliberately, we should say that the breach must stop before any planning application can be entertained. That is a similar principle to the Latin saying which I cannot recall--I cannot immediately see a lawyer in the Chamber. It is to the effect that, when one comes before justice, one must come with clean hands. Someone else could put that more eloquently than me, but that is what I mean.Mr. Yeo : I appreciate the distinction that my hon. Friend draws. I shall reflect on his interesting suggestion and write to him.
Mr. Soley : In Committee, this matter was thrashed out to some extent in the context of the matter of enforcement. I want to put to the Minister again a point that I put to him on that occasion. It is related to the point that has just been made by his hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates). If a local authority had a general duty of enforcement, including the possibility of retrospective planning permission, it would be able to get round the problem. If a breach, whether intentional or unintentional, were very minor, the local authority might not want to create a big hassle. In such a case, the authority could give permission retrospectively, but would still have a general duty to enforce. Extreme cases such as have been mentioned by the hon. Member for East Hampshire would be caught, but the local authority could deal with minor indiscretions.
Mr. Yeo : I am not sure how that would fit in with the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates). It seems to me that the granting of retrospective planning permission would be made impossible if my hon. Friend's suggestion were accepted. I understand the force of the argument that any unauthorised development must be reversed before an application is considered. Such a procedure would indeed be a major deterrent. People would have to be extremely careful, even if they were thinking of erecting only a garage. What the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is suggesting is rather different. I do not think that the two suggestions go together.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith explained that he was not in favour of criminalisation. Perhaps, as he is a former probation officer, that is not surprising. He may not want to have to look after a lot of developers should he lose his seat in this House. But I do not believe that the problem of uncertainty is quite as great as he suggests. Indeed, I see some advantages in the use of secondary legislation. It would give the Government--indeed, any Government--some flexibility. If, after a number of years' experience, a review of practices were needed, it might be rather easier to change the law through secondary legislation than through a new Bill. Part of the problem relating to demolition arises from the case to which I referred when I opened this debate.
Column 476
I hope that I have dealt with all the points that have been raised. If not, I shall gladly write to any hon. Member who feels aggrieved. I believe that the Government's case is clear, and I commend the new clause to the House.Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 3
Home loss payments : Northern Ireland
An Order in Council under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (exercise of legislative functions for Northern Ireland) which states that it is made only for purposes corresponding to the purposes of sections 61 and 62 of this Act-- (a) shall not be subject to paragraph 1(4) and (5) of that Schedule (affirmative resolution procedure and procedure in cases of urgency), but
(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.-- [Mr. Yeo.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Madam Deputy Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 62.
Mr. Yeo : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The purpose of these measures is to permit the extension to Northern Ireland, by the negative resolution Order in Council procedure, of the home loss payment provisions contained in clauses 61 and 62. The measures are essentially technical, but I shall be happy to explain them further if anyone wishes me to do so.
Mr. Soley : This issue was debated in Committee, but I should like to put it on record that what applies to the rest of the United Kingdom applies to Northern Ireland also. Tenants deserve a better deal. We welcome the increased home loss payments for owner-occupiers, but it is unreasonable to assume that a tenant's investment in a home is necessarily much less as is reflected in the provision. As was said many times in Committee, many tenants invest a great deal of time and money in their homes. If my memory serves me correctly, the compensation that such a person receives for his home is £2,500. That is a paltry sum for someone who has occupied a house for, say, 30 years and has spent much of his savings on putting it into high-class condition. It is sad that the Minister cannot be more generous.
Mr. Yeo : We have had a fairly extensive debate on that problem. These measures will honour an assurance, given in another place many years ago, that the people of Northern Ireland would be treated no less favourably, in financial terms in relation to planning matters, than their counterparts in Great Britain.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 6
Demolition of buildings
.--(1) In section 19 of the 1972 Act (meaning of "development") after subsection (1) there is inserted--
"(1A) For the purposes of this Act "building operations" includes-- (a) demolition of buildings ;
(b) rebuilding ;
Column 477
(c) structural alterations of or additions to buildings ; and (d) other operations normally undertaken by a person carrying on business as a builder."(2) In subsection (2) of that section after paragraph (f) there is inserted --
"(g) the demolition of any description of building specified in a direction given by the Secretary of State to planning authorities generally or to a particular planning authority."
(3) After section 154(3) of the 1972 Act (compensation for refusal or conditional grant of planning permission formerly granted by development order) there is inserted--
"(3A) Regulations made by virtue of this subsection may provide that subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall not apply where planning permission granted by a development order for demolition of buildings or any description of buildings is withdrawn by the issue of directions under powers conferred by the order.".'.-- [Mr. Yeo.] Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New clause 7
Interdicts restraining breaches of planning control
After section 260 of the 1972 Act there is inserted--
"Interdicts restraining breaches of planning control 260A.--(1) Whether or not they have exercised or propose to exercise any of their other powers under this Act, a planning authority may seek to restrain or prevent any actual or apprehended breach of any of the controls provided for by or under this Act by means of an application for interdict.
(2) On an application under subsection (1) of this section the court may grant such interdict as it thinks appropriate for the purpose of restraining or preventing the breach.
(3) In this section "the court" means the Court of Session or the sheriff.".'.-- [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is supported by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. It introduces a power to allow planning authorities to seek interdict in cases where a breach of planning control has taken place or is expected to take place. This express power to take action in this way, irrespective of the stage reached in the planning enforcement process, will greatly assist authorities to ensure that cases of the most flagrant abuse can be dealt with speedily. I know that this new power will be welcomed by planning authorities to help them to protect the environment in our towns and countryside. Once a developer decides to flout the planning system by putting up some monstrous development without seeking planning permission, it takes some time to go through the full enforcement procedures. Now, an authority will be able to take immediate action to prevent the development from taking place. Let me take another example--that of a developer who intends to cut down an expanse of woodland of outstanding amenity. Interdict will prevent that. Anyone breaching an interdict is in contempt of court, and risks a heavy penalty. I believe that the new clause will be widely welcomed.
Dr. Godman : I welcome the new clause. Earlier today, I spoke to Mr. Ian Wilson, the chief executive of Inverclyde district council. Mr. Wilson- -an official whom the Minister has met more than once--said that the new clause is precisely the kind of medicine that planning
Column 478
authorities need. He referred to a case that has recently caused a great deal of controversy in Greenock. Developers simply ignored the local authority and commenced the construction of a private nursing home. I think that the Minister is familiar with the case. Inverclyde district council tried to have the construction halted. Under the existing scheme, the builders were issued with an order. But, as the Minister knows, many months can pass before decisive action is taken. If that issue had not been settled in a most amicable fashion this week, the council would eventually have had to take the case to the procurator fiscal. That would be an unwieldy and cumbersome means of dealing with builders and others who are less than scrupulous. I was pleased to hear the Minister refer to the destruction of woodland. What is proposed will please many rural authorities throughout mainland Scotland, as well as people in the islands. Presumably, as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has welcomed the provision, consultations took place with legal parties. Subsection (3) of the new clause says :" the court' means the Court of Session or the sheriff." Presumably "the sheriff" means the sheriff court. Is the Minister in a position to estimate how long it would take to obtain such an interdict, given that, with modern methods, a stretch of woodland could be cleared within several days, or an even shorter time? How long would it take to obtain the court's support? Also, has the Minister or his officials estimated the increase in the work load of the sheriff court or the Court of Session? The incident in Greenock to which I referred by way of illustration is not an extremely rare phenomenon, as any member of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities would say. It is necessary to obtain the court's support in a shorter time. There is also the question of the extra work placed upon the sheriff court. Presumably--the Minister will correct me if I am wrong--most of the actions will be taken in that court and not in the Court of Session.
I welcome the proposal. It will be greeted with pleasure by many people throughout Scotland.
6.30 pm
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : I thank the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for his remarks. Certainly this will provide another effective tool to enable local authorities to take very quick action indeed.
The hon. Member is anxious about how quickly courts will consider such cases. It will be very rapidly indeed in the case of interdicts--literally within hours. Obviously there is a problem with the work loads before the courts, but that is because cases are taking much longer, and it does not relate to interdicts. Committees are sitting to ensure that the courts process cases as quickly as possible, and improvements have been made in recent months. With those assurances, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New clause 8
Old mining permissions
. After section 49G of the 1972 Act there is inserted
Column 479
"Old mining permissions.49H.--(1) In this section and Schedule 10A to this Act, old mining permission' means any planning permission for development-- (a) consisting of the winning and working of minerals, or (b) involving the depositing of mineral waste,
which is deemed to have been granted by virtue of paragraph 77 of Schedule 22 to this Act (development authorised under interim development orders after 10th November 1943).
(2) An old mining permission shall, if an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is finally determined, have effect as from the final determination as if granted on the terms required to be registered. (3) If no such development has, at any time in the period of two years ending with 16th May 1991, been carried out to any substantial extent anywhere in, on or under the land to which an old mining permission relates, that permission shall not authorise any such development to be carried out after the coming into force of this section unless--
(a) the permission has effect in accordance with subsection (2) above ; and
(b) the development is carried out after such an application is finally determined.
(4) An old mining permission shall--
(a) if no application for the registration of the permission is made under that Schedule, cease to have effect on the day following the last date on which such an application may be made, and (b) if such an application is refused, cease to have effect on the day following the date on which the application is finally determined.
(5) An old mining permission shall, if--
(a) such an application is granted ; but
(b) an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is required to be served before the end of any period and is not so served,
cease to have effect on the day following the last date on which the application to determine those conditions may be served. (6) Subject to subsection (3) above, this section--
(a) shall not affect any development carried out under an old mining permission before an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is finally determined or, as the case may be, the date on which the permission ceases to have effect ; and
(b) shall not affect any order made or having effect as if made under section 49 or 49A to 49F of this Act (discontinuance, etc., orders).".'.-- [Sir George Young.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill .
New Clause 15
Transitional provision as to compensation regulations
. Without prejudice to section 17(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978, any regulations made, or having effect as if made, by virtue of section 167A (regulations as to mineral compensation) of the 1972 Act shall, to the extent that they are in force on the coming into force of paragraph 10A of Schedule 7 to this Act, have effect as if made under section 167A of that Act as substituted by that paragraph.'-- [Sir George Young.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Column 480
New Clause 5
Additional sum of compensation for small firms
After section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 there is inserted--
"5A.(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, in addition to compensation in respect of the value of any interest in land assessed in accordance with section 5 of this Act, there shall be paid by the acquiring authority an additional sum.
(2) Payment of an additional sum under this section shall be made only where :
(a) the land or premises acquired are used for the purposes of a small firm, and
(b) the claimant is the owner of the land, or is a tenant entitled to compensation under section 20 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.
(3) Subject to subsection (4) the amount of the additional sum shall be calculated as 10 per cent. of the compensation referred to in subsection (1).
(4) Where relevant the amount of the additional sum shall be adjusted as follows :
(a) If the claimant is entitled to an additional sum under this section and a home loss payment under section 29 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, only the higher of the two amounts shall be payable and not both.
(b) No payment of an additional sum under this section shall exceed £25,000.
(5) The Secretary of State may from time to time by order substitute another sum for the sum specified in subsection (4)(b) above ; and the power to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6) In this section :
Small firm' means any person who, at the date of the notice to treat, is carrying on a business and the number of employees employed by him, added to the number of employees employed by any associated employer of his, does not exceed 20.".'.-- [Mr. Moate.]
Brought up, and read the first time.
Mr. Moate : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause seeks to extend to small firms the treatment granted to home owners in the Bill. In my understanding at least, the term "small firms" includes small farms. Therefore, I believe that this proposal will certainly be warmly welcomed in the county of Kent because of the prospect of railway development there at some time in the future. Having said that, this is not a parochial matter--the clause will be welcomed by small businesses and farmers throughout the land, because it extends them justice which has so far been denied to them. I am also delighted that justice is now being offered to house owners in this Bill.
New clause 5 is a sensible proposal. It is limited in cost and is impeccably drafted--in case any of my hon. Friends seek to suggest that it is faulty on those grounds. Also, I believe that it is well-precedented. I hope that it will be acceptable in some form or other to my hon. Friends.
I should say how much I welcome the home loss payment which is incorporated in the Bill. That is an important measure and it has not yet received the welcome or the praise that it deserves from the country. There can be few hon. Members who have not had to face constituents whose homes are to be compulsorily purchased, especially as a result of road developments. We
| Next Section
| Home Page |