House of Commons Standing Cttee on Delegated Legislation (pt 2)

Draft Planning (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003

[back to previous text]

Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim): Much of the planning process in Northern Ireland is in disrepute. There is a widespread perception that the system suffers from various problems, including intolerable delays, inconsistency, the ability of big developers to flout the law with impunity, and a serious lack of accountability. That was all tolerated during the period of direct rule and the troubles, as the people of Northern Ireland had more pressing problems, but with the restoration of devolved Government in the Province and an increasing focus on bread-and-butter issues, the media and the public have rightly demanded better from locally elected politicians in the Stormont Assembly and Executive.
Several high-profile cases highlighted in the Northern Ireland media during the past year have contributed to public disquiet over planning policy. They include the demolition of the poet Seamus Heaney's former home in south Belfast, the demolition of several buildings in Holywood, the demolition of the listed Tillie and Henderson shirt factory in Londonderry and the recent destruction of Red Hall in east Belfast, which had connections with
Column Number: 9
the author C.S. Lewis. Whatever the merits of individual cases—there have been many others in towns and villages across the Province—each has contributed to what I would describe as a sense of unease, if not outright dissatisfaction with the current planning system.
The Ulster Unionist party welcomes measures in the order to bring Northern Ireland legislation into line with Great Britain legislation. Throughout the United Kingdom, justice in planning must not only be done, but be seen to be done. All too often, the system in Northern Ireland has to be seen to be believed.
What can be done to restore confidence in Northern Ireland's planning system? The environment portfolio was held by my Ulster Unionist party colleagues Sam Foster and, later, Dermot Nesbitt, both of whom did their level best to restore confidence in the system. The Planning (Amendment) Bill, which the order replaces, was steered through the Assembly by those colleagues. New legislation undoubtedly forms part of the solution to the problems. It is devolution in practice—locally elected representatives responding to local people. Given time, the Assembly would have been able to address the concerns of the Northern Ireland electorate and tailor solutions to local problems. However, the direct rule Minister has modified the Planning (Amendment) Bill and removed the provision that would have allowed Northern Ireland to introduce criminalisation.
I am sure that the Minister agrees that Orders in Council are a very unsatisfactory means of conducting business. That said, there is much to welcome in this order, at least as far as it goes. Although it incorporates input from the Departments of the Environment, for Regional Development and for Social Development, I shall focus on the provisions that affect the Department of the Environment's Planning (Amendment) Bill.
The recommendations of the Assembly Environment Committee, included in the draft order, include a provision that a stop notice shall come into effect immediately unless the Department specifies that it should come into effect later, and a provision for district councils to have a statutory consultative role when the Department draws up, modifies, varies or discharges a planning agreement.
The Committee recommends a further increase, from Ł20,000 to Ł30,000, in the maximum fine that can be imposed in a magistrates court for breaches of an enforcement notice, a tree preservation order, a stop notice, a listed buildings enforcement notice, or a hazardous substances contravention notice. It had already been proposed to increase the maximum fine that a court could impose for breaches of such notices from Ł5,000 to Ł20,000.
In Northern Ireland, developers have cleared away sound trees on Saturdays, and even Sundays. It has been almost impossible to arrange official intervention to stop unapproved clearances at the weekend, and examples of many important tree species have been removed without consultation. Perhaps district council chief executives could be given an official contact so that they can act when an emergency happens out of
Column Number: 10
office hours, or at the weekend, and stop that kind of thing.
The measures in the order are welcome, but it omits one important provision proposed by the Northern Ireland Assembly Environment Committee. It does not include a new offence of commencing development without planning permission. The Minister gave four reasons why that measure could not be introduced: that more consultation was required, that human rights issues had been raised, that legal issues required further discussion, and that many breaches of planning consent were minor and unintentional, so criminal records would be disproportionate. We believe that those reasons are a smokescreen for the true reason—that the Secretary of State is unlikely to approve a new serious offence.
No more consultation was required—the Environment Committee had agreed the matter. All Northern Ireland legislation is already subject to human rights scrutiny and legal-proofing. The notion that people will acquire criminal records for minor offences is also spurious, because people receive a criminal record only on conviction. Discretion is used in respect of those who are prosecuted for breaking planning laws, and that could continue to apply after the criminal offence had been introduced. Rather than be used to deal with minor offences, criminalisation would provide a tool for use against developers who flagrantly abuse the law.
Both the Environment Committee and the Assembly wanted criminalisation. If devolution is to mean anything in practice, we must be responsive to local people through their elected representatives. The Assembly is better placed than the Secretary of State to decide what is best for the people of Northern Ireland. I am not persuaded by the Minister's arguments.
I welcome the order as far as it goes, but more work is required to give Northern Ireland the planning system it needs so that public confidence may be restored. The order must be merely the first stage in a comprehensive overhaul of the planning system. Work must be done to improve existing processes and to challenge planning culture. That work should include new legislation and better use of existing legislation.
Will the Minister review the extent of areas of outstanding natural beauty? Will the Department view sympathetically applications from active farming families to provide accommodation for sons or daughters on their own farms? Farming has suffered greatly in recent years, and many small farmers have been forced into part-time work, but the need for family support on the farm remains, and the regional development strategy should provide greater flexibility. I would welcome the possibility of approvals for residential accommodation for members of a family on their home farm, even if it were tied to the farm business and could not be obtained and then sold off.
It is imperative that joined-up Government should be more than just a soundbite. I urge the Department of the Environment and, in particular, the planning service to liaise more closely with their counterparts in
Column Number: 11
the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in order actively to assist farming communities that are trying to preserve their way of life in the countryside, maintain rural schools, and so on. The restoration of devolved Government to Northern Ireland will benefit all the citizens of Northern Ireland. That is more true of planning more anything else.
As I said, Orders in Council are an unsatisfactory means of conducting business, but it must never be forgotten where the blame for the suspension of the Assembly lies. It lies with one party in Northern Ireland that sought to sit in government at Stormont, while importing weapons, recruiting and targeting, conducting spying operations, breaking into Castlereagh police station, and training narco-terrorists in Columbia.
Only when Sinn Fein-IRA fulfil their commitments under the Belfast agreement and demonstrate to the long-suffering people of Northern Ireland that violence is finished for good and that they are ready to follow the path of democracy and purely constitutional politics can devolved Government be restored. Then, perhaps, we can all set about delivering the good governance that the people of Northern Ireland deserve and desire.

3.1 pm

Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland): I shall endeavour to keep my contribution fairly brief, for two reasons. First, I have a great deal of sympathy with the points raised by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), particularly in relation to family farms and the requirement for a second home. I am familiar with that from my own constituency and family perspective.
Secondly, I have what I am not abashed to admit is an antipathy towards this subject. When I was a law student, it was my exceeding poor fortune to have to sit through one of the most tedious courses on town and country planning ever. I remember declaring, as I scraped my pass in that subject, that if I ever did anything again, I would never have anything to do with town and country planning. That only goes to show that one should never say never.
In introducing the order, the Under-Secretary referred to the six recommendations proposed by Committees in the Northern Ireland Assembly and said that three of them had been incorporated. However, I am with the hon. Member for East Antrim in feeling that her rather offhand dismissal of the remaining three recommendations was less than satisfactory. I do not see the offence of commencing development without planning permission as being as severe an offence as she suggested. Furthermore, how will the consultation that she will carry out be different from or better than the consultation already carried out?

©Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 4 February 2003