| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): I congratulate the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on securing the debate and providing the opportunity to discuss the Sedgemoor Group and the planning system, especially the operation of the use classes order, Class C3.
I appreciate the concerns of the hon. Gentleman's constituents about the matter. Indeed, as a constituency Member of Parliament I experienced similar issues in
28 Jun 2004 : Column 132
the mid-1990s and I raised them in more than one Adjournment debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it was a positive move by the Government to bring such small children's homes into a regulatory framework.
I understand that the Sedgemoor Group's business centres on providing child care, namely education and residential care, for children and young people. The group currently has an extensive range of satellite houses, each accommodating between two and four young people of the same sex. The satellite staff teams are managed and supported directly by qualified senior care managers.
It goes without saying that our children and young people deserve the best possible start in life. They need a caring and nurturing environment that helps them to value themselves and their community. I hope that that will be provided in caring and loving homes. Unfortunately, some children and young people have complex needs that families are unable to provide. Some need to be looked after because of family breakdown and others need to be looked after for their own safety. We as a society need to help those children and young people. The Sedgemoor Group looks after some of them.
Given the nature of the group's operations, especially its close involvement with young people with various forms of difficulties and complex needs, there is a possibility of problems arising in the integration of children and young people in the local community. That has evidently occurred in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. That is clearly regrettable and creates the need to seek solutions to the problems. However, before I consider planning issues, I want to refer to other possible recourses in dealing with those problems.
The Commission for Social Care Inspection is responsible for registering and regulating residential care providers, including children's homes. The commission issues the certificate of registration and, as part of that process, homes are inspected at least twice a year with one announced and another unscheduled visit. If local people are worried about the operations of the homes, they should contact the Commission for Social Care Inspection, which is required to examine the issues raised. However, it is obvious that the police also have an important role to play and they should be contacted if residents have concerns about the homes and the behaviour of the youths who are resident in them.
It must be clear to everyone that swift and effective action will be taken against unacceptable behaviour, and that rowdy and nuisance behaviour must be stopped immediately. One way of doing that might be to agree an acceptable behaviour contract. That is a voluntary agreement designed to engage an individual in acknowledging his or her antisocial behaviour and its effect on others, with the aim of stopping that behaviour.
It being Ten o'clock the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Vernon Coaker.]
Keith Hill:
We also introduced antisocial behaviour orders in 1999, and have recently legislated to improve their effectiveness in the light of the experience of their
28 Jun 2004 : Column 133
operation. ASBOs are civil orders, similar to injunctions. They prohibit individuals from specific antisocial actions and are available for any person aged 10 or over who has acted in an antisocial manner likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress and who is likely to do so again. The local community can contact their antisocial behaviour co-ordinator, who is best placed to give advice on their particular situation and offer possible solutions. Indeed, if there is poor management and bad behaviour, the solutions for these problems seem more likely to be found via the inspectorate and the police than the planning system. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that there is a view in some quarters that part, if not all, of the solution to the problems experienced in Eddisbury might be found within the planning system.
The planning system is designed to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest. It is used to direct development to appropriate locations, to ensure that society has the right buildings and infrastructure in the right place at the right time to enable it to function in the interests of all its members. Development control procedures mean that before carrying out some forms of development, including changes of use, planning permission should first be obtained. Such intervention in the development process by the responsible local planning authority is justified on the ground that it is in the public interest.
However, in any one year there are likely to be many hundreds of thousands of developments and changes in the use of properties. Therefore, in order to simplify the process, to reduce bureaucracy, and to make the planning system work effectively, certain powers exist to allow the general requirement for planning permission to be modified. Among these provisions is the use classes order. This works by setting out groups of similar activities, the use classes, and making it clear that changes between different activities within the same group do not require planning permission. This is because development is deemed not to take place.
This deregulation is increased by the general permitted development order, which also removes the need for planning permission for certain changes between activities in different groups or use classes. I might mention at this point that, despite the various deregulation procedures in place to help to reduce the burden, the number of planning applications made to local planning authorities remains high. In the last year, some 674,000 applications were submitted, compared with 634,000 the year before. In other words, without these general permissions and elements of deregulation, the local planning authorities would simply be swamped.
The hon. Gentleman's specific concern is with the operation of the use classes order, particularly class C3. I shall quote from that use class—I dare say that the hon. Gentleman has used the same quotation himself, but I am sure that he will bear with me—which allows:
"Use as a dwellinghouse (whether or not as a sole or main residence)—
by a single person or by people living together as a family; or
by not more than 6 residents living together as a single household (including a household where care is provided for residents)."
In simple terms, when a dwelling is occupied by a traditional family but is in future to be occupied by no more than six sharing the dwelling, such a household would normally fall within class C3 and planning permission would not be required.
This part of the use classes order has remained unchanged since the order was put in place in its present form in 1987. In 2001, we commissioned Baker Associates to carry out a review of the use classes order and aspects of permitted development. On class C3, the review concluded that no change should be made to this part of the order. I announced this conclusion to the House on 27 November 2003, and I can restate that clear position today.
I am certain that this will disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but it is important that we do not overburden the local planning authority with unnecessary bureaucracy. I might also say to him that I shall continue to reflect on the points he has made; that is the purpose of such debates as this. Nevertheless, there would need to be compelling and universal reasons for change.
That said, it is for the local authority to determine case by case to which category a particular premises belongs. Accordingly, if in the view of a local authority there was a material change in strict land use terms—that is, movements of traffic, noise, security arrangements and so on—in the use of a particular dwelling house to the extent that it could be classified no longer as C3 but as C2, the local authority can so determine. However, I need to point out that such decisions can be subject to later challenge in the courts.
I might also add that the one area where a local authority could intervene is under article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. This provides the means by which a local planning authority can issue a direction to control development that would normally go ahead without planning permission. Although, in most cases, article 4 directions require the consent of the Secretary of State before they come into effect, in this case they can come into effect immediately they are served by the council. However, they cannot be imposed where the works have already been completed.
Moreover, local authorities are advised in appendix D of Environment Circular 9/95 entitled "General Development Order Consolidation 1995", that it will rarely be justifiable to withdraw permitted development rights unless there is a real and specific threat to an interest of acknowledged public importance, necessitating tighter planning control in the public interest.
So, I have to advise the hon. Gentleman that he is probably wisest to continue the work he has clearly already undertaken with his local communities, the Sedgemoor Group, the police, the Commission for Social Care Inspection and the local antisocial behaviour co-ordinator to find a different solution. These are primarily management and behaviour issues. Imposing solutions through the planning system seems inappropriate.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |