| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
19 Jun 2007 : Column 387WH—continued
In raising a specific issue that relates to Manchester, I should like some steer from the Minister as to whether it is a national problem. I am not a big fan of the new executive and scrutiny structure in local government, but one of the good things that has come out of it in Manchester is that the physical environment scrutiny committee, which is chaired by one of my colleagues, Councillor Simon Wheale, conducted an inquiry into
the enforcement of planning regulations. The inquiry made it clear that there is a lack of enforcement in Manchester, and, as a result, extra resources were found to fund two additional enforcement officers in the planning department.
Unfortunately, 12 months later, those two enforcement officers have still not been recruited. My question is whether this is a problem with the Manchester recruiting process, or whether across the country there is a lack of people who have the necessary enforcement skills. If there is a lack of skills, perhaps it should be addressed.
We must deal with penalties for breaking conditions. The one way to improve compliance with planning conditions is to impose tougher penalties on developers. Currently, they think that they can get away with flouting conditions. If they are caught, the penalties are so insignificant that it is worth their taking the risk. Others assume that if they are caught, all they need to do is put in another planning application and get permission. I shall give two examples from my constituency.
Two or three years ago, a developer built a block of flats in Didsbury several feet higher than it was supposed to be. As soon as local residents and councillors—not planning enforcement officers who had noticed the problem themselves—made the planning department aware of the contravention, the developers were forced to put in another planning application. The planning department did not think that the cost of forcing the developer to chop off the top part of the building was justifiable, so section 106 was introduced instead, and the developer spent thousands of pounds on improving the environment in the street. Of course, the developer thought that that was a price worth paying because building a larger development would result in additional money when the flats were sold. That amount far outweighed what the developer paid to improve the local environment.
A more recent example is from the Chorlton end of my constituency. The council gave permission for a coach house on Edge lane to be demolished and rebuilt in a similar fashion but slightly bigger. That permission was given on the understanding that the existing bricks would be retained during demolition of the old building and reused for the new building, and that bricks that matched the original ones would have to be sourced if additional bricks were required.
The developer sent in the bulldozers and made no attempt to retain any of the bricks. He then used brand-new bricks of a completely different colour. The planning department was informed by local residents and councillors, and what happened? It approved an application to use new bricks, despite the strong condition attached to the earlier application. The only reason why the developer was allowed to demolish the original coach house was that the original bricks would be retained for the new building. It was in the interests of the developer to bulldoze the building and not worry about retaining the bricks because it was much cheaper to use brand-new bricks, and, of course, he then got away with it. Tougher penalties are needed so that financially it will not be in the interests of developers to flout the conditions.
I end by raising a point that has not yet been made. It is to do with the restrictions on opening times. In Manchester—certainly in my constituency—many applications are made to convert shops or buildings
into bars, restaurants and take-aways. I am sure that hon. Members would agree that such applications are often fairly controversial with local residents; that is certainly the case in my constituency. Because they are controversial, and because there is an impact on local residents, conditions are usually imposed on such developments to restrict the hours and to ensure that local people do not suffer too much disamenity as a result of late-night drinking or noise.
The problem is that we now have new licensing laws, and owners of bars and restaurants are applying for later licences, which are often approved. They then use their licensing hours as justification for extending the opening times and for requesting a change in how long they can stay open under their planning conditions. Councils—Manchester is certainly one of them—worry about refusing such applications on the basis that if the applicant appeals, they will almost certainly be granted the additional time because they have been granted a licence for later hours.
I want an assurance from the Minister that the Department will consider the impact that the new licensing laws have had on planning conditions to restrict hours of operation, and whether they have resulted in hours of operation being extended when conditions had been imposed to restrict the level of disamenity to local residents.
10.27 am
Andrew George (St. Ives) (LD): My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Rogerson) has allowed me a little leeway should I spill over my allotted time, but I will do my best not to take advantage of his kindness.
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) on securing the debate. He made some strong arguments for reviewing how the Government approach the matter and for finding ways to strengthen the integrity of the planning system, particularly in the area of enforcement. I hope that the Minister will take those points on board.
As many of us know, the planning system is fuelled more by greed than by need. When planning committees grant permission, they in fact write cheques to those who are successful in the process, whether or not they bamboozled the local committee. The fact is that the system itself is often driven by the wrong motivations. One of the results is that some developers will go to extreme degrees to avoid proper process.
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con):
The hon. Gentleman says that the planning system is driven by greed, not need, but is he aware of a pamphlet recently published by the Liberal Democrat think-tank CentreForum? It was written by the distinguished economic historian Dr. Tim Leunig, and it was endorsed by Front-Bench Liberal Democrat spokesmen. It argues that the planning system should harness what the hon. Gentleman describes as greed by allowing community land options so that local authorities and developers both gain from the uplift in
value when land is auctioned. Does he, like his party’s Front-Bench spokesmen, consider that an enlightened way to harness greed for community benefit, or does he reject it?
Andrew George: As a humble Back Bencher, it is not for me to comment on matters on which my Front Bench has commented.
Clearly, a significant element is driving the planning process that is to do not with talent or the hard slog of work, but with simply converting land from one use to another, which is in fact a privilege granted to the successful applicant by the community. As a society, whether our political parties do this or not—I urge my Front-Benchers to do it—we need to acknowledge that a value goes into private pockets as a result of such decisions. We should ensure that the community shares in any benefit from decisions made.
On the enforcement process, I am arguing not for a nimbyist’s charter, but for finding ways to achieve balance. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) spoke about balancing the process and argued for third-party rights of appeal. I hope that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who speaks for the Conservatives from the Front Bench, will reflect on whether he considers that a wise and constructive contribution. Failure to comply is a criminal offence, yet because it is a crime against the environment, it is considered a low-order crime. In fact, many people consider failure to comply to be an acceptable crime. They do not consider it to be an embarrassment to themselves in society.
The system lacks targets. Yes, there are targets to deal with the speed with which planning applications are dealt, but there are no targets to deal with compliance, monitoring or enforcement. I hope that the Government and the Minister reflect on that. I said that the system is reactive; in fact, it depends on a complaint being made. Very few planning departments proactively engage in the enforcement process; instead, they simply wait for complaints to be made. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon argued, even when people complain, complaints are often not taken to the enforcement department, which is frequently regarded as a mediation service for disputes between neighbours. Many neighbours who wish to complain do not want to harm the relationship that they have with their neighbour and are therefore forced to stand back and not to complain. That allows breaches in planning law to continue because people fear that they will harm their relationship with a neighbour for ever. The planning department should be given the powers and have the resources to take enforcement action.
I have two proposals for the Minister, one of which I mentioned in an intervention on the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). Those who consciously and knowingly flagrantly abuse the planning process either by failing to apply for permission or by not applying conditions of planning permission should lose the right to have costs awarded against them if their subsequent application results in an appeal to the Secretary of State and an inspector. If people knew that they would lose that entitlement, it would strengthen the position of the local authority and weaken the position of those who flagrantly abuse the system. The other proposal, which
the Minister has heard me mention before and with which I know he has sympathy, is that parish councils should be given an enhanced role in monitoring the planning system and ensuring that matters are brought forward, which would avoid the need for neighbours to complain against each other.
10.33 am
Mr. Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that it was time well spent hearing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) on securing the debate, which has examined an aspect of the planning system that we often hear discussed at a local level, but rarely at a national level. It is particularly important that we discuss the matter because we are considering the Government’s proposals for reform of the planning system announced in the recent White Paper.
If people are big enough and know the rules and the loopholes, they feel that they can get away with abusing the planning system, and my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon concentrated on that. If people are to have any confidence that the planning system is there for them and is seriously doing what it should, it is crucial that we overcome that problem. To enable us to plan for the sustainable future of communities around the country, we must have a watertight, fair and transparent system.
My hon. Friend mentioned enforcements being delayed by further applications, and I am sure that all hon. Members are familiar with that issue, which is echoed in the problems faced by people who want to lodge objections against applications. For example, when an application is submitted and it is objected to, it can be withdrawn and on the same day a second application can be submitted. Local people think that they have objected to the planning application that has been considered in the committee when in fact there is a second application that differs by 1 ft and their objection has not been taken into account. That is another example of the types of problems that my hon. Friend raised.
My hon. Friend also said how relations with the community and the local authority have a crucial role to play in dealing with that problem. That should be borne in mind when we consider how constructive companies and developers are at dealing with planning issues. There are good examples of how those conversations can be had with local employers, as in the case of the quarry in his constituency.
As my hon. Friend said, communication is also important within local authorities. When a department—whether it is environmental health or another department that is liaising with the Environment Agency—is aware of a breach, it should immediately pass the information on to the planning enforcement section in the local authority. Does the Minister have any views on what could be done in local authorities to encourage them to ensure that such information is exchanged more freely? Community involvement is vital, and that is the message that I will take away from my hon. Friend’s speech.
The hon. Member for Stroud raised similar points to my hon. Friend and reminded us how high passions can run on some of the issues. If people are faced with even
a very minor planning scheme on a day-to-day basis, it grinds them down and can undermine their quality of life. What may seem a minor problem to the developer or a busy local authority officer who is dealing with a huge caseload could be a huge problem for the person affected and it should be dealt with. The hon. Gentleman echoes what my hon. Friend said about how the piecemeal breakdown of the planning system undermines the whole system.
The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) suggested looking at the fee structure to discourage retrospective planning applications and I am sure that the Minister will want to consider that. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech) made some strong points, particularly about the aesthetic aspects of planning applications, which are usually vital in finally winning the support of a community for a controversial development. As they are often crucial to the successful acceptance of the final development, there should be some enforcement of them. That was a good point to raise. In his intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives talked about the benefits of development being shared by the local community. As all hon. Members are aware, my party thoroughly supports that principle.
As the Minister has studied the planning White Paper at length, I am sure he will correct me if enforcement is mentioned a great deal, but although I am aware that we have PPG18, which I am sure will be replaced by a planning policy statement in due course, I do not think that the White Paper tackles the problem of enforcement in any detail. As we want to consider how local authorities manage their resources and how we encourage them to become more proactive in dealing with planning issues, I hope that the Minister will reassure us that when planning legislation is introduced, perhaps in the next Session, enforcement will be covered more thoroughly than it is in the White Paper.
I have a couple of brief questions for the Minister. What assessment has he made of the resources that are available to local authorities? Obviously, he wrestles with that issue on a daily basis and when he considers bids for unitary government. We heard about the quarry in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon. In two-tier areas, mineral and waste applications are dealt with at a county level and the district deals with other matters. That is a further level of complication that needs to be addressed when considering enforcement. What assessment has the Minister made of the level of resources and of the incentives and disincentives for local authorities to carry out their roles as enforcers, if I may call them that—it might paint a slightly unpleasant picture of local government officers? That comes back, in particular, to what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington said: often developers or businesses make a financial calculation. Is it cheaper to flout the law and break the conditions of a planning application than to fulfil the obligations undertaken when the application was submitted and considered?
I would be grateful if the Minister could address some of those concerns, and I reiterate my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon on securing the debate. I hope that, as we consider the restructuring of the planning system, enforcement will be given its fair share of the discussion.
10.40 am
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Chope. First, I would like to join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) for securing the debate this morning. He laid out the challenges in front of us in an exemplary fashion with reference to two hard, complex cases. I appreciate the difficulty that the Minister will have in referring in detail to either of them, but the hon. Gentleman used them to illustrate broad, general principles.
In particular, I appreciated the sensitive way in which the hon. Gentleman outlined the range of views on the vexed question of quarrying and quarrying development in his constituency. While it is undoubtedly the case that his constituents suffer disturbance and annoyance—which are very far from trivial—as a result of quarry working, it is also the case, as he was right to acknowledge, that many of those residents were aware when they bought their houses and moved to the area that quarry work was going on there. I would like to raise a broader point about the built environment, however, with which I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees. Many of us believe that housing development should be organic—in sympathy and in tune with the local neighbourhood—so local materials should be used. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech) made a very good point in a different context about the appropriateness of maintaining high aesthetic standards in development.
The quality of limestone found in the constituency of the hon. Member for Northavon, and across the west country, is of the sort to allow sympathetic development elsewhere in the area. If we are to ensure that the necessary additional housing in the south-west is built in harmony with existing housing and in a way that wins the consent of local people, quarrying, such as that which takes place in his constituency, will have to continue. There is another layer of complexity, therefore, that means that the whole planning system has to take into account and balance a variety of conflicting or overlapping objectives.
This debate is taking place because the planning system is dysfunctional. Everyone who has spoken in our debate has addressed the way in which, not just planning enforcement, but the planning system overall, is not seen to serve the interests of our constituents, to underpin faith in local democracy, to reinforce faith in the rule of law or, indeed, to allow prompt and effective commercial development when it is in the interests of the community or the broader economy. The planning system has been tried and found wanting in almost every area.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |