Clause
151
Determination
of applications for certificates of lawful use or development by
officers
Amendments
made: No. 457, in clause 151, page 76, line 2, leave out
‘under subsection (1)(a)’ and insert ‘by them
under this
section’.
No.
458, in
clause 151, page 76, line 5, leave
out ‘subsection (1)(a)’ and insert ‘this
section’.
No.
459, in
clause 151, page 76, line 11, leave
out ‘subsection (1)(a)’ and insert ‘this
section’.
No.
460, in
clause 151, page 76, line 30, leave
out ‘subsection (1)(a)
of’.
No. 461,
in
clause 151, page 76, line 34, at
end insert—
‘(a)
’.
No. 462, in clause 151, page 76,
line 36, at end insert—
‘(b)
by a local planning authority, or a committee or sub-committee of such
an authority, acting by virtue of section
193A(6).’.
No.
463, in clause 151, page 76, leave out from
‘particular’ in line 37 to end of line 44 and
insert—
‘(a) disapply or
modify any provision of, or made under, sections 191 to 193 in relation
to such an application;
(b)
impose requirements on the officer, authority, committee or
sub-committee determining such an
application.’.
No.
464, in clause 151, page 77, leave out
lines 19 to 23 and
insert—
‘(5) Subsections
(5A) and (5B) apply where a local planning authority has reviewed a
case under this section.
(5A)
If and so far as the local planning authority is satisfied that the
officer’s refusal is well-founded, the authority must uphold the
decision under review.
(5B) If
and so far as the local planning authority is satisfied that the
officer’s refusal is not well-founded, the authority
must—
(a) grant the
applicant a certificate under section 191 or, as the case may be, 192,
or
(b) in the case of a refusal
in part, modify the certificate granted by the
officer.’.
No.
465, in clause 151, page 78, leave out from
‘particular’ in line 4 to end of line 6 and
insert—
‘(a) disapply or
modify any provision of, or made under, sections 191 to 193 in relation
to such an application;
(b)
impose requirements on the local planning authority determining such an
application.’.
No.
466, in
clause 151, page 78, line 23, leave
out from ‘if’ to end of line 27 and insert
‘—
(a) the local planning
authority—
(i) have been
required under section 193C to review the case,
and
(ii) have failed to
complete their review by the end of the period prescribed by
regulations made by virtue of section 193C(4)(e),
or
(b) the local planning
authority have been required under section 193D to determine the
application.’.—[Mr.
Dhanda.]
Clause
151, as amended,
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
152
Validity
of decisions made on
reviews
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Robert
Neill:
I have a brief question for the Minister. Is my
reading of subsection (3) correct, and am I right in thinking that the
effect of proposed new section 286A is that there will be just two
grounds for seeking a review by the High Court: either ultra vires or
on the grounds of deficiency of process? That
excludes any question of unreasonableness in terms of the Wednesbury
decision. That question may well be excluded for perfectly good
reasons, but for the purposes of clarity, am I right in thinking that
that is the case?
Mr.
Dhanda:
Yes, that is the case, although there are other
grounds for appeal, where one can go to the Secretary of State, as I
described a few moments
ago.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 152
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
153
Determination
of listed building applications by
officers
Amendments
made: No. 467, in clause 153, page 79, line 38, leave out
‘under subsection (1)(a)’ and insert ‘by them
under this
section’.
No.
468, in
clause 153, page 79, line 41, leave
out ‘subsection (1)(a)’ and insert ‘this
section’.
No.
469, in
clause 153, page 80, line 4, leave
out ‘subsection (1)(a)’ and insert ‘this
section’.
No.
470, in
clause 153, page 80, line 23, leave
out ‘subsection (1)(a)
of’.
No. 471,
in
clause 153, page 80, line 39, after
‘application’
insert—
‘(a)
’.
No.
472, in
clause 153, page 80, line 41, at
end insert—
‘(b) by a local
planning authority, or a committee or sub-committee of such an
authority, acting by virtue of section
19A(6).’.
No.
473, in clause 153, page 80, leave out from
‘particular’ in line 42 to end of line 2 on page 81 and
insert—
‘(a) disapply or
modify any provision of, or made under, this Chapter in relation to
such an application;
(b) impose
requirements on the officer, authority, committee or sub-committee
determining such an application.’.—[Mr.
Dhanda.]
Mr.
Dhanda:
I beg to move amendment No. 474, in
clause 153, page 81, line 23, at
end insert—
‘(da) requiring
a local planning authority reviewing a case to have special regard to
the matters specified in section
16(2);’.
The
amendment will enable the regulations made by the Secretary of State on
reviews of listed building applications carried out by a local member
review body to require the body reviewing the case to have special
regard to the desirability of preserving the building, its
setting or any features of special architectural or
historical interest that it possesses. The amendment would therefore
enable a review of a listed building application under proposed new
section 19C of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas)
Act 1990 to be consistent with consideration of listed building
applications by local planning authorities or the Secretary of State
under existing
legislation.
5.30
pm
Mr.
David Curry (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): Will regard also be
given to any special habitat features of the building? I have a listed
barn which is supposed to be one of the best 17th-century barns in
Essex. It would have been dead easy to get the council to give me
permission to put six houses there, but I restored it and I had to go
to great lengths to preserve two rare species of bats
that lived in the barn. I am proud to have done
so; the bats and I are great friends, and the muck
they drop on the floor makes extremely good horticultural dressing for
my vegetable garden. It is an entirely recycled system, which is
helping to save the
planet.
We
are all concerned about the future of owls and their habitat, and I
want to ensure that one cannot knock down something that is the habitat
of a species we are anxious to
preserve.
Mr.
Dhanda:
I welcome back the right hon. Member for Skipton
and Ripon and wonder whether he should declare an interest before
making a contribution. I will have to check what happens if the habitat
is part of the listed status, and I will clarify the position in
writing to him. I shall be interested to know the answer,
too.
Mr.
Curry:
I doubt whether it will be part of listed status,
because the building could have been listed some time ago and the
habitat could have developed subsequently. This is not a joke; it is a
serious matter and I should be grateful if the Minister made some
inquiries about
it.
Amendment
agreed
to.
Amendments
made: No. 475, in clause 153, page 82, leave out from
‘particular’ in line 17 to end of line 19 and
insert—
‘(a) disapply or
modify any provision of, or made under, this Chapter in relation to
such an application;
(b) impose
requirements on the local planning authority determining such an
application.’.
No.
476, in
clause 153, page 82, line 32, leave
out from ‘if’ to end of line 35 and insert
‘—
(a) the local planning
authority—
(i) have been
required under section 19C to review the case,
and
(ii) have failed to
complete their review by the end of the period prescribed by
regulations made by virtue of section 19C(4)(f),
or
(b) the local planning
authority have been required under section 19D to determine the
application.’.—[Mr.
Dhanda.]
Clause
153, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
154 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
155
Removal
of right to compensation where notice given of withdrawal of planning
permission
Mrs.
Lait:
I beg to move amendment No. 415, in
clause 155, page 83, line 20, after second
‘development’, insert ‘within the curtilage of a
dwelling
house’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment
No. 535, in
clause 155, page 83, line 28, at
end add—
‘(3C) This section
shall not apply to permitted development rights under Part 5 of
Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order
1995.”.’.
Mrs.
Lait:
The amendments are different sides of the
same coin. There is a desire to tidy up some of the
applications under an article 4 direction. I understand
that the Government are particularly concerned to affect the house in
single ownership, which is why we tabled amendment No 415. However, we
are also concerned about the case in East Sussex that was drawn to our
attention during the evidence session in a written submission from Tim
Driver. I had nothing to do with it, and it does not affect where I
live or the county council; it is coincidental that the case was in
East Sussex. It was an interesting one, involving a family argument
about a caravan site, and I am sure that the Minister is well aware of
it.
Our concern
is that at present, article 4 directions apply to more than just the
small house owner. They apply in the agricultural sector, forestry,
industrial development, minerals, drainage works, aviation, schools,
colleges and hospitals. If the right to compensation is withdrawn
should a local planning authority decide to change its mind, it affects
not just the house builder but a much wider audience.
The National
Farmers Union has been very active in setting out for us the case as it
affects farmers. On the one hand, the Government are trying to be more
permissive and to make it easier for people to develop under permitted
rights. On the other, the blanket application of this clause will have
a negative impact on the areas that I have already set out, because it
will make it much more difficult for farmers in other areas to develop
their business without knowing that they are within their rights for
permitted development. A local planning authority could change its mind
and, given the pressure that farmers are under at the moment to
diversify, they will find that there is no right to
compensation.
We
want to get a feel from the Government as to whether they have any
sympathy at all for the plight of people who could be affected by this
change in permitted development. I readily admit that if there is some
sympathy and the Government are prepared to look at the matter further,
I will not press the amendment. The wording may need to be changed, but
we should like to hear the Minister’s view on the principle
here.
Mr.
Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): I note that the
Bill includes the usual section 19 reference to human rights
compatibility. Is it right for such a clause to be stand part of the
Bill? If my reading is correct, planning permission could have been
validly given at some point by the necessary authority. It could then
be withdrawn, albeit with 12 months’ notice, and no compensation
would be paid for the diminution in the business and/or the loss of
that facility. I am not sure whether that is contrary to the Human
Rights Act as I understand it.
In any event, as a matter of
good common sense, if someone loses an asset through no fault of their
own, but as a direct result of an administrative action by an
authority, surely basic understanding of administrative law leads one
to think that there has to be a right to compensation. Otherwise,
people could be ruined overnight through no fault of their own. This is
rather serious. Unless I have misread the clause, it appears to be an
extremely serious
proposal.
Mr.
Dhanda:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his
question. I believe that he has misread the clause,
and I will try to explain why. I may wish to return
to the
hon. Lady for a little more information about the
nature of article 4 and the impact that she feels it is having on the
farming community, what type of article 4 she means, and whether such a
thing could in any case happen as of now. The clause does not do away
with the existing article 4, but it gives other powers to local
authorities, which I will try to
explain.
The
clause amends the right to compensation so as to enable changes to be
made to restrict permitted development without incurring liability for
compensation. I will give some examples of that in a moment. Existing
legislation provides that local planning authorities are liable to pay
compensation for 12 months after permitted development rights are
withdrawn. Hon. Members can probably understand where that has come
from.
I
will give an example. If Westminster city council did not want the
residents of every house on a given street to convert their front lawns
into driveways, it could implement article 4, saying that it is against
the rules for anyone to do so. Residents locally could say that they
were planning to do that, and they would have 12 months to apply for
compensation.
The
changes that we are making to the clause will make it possible for
local authorities to say, “Actually, in 12 months’ time,
we will implement this change, so if you really want to concrete over
your front drive, you have 12 months to do it. Therefore, you will not
get compensation.” In many cases, so local government has told
us, people who had no intention of concreting over their front drives
applied for the compensation, saying that they had planned to do so.
That is the bare bones of the intention behind the
provision.
Mr.
Llwyd:
That is obviously a case where everyone would be in
sympathy with the Government in making the change. I
am asking whether the clause extends more broadly to larger permitted
developments. Farmers are often allowed to put up large byres or to
convert a grain store for further business use, whatever it might be. A
substantial body of permitted development is allowed under the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 for people engaged in full-time agriculture.
Would the provision affect them in some
way?
I
do not think that anyone would argue with the example that the Minister
gave, but the concern of the NFU and others would be whether existing
permitted developments were to be denied without compensation. Let us
say that I, as a farmer, put up a grain store, which I am entitled to
do under permitted development. I start my business and 12
months’ hence, I find that I am not allowed to pull it down.
That is my reading of the provision. I hope that I am wrong, but
clearly the question of compensation ought to be
considered.
Mr.
Dhanda:
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Bill
has been human rights-proofed and checked. I am happy to come back to
him in a few moments, when I will spell out a little more what the
clause does and does not do, but for now I want to make some
progress.
Existing
legislation provides that local planning authorities are liable to pay
compensation for 12 months after permitted development rights are
withdrawn. That might occur when a planning application to carry out
what had been permitted development is either turned down or granted
subject to conditions. A local planning
authority might require planning applications for loft extensions, for
example, in order to protect the appearance of an area. The legislation
applies whether the change is made by a planning authority withdrawing
rights locally, or by Government changes to national permitted
development
rights. 5.45
pm
The
clause is part of the Government’s general policy to give
greater flexibility to local planning authorities to tailor permitted
development rights more closely to local circumstances, within a
generally more permissive regime. That will allow local authorities to
protect specific areas from unsuitable development. The clause will
provide an alternative procedure that allows restrictive charges to be
made without compensation being payable. I hope that I have answered
the hon. Gentleman’s
point.
If
there are any developments that will no longer be permitted for
compensation terms, there will still be 12 months for those
developments to be fulfilled. To ensure that people whose permitted
development rights have been removed do not incur abortive expenditure,
the clause requires that at least 12 month’s notice is given of
the change. The 12-month notice period should ensure that such costs
are avoided, so that people will be no worse off than under the
existing
scheme.
Amendment
No. 415 would limit the alternative compensation arrangement to changes
relating to householder development only. However, the purpose of the
clause is to deliver greater flexibility to amend permitted development
rights generally. That will allow local authorities greater freedom to
do what is necessary to protect particular areas by means of what are
known as article 4
directions.
The
clause is necessary to protect particular areas, given the
Government’s intention to provide a generally more permissive
national framework. I have also explained that, given the 12
month’s notice required before a change comes into effect,
developers will not lose out. Under the new mechanism, they will have
12 months to carry out the
work.
The
existing system will remain in place in parallel. However, we want to
ensure that restrictions are made only when necessary and that people
who might be affected have a chance to make their views known. I hope
that that is of relevance to the hon. Gentleman. We intend to
strengthen the procedures of article 4 directions. In the future, local
authorities will be required to consult those people who are likely to
be affected by a direction. Representations will have to be taken into
account before an article 4 direction can be made. Similarly, any
proposed Government restrictions will be subject to public
consultation.
Amendment
No. 535 would remove any right to compensation for restrictions made to
permitted development rights that relate to caravan sites. I have
already explained that, in general, we want to make it easier for
permitted development rights to be withdrawn where necessary. However,
I believe that those who enjoy such rights deserve some protection
where that might happen. The Government approach that would ensure a
12-month period of notice before rights are removed or a 12-month right
to compensation being payable is fair across the board. I see no reason
to single out any form of permitted development—whether caravans
or something else—to be subject to different
treatment.
With regard
to proposals that affect other types of development—for example,
farms—I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I can
already name rights that have been withdrawn under the old system where
compensation had to be paid for 12 months. Under the new alternative,
there will be 12 months to carry out that work, unlike under the
existing system. The hon. Gentleman still looks somewhat perplexed; I
am quite happy to hear anything more that he has to
say.
Mr.
Llwyd:
The Minister is doing his best to assist us, but I
am still not fully au fait with what he is saying.
Let us say that there is permitted use of some
agricultural land for a certain period each year for touring caravans
and camping. That would add considerably to the value of the holding.
It is also in accordance with what we are all trying to
encourage—diversification and so on. If the Minister is
suggesting that we could say, “Well, in 12 months’ time,
you won’t be allowed to site anything on that land, but
we’ll only pay 12 months’ compensation”, that does
not seem to be much of a bargain from the farmer’s point of view
if, for example, that holding had depended on that summer income for
its viability for the past 10 or more years. I understand most of what
the Minister says, but I do not think that 12 months’
compensation is an adequate basis for that type of example. Such a
system could make the difference between a small holding being viable
and having to sell up, move to a town and give up farming
altogether.
Mr.
Dhanda:
The hon. Gentleman and I may be at something of a
crossed line here. I am talking not about 12 months of compensation,
but about a specific development and having 12 months within which to
build that development—a slightly different set of circumstances
from what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
Local authorities can already
use article 4 to tell a farmer, for example, “This is not
allowed on your land.” However, we are talking about
development, so that if the farmer wishes to have a development on his
land, it is not a case of taking anything away from him, but of saying
to him and to people across a wider area, “This is what we
intend to do; this is what we intend to prohibit; you have 12 months in
which to do it.” In the past, there would have been a case of
compensation if a farmer had said, “Well actually, it was my
plan to do that here on this site, but you have invoked article 4, so I
therefore cannot do it anymore.”
Mr.
Benyon:
I declare an interest as a farmer. If the Minister
remembers back a few years, the buzz word in Government was
“rural proofing” and every aspect of
Government policy had to be rural-proofed.
[Interruption.] Indeed. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South
and Penarth was responsible for that. Has the Minister run this past
his colleagues in DEFRA? Certain local authorities are itching to grab
hold of the whole general development order process, to stop farmers
from expanding their businesses in just the way that the hon. Member
for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy was describing. I fear that, in some areas,
one of which is not far from my constituency, the local authority would
stifle the development of businesses in precisely the opposite
direction to that in which the Minister’s colleagues in
DEFRA are taking it.
Mr.
Dhanda:
I am going to bring my comments to a conclusion,
because I think that we have had a useful debate, but I hope that I
have been able to allay hon. Members’ fears, as article 4
directions are already in existence. As I have said, the local
authorities can say that a certain kind of development will be
prohibited and then local people—whether farmers or other
residents—can say, “I want compensation because I had
planned to do that.” This measure gives another option to local
authorities, whereby they can say, “We wish to prohibit this
kind of development, but if you wish to go ahead with it, you have 12
months to do so.” That is probably a fair position to be
in.
Mrs.
Lait:
I must apologise to the Committee, because in my
eagerness to be brief, I was not clear, so I am grateful to the hon.
Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and my hon. Friend the Member for
Newbury for giving graphic examples that clarify the situation. I am
still unconvinced by the Minister’s argument. In essence, he is
making it easier for local authorities to take away a permitted right,
so the proposal is permissive for local authorities, but it is
absolutely not permissive for those people who are predicating a
business plan, which may last for more than a year, on permitted
development rights that they have and have taken for granted that they
would have. I accept what he says about local authorities being able to
take permitted rights away, but they have to pay compensation. The
proposal limits that compensation. I will read what the Minister said
carefully, but my gut feeling is that I will not be happy and that we
may well have to return to
this.
Mr.
Dhanda:
It is worth adding that it is a requirement for
local authorities to consult as well, when they are planning any of
these article 4 changes. That is important in this context. Article 4
already exists, but under the new interpretation and given 12-month
period, any change would require local
discussion.
Mrs.
Lait:
I am grateful to the Minister for
elucidating that point, but it does not answer what my hon. Friend the
Member for Newbury said about a local authority that is itching to gets
its hands on those rights. We can consult till the cows come home, but
if that local authority is determined to extinguish those rights, the
Government are giving them that ability, however hard they insist on
consultation. I do not wish to prolong the debate any further, unless
the Minister has something new and revelatory to say. On the basis that
we may wish to return to the issue later, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
155
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
