Clause 57. (Hansard, 22 May 1968)

§ Mr. Rossi
I beg to move Amendment No. 135, in page 48, line 24, leave out from 'than' to end of line 25 and insert: 'five years from the last date on which the development could be begun by virtue of such planning permission'. We are again concerned with arbitrary time limits which are being imposed by the Bill. We wish to extend those limits. The Clause empowers a local planning authority to serve a notice … stating that the planning permission will cease to have effect if a development which is in hand is not completed to the satisfaction of the local planning authority within a period not … earlier than twelve months from the date of the notice". Whether or not 12 months is a reasonable period depends on the size of the development. A very large development possibly could not be completed in 12 months. There are many developments going on up and down the country where it would be quite onerous on a developer to be required to finish within the 12-month period. It would be physically impossible for him to do so. With that period, far too strong an instrument is put in the hands of the local authority, and I hope that the Minister will give greater latitude in this matter.

§ Mr. MacDermot
Whether intentionally or otherwise, the Amendment is in effect almost a wrecking Amendment; it would defeat the purpose of the completion notice. A system of time-limited planning would be ineffectual unless there was a completion notice procedure, because anyone could avoid the effect of the time-limiting by some token commencement of the works. That is why the completion notice procedure is necessary, to see that someone who starts the works can be compelled either to complete them or lose the benefit of the planning permission which effectively, in those circumstances he would have abandoned.
One must see that the system works fairly and that he is given sufficient time in order reasonably in the circumstances to complete the work. The Bill provides 778 that the time he is to be given cannot be less than 12 months, but it can be more. If he can make out a reasonable case for having more than 12 months, he may be able to get it. He has the additional protection that a completion notice, including the question of the amount of time, must be confirmed by the Minister, and there is provision for the parties to have a hearing if they so desire. We feel that this adequately safeguards the position of the land owner, whoever he may be, while preventing a coach and horses being driven through the system of time-limited planning permissions. If we made the minimum period as long as five years there would be really no bite in the procedure.

§ Mr. Graham Page
Immediately the Bill becomes law, as it stands, it would be possible for a local authority to serve a completion notice on a development which had been started under a planning permission—it might be a £4 million or £5 million development—to be completed within 12 months. This is a possibility. It is also a possibility that the local authority will leave five-year planning permissions, as they will be in the future, until the last moment, and then the owner of the land on which the planning permission is effective will start developing and be served with a completion notice to build within 12 months.
Even if we were exaggerating in putting in the five-year period, it seems that the Bill needs some Amendment in this respect, and the matter should not be left to appeal to the Minister. The Minister told us that this is the safety valve, as it were. If the local authority is stupid over serving its completion notice and demands something unreasonable, that parties can go before the Minister. But it does not seem a very satisfactory procedure to draft the Bill in such a way that the local planning authority can take unwise and unreasonable steps and then say, "You can have it settled by the Minister." There is that danger in the Clause as drafted.

§ Mr. MacDermot
A completion notice cannot be served in respect of development which has already been begun before the Bill comes into force or which 779 is begun just after it comes into force. The completion notice procedure is related to a planning permission which, by virtue of Sections 54 and 55, is granted or is deemed to be granted subject to these conditions, which would include the Section 54 limitation or existing unlimited planning permissions which would normally, therefore, be five years from the passing of the Bill. It would apply to any new planning permissions subject to the five years or such other time limit as was imposed. The earliest a completion notice could be served after the passing of the Bill would be when permission was granted after the passing of the Bill for a lesser period than five years, say, three years. If work was started within that three years but not proceeded with, a completion notice could be served. The first completion notice would inevitably be many years ahead. If in a very large development such as the hon. Gentleman suggested the completion notice allowed only 12 months and that was an unreasonable period, it would not be confirmed by the Minister.