§
`The local planning authority shall provide an explanation in writing of why it does not intend to take enforcement action if it receives a written request from any person who considers that there has been a breach of planning control.'.—[Mr. Soley. I
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to consider the following: new clause 11—Annual review of enforcement provisions—
`—Every local authority shall include a review of its use of the enforcement provisions contained in the principal Act on the agenda of a full council meeting at least once a year'.'Amendment No. 108, in clause 5, page 7, line 3, after`(1)',insert`Without prejudice to the generality of section (Explanation of enforcement action) below'.Amendment No. 109, in clause 10, page 14, line 44, at end insert—`(6A) Where the local planning authority refuse an application but do not take enforcement action it shall give to any person who submits a written request an explanation in writing of why the authority does not intend to take such action.'.
§ Mr. SoleyNew clause 10 addresses the question of enforcement. We argued on Second Reading and in Committee that the Bill is weak on enforcement, and we touched on that aspect also when debating the first group of amendments today, when a number of Conservative Members and my hon. Friends confessed concern that a local authority would be unable to enforce a plan.
We take the view that there is a need to impose a general duty of enforcement so that a local authority would have to enforce a plan, as well as be given the power to grant retrospective planning permission, to deal with exceptional cases, to avoid making the system too bureaucratic and rigid.
The Government chose to resist that proposal, so we have produced three new clauses. New clause 10 states that the local authority must give an explanation in writing as to why it does not intend to take enforcement action, and new clause 11 requires that every local authority should include a review of its use of the enforcement procedure contained in the principal Act on the agenda of a full council meeting at least once a year. Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 give substance to those arguments.
8.15 pm
The issue was spelt out in the Carnwath report, which drew attention to a survey by Jowell and Millichap, which showed that between 75 and 80 per cent. of enforcement actions were initiated by local individuals, parish councils, or local interest groups. That clearly showed that enforcement is not only of concern to local people but is something that local authorities are not willing or able effectively to address. There must be a way of insisting that a local council, as the planning authority, pays attention to the desire of local people to see planning controls enforced.
505 As the Government have rejected a wider and more appropriate provision, new clause 10 would at least allow a member of the public to write to a local authority asking why it had not used its enforcement powers in a particular case. That might act as something of a deterrent, and would force the authority to provide an explanation in writing, which could then be made public, taken to a local councillor, and debated in the usual democratic way.
Under new clause 11, a council would have to debate annually in full council the enforcement action that it has taken. That would provide an additional incentive to ensure that enforcement powers were taken seriously.
In Committee, and to some extent on Second Reading, great play was made of the ability of local authorities to use their enforcement powers more than they do. At least, that was the Government's view. However, we have heard today from a number of Conservative Back-Benchers that a local authority often feels helpless. One reason why planning officers wanted to introduce the criminalisation clause that would make it possible to invoke criminal law against a developer who had done something without planning permission was that their hands are tied. I regret that the Government have chosen not to take the wider and more effective approach that we wanted and proposed in Committee, but we submit the alternative, albeit weaker, proposals for the House to consider.
§ Mr. VazEnforcement is perhaps the most important aspect of the Bill. Although the Committee, on which I served, proceeded on the basis of consensus—apart from one or two divisions on hedgerows—we feel that the Bill should be stronger and tougher, and that is particularly important in respect of enforcement.
I will mention a number of local issues that are directly related to the sentiments behind new clause 10. They concern developers who breached planning controls, and who got away with it simply because the local authority did not act quickly enough to ensure that those breaches were brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities. There is a feeling in my own constituency that the area has become a developer's paradise. Any piece of land that becomes available is snapped up for housing development.
In some cases, developers have acted in an irrational and unacceptable way. One such developer is Jelson's. It builds in different parts of the country, but has developed a lot of properties in Leicestershire. Jelson's bought bits of gardens in a part of my constituency described as Humberstone village. The firm would approach local residents and buy up bits of their gardens that were near the main road. When they had acquired enough, they would apply for planning permission to develop the area.
Exactly a year ago, Jelson's applied for planning permission to build a number of houses. The local authority turned down its application. In breach of the request of the local authority and local residents, the developers then demolished the area. They knew very well that an essential part of the local people's argument would be that the land should be used as a wildlife sanctuary, but, disregarding the direct wishes of those people, they proceeded to act in a cavalier manner.
A similar example involves Neal Brothers, another firm in my constituency—
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. If the hon. Gentleman, or any other hon. Member, sought to rehearse a catalogue of 506 alleged breaches of planning consent in his constituency, we should be here for a very long time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will keep his remarks brief.
§ Mr. VazI accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to give the details of every breach of planning consent; if I did, I should be here all night, and I am sure that hon. Members will want to rush off to their television sets at 10 pm to learn the result of the Monmouth by-election. I merely wish to give one or two examples—as I said at the outset—of planning breaches, and of the time that it has taken for local authorities to act effectively.
In the case of Neal Brothers—which involved noise nuisance in the Prestwell road area of my constituency—it took the local authority many months to serve proper notices. It also took many requests from me, and from local councillors, to ensure that meetings took place with the director of planning and other officers. New clause 10 seeks to ensure that local authorities make local people aware of precisely what is happening. If people received letters explaining how long the procedures would take, that would go a long way towards reassuring them about the need for effective planning control.
Although the Government have strengthened the planning legislation and enforcement action procedures in the Bill—I am delighted that they have done so—and although we understand the jargon behind that legislation, ordinary local residents are still not aware of What is involved. That is why the explanation suggested in new clause 10 is necessary.
Finally, let me mention the case of Mr. Dawes—not one of my constituents—who lives in Tandridge, Surrey. I was not able to discover the identity of his Member of Parliament because his letter has only just arrived. The letter told me of a development in which the developers had breached planning control: heavy lorries were arriving at 1 am, and residents were arrested when they protested. Mr. Dawes says that Parliament must ensure that local authorities have powers to bring such people to book, so that local residents—the same applies to residents of my constituency, and of all constituencies—can live peacefully within the law.
§ Mr. Charles Wardle (Bexhill and Battle)Given that new clause 10 is, as far as I know, the only new clause that deals with enforcement action, I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State a question. I hope that that will be in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall try hard not to embark on a catalogue of planning cases in my constituency. I shall allude—briefly—to only one.
In his letter of 13 May to me, my hon. Friend referred to a meeting between his officials and representatives of the District Planning Officers Society which took place in Bristol on 8 April. Among other things, they discussed enforcement, and, in particular, clause 3. The society's representatives asked whether the Bill could be amended to enable a mandatory injunction to be provided by the High Court in response to an actual or threatened breach of planning control.
I understand that the officials said that they would consult the Lord Chancellor's Department, and that the Government have subsequently decided that the courts should not become involved in the detailed business of remedying breaches of planning control that should 507 properly remain the responsibility of the planning authorities. As clause 3 stands, the court is enabled only to restrain a breach of planning control.
My hon. Friend said that, in his view, the existing powers under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972, taken together with the provisions in clause 3, gave authorities the range of injunctive powers that they were likely to need. If section 222 exists as a means of seeking remedial action, perhaps my right hon. Friend—I mean my hon. Friend; I have promoted him terribly quickly, but I am sure that it will come to him some day soon—will tell us why he thinks that circumstances like those at Gladwish farm, to which I referred on Second Reading, have arisen.
Does my hon. Friend feel that the Wealden and Rother district councils could have done something that they did not do, given the powers conferred by the 1972 Act? Did they miss that opportunity? If not, can my hon. Friend explain why they have not been able to prevent the sprouting, unsightly development at Gladwish farm? I merely seek clarification: I am not an expert, and nor, I suspect, are most members of the public. I am sure that, when they see such unsightly developments, the public feel a strong desire to know what steps can be taken by planning authorities—and should be taken, if they are on the statute book.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettI do not wish to detain the House for long. I support the amendment, and press the Government not to reply that it would be "good practice" for local authorities to give writen explanations. I want them to accept that that is really necessary.
Since I began to represent the Denton part of my constituency, a fair number of constituents have come to tell me about planning disputes with their neighbours. My heart sinks when a constituent comes to me with such a story; it sinks even more when, as I show that constituent out, the next in the queue tells me firmly that he has come to complain about that constituent. I do not know whether Denton is particularly odd in this respect, but I do not seem to have had the same experience in the Stockport part of my constituency.
I have considerable sympathy for the planning officer who is called in because of a dispute between neighbours that involves a planning matter. Nice, reasonable people suddenly turn into completely unreasonable people when they are involved in such disputes. I get the impression that, on occasion, planning officers—certainly those in Tameside, who are responsible for the Denton area—who see people behaving in a way that they consider unreasonable think that the simplest option is to put their problems at the bottom of the pile, and hope that they will go away. In my experience, that is the worst way to resolve such disputes. In most cases, people must go on living next to each other, and such disputes should be concluded as quickly as possible.
One neighbour may hope, and go on hoping, that the local authority will take enforcement action. The local authority may know that perhaps it should take action against the other neighbour but hopes that the matter will go away without it doing so. That is a recipe for the conflict to continue festering between the neighbours. The neighbours then involve more and more people in their dispute.
508 It would be far better for the planning officer to examine the case and decide whether a breach has taken place and action needs to be taken. He should make a decision either to take action or state that although technically a breach has taken place, it is not considered sufficiently significant to require enforcement action. I press the Minister to make it clear that local authorities should not duck their responsibility. They should be required to give clear, written answers. They should state either that they intend to take enforcement action or that they do not. They should get on with resolving the matter rather than hoping that, if a long time passes, disputes between neighbours over planning matters will disappear. In my experience, they do not disappear; they simply get worse.
§ Mr. YeoI shall deal with the debate in two parts. First, I shall deal with amendments Nos. 108 and 109 and new clause 10 together; then I shall come on to new clause 11.
Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 and new clause 10 would require the local planning authority to reply in writing to any written request that the authority may receive from a person who thinks that there has been a breach of planning control, to explain why it does not intend to take enforcement action. That would include any case where the authority has refused to grant a lawful development certificate, under the new section 191 contained in clause 10, in respect of an existing use.
I appreciate that the amendments are inspired by good intentions. We are all batting in the same direction. We accept that the citizen is entitled to know why local government decisions are taken. Indeed, we are very much in favour of the maximum amount of accountability. However, we cannot accept the amendments and new clause.
It is hard to imagine the circumstances in which a local planning authority would deliberately refuse to reply in writing to any reasonable written request for information about an enforcement decision. The sole exception might be the persistent, frivolous or busy-bodying correspondent—with which I am sure that hon. Members will be familiar—whose object is to create difficulties for the authority or for the owner or occupier of a site who may be falsely accused of a breach of control.
We naturally agree that all councils should respond helpfully and promptly to all requests for information about how they carry out any of their functions, not only in planning matters, but it is unnecessary to introduce a statutory requirement specifically singling out their planning enforcement activities. If any request for information is made by a member of the public, or any amenity or civic organisation, it is up to the authority to respond, to the satisfaction of the people it represents, whatever the inquiry may be.
§ Mr. VazDoes not the Minister feel that the sentiments behind the new clause square with the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister about the need for a citizens' charter giving people new rights in their dealings with local authorities?
§ Mr. YeoNo, I do not. As I have just said, I believe that the majority of local authorities will respond helpfully and courteously to reasonable written requests for information about the reasons for planning decisions. I am aware from 509 my experience in my constituency and from discussions on planning issues with hon. Members from both sides of the House that planning issues tend to attract an element of people who are somewhat fanatical. Such people continue to correspond long after issues have been closed beyond any possible further consideration. To lay a statutory duty on the local authority, as the new clause seeks to do, would be an onerous requirement.
§ Mr. SoleyWe all know of cases such as the Minister is thinking of, but his argument is not a good one. The new clause simply says that a reason must be given in writing. Once the local authority had given a reason in writing, it would not be required to respond to every subsequent letter. It would merely be required to make the reason clear on one occasion.
§ Mr. YeoThat would be helpful in respect of repetitive requests from the same individual, but many planning issues are the subject of petitions. The availability of word processors and the ease with which circular letters can be signed may mean that hundreds, if not thousands, of requests could be made for a reason for a single decision.
§ Mr. YeoThe hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) asks from a sedentary position about the rights of citizens. If an inquirer is dissatisfied with the response from the local authority or cannot obtain a reply, he or she can pursue that request with an elected representative such as a councillor or, indeed, a Member of Parliament. Alternatively, if the inquirer believes that the authority's inaction amounts to maladministration, he can arrange to have the case referred to the Commissioner for Local Administration.
§ Mr. VazThat is the whole point. To refer the matter to the ombudsman takes such a long time. However, if the authority had a statutory obligation to reply to a citizen who wrote to request an explanation, the matter could be dealt with quickly. The other avenues that the Minister suggests would add to the delay. One of the objectives of hon. Members on both sides of the House is to reduce the delays inherent in the planning legislation.
§ Mr. YeoI do not suggest that everyone should immediately have recourse to the local government ombudsman. However, there are several avenues for taking action of varying degrees of severity and importance. They are open to anyone who feels that the local authority is not responding in a helpful or responsible manner. There have been cases in which the local ombudsman has been willing to criticise maladministration in planning enforcement matters. In some cases, financial compensation has been recommended for people who suffered injustice as a result of a local authority's inaction.
It is clear from what I have said that the Government believe that the amendments are unnecessary, and they might result in unprofitable use of the scarce resources of planning authorities. Indeed, in earlier debates today and in Committee, anxieties were expressed by both Conservative and Opposition Members that local authorities are in some cases fully stretched by their enforcement role. Therefore, we must be mindful of the need to avoid imposing any unnecessary burdens on them. 510 Local authorities might have to divert resources which would have been more effectively used for direct enforcement action.
We do not have evidence that councils are reluctant or refuse to explain why they decided not to take enforcement action. Needless to say, that does not imply that the explanation given always satisfies the person who seeks it. I hope that, for the reasons that I have given, the Opposition will consider it right to withdraw their amendment so that we can leave the matter to the sense of the elected members and the officers of the authority involved.
New clause 11 would require the full council of every local planning authority, at least once a year, to review the way in which the authority exercises the enforcement provisions in part VII of the 1990 Act, as they will be amended by the Bill.
We appreciate that this amendment is intended to keep local authorities on their toes in enforcement matters—an objective that we share. We accept that councils ought to monitor their procedures for taking planning enforcement action, but we believe that councils should exercise discretion about how best to do so. We do not believe that Parliament should impose on every local authority the statutory extra burden that the amendment involves.
There is apparently no good reason for singling out the planning enforcement provisions in this way and treating them differently from other local government functions. Nor is it essential, or appropriate, for the full council to conduct the proposed review. The council's planning committee, which has the day-to-day experience, might be a better review mechanism. If it is felt that some overview is needed, the council's policy and resources committee might be as well suited to the task, especially if priority in the use of scarce materials is one of the factors to be taken into consideration.
The House will know that all councils have adequate powers under the Local Government Act 1972 to delegate powers to officers. It seems unnecessary to impose a further statutory duty on authorities, when members or officers can already carry out regular reviews of their functions to achieve economy, efficiency and effectiveness. There are already strong financial pressures on councils to operate efficiently and to be accountable to their electorate.
During discussion of some of the enforcement amendments in Standing Committee, to which the hon. Member for Hammersmith referred, I undertook that we would issue a planning policy guidance note about enforcement policy. We aim to issue this note after consultation on a draft to coincide with the commencement of the new enforcement powers in clauses 1 to 11. This will give local authorities a further stimulus to examine their use of these provisions and, if necessary, to strengthen and improve their practical operation.
We understand that Opposition Members and, indeed, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, which inspired some of these concerns, want to see an effective enforcement regime in place in every local authority area. That is an objective that we entirely share. However, we think that the nannying approach of the amendment is inappropriate. I therefore hope that hon. Members will not press it further.
I owe a response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), who posed a very specific inquiry. I have to be careful about any comment on the 511 case that he raised, lest there be any outstanding enforcement appeals. We think that it might have been possible for Wealden district council to seek an injunction under the 1972 Act. Indeed, that may still be practicable. If my hon. Friend wants a more detailed response, I shall be happy to write to him and, if necessary, place a copy of the reply in the Library.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) raised a number of cases that he had mentioned during the Second Reading debate. However, he also dredged up a new one. I can tell him that Tandridge is represented by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). It is very easy to establish which constituencies various places are in, and it would have been a courtesy to inform my right hon. and learned Friend that the matter would be raised.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 30, Noes 112.
512| Division No. 147] | [8.41 pm |
| AYES | |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Bellotti, David | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Meale, Alan |
| Boateng, Paul | Nellist, Dave |
| Carlile, Alex (Mont'g) | Pike, Peter L. |
| Cox, Tom | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Cryer, Bob | Prescott, John |
| Dixon, Don | Sillars, Jim |
| George, Bruce | Skinner, Dennis |
| Godman, Dr Norman A. | Soley, Clive |
| Gordon, Mildred | Spearing, Nigel |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | Wallace, James |
| Harman, Ms Harriet | Welsh, Andrew (Angus E) |
| Haynes, Frank | |
| Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and Mr. Keith Vaz. |
| Kennedy, Charles |
| NOES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Dunn, Bob |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Fox, Sir Marcus |
| Amos, Alan | Freeman, Roger |
| Arbuthnot, James | Gale, Roger |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Garel-Jones, Tristan |
| Ashby, David | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Baldry, Tony | Gorman, Mrs Teresa |
| Bellingham, Henry | Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E') |
| Benyon, W. | Hague, William |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom) |
| Blackburn, Dr John G. | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Bottomley, Peter | Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Hawkins, Christopher |
| Bowis, John | Hayes, Jerry |
| Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard | Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Hayward, Robert |
| Brazier, Julian | Hind, Kenneth |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) | Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) |
| Budgen, Nicholas | Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne) |
| Burt, Alistair | Hunter, Andrew |
| Carlisle, John, (Luton N) | Irvine, Michael |
| Carrington, Matthew | Jack, Michael |
| Chapman, Sydney | Janman, Tim |
| Chope, Christopher | Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Jones, Robert B (Herts W) |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) | King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) |
| Cope, Rt Hon John | Kirkhope, Timothy |
| Couchman, James | Knight, Greg (Derby North) |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Knowles, Michael |
| Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) | Lightbown, David |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Macfarlane, Sir Neil |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Maclean, David |
| Mans, Keith | Sims, Roger |
| Maude, Hon Francis | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Speller, Tony |
| Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Mills, Iain | Steen, Anthony |
| Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) | Stevens, Lewis |
| Moate, Roger | Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) |
| Moss, Malcolm | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Moynihan, Hon Colin | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Neubert, Sir Michael | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Viggers, Peter |
| Nicholson, David (Taunton) | Waller, Gary |
| Norris, Steve | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Page, Richard | Warren, Kenneth |
| Paice, James | Watts, John |
| Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil | Wilshire, David |
| Patnick, Irvine | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Porter, David (Waveney) | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Rathbone, Tim | Wood, Timothy |
| Rhodes James, Robert | Yeo, Tim |
| Ryder, Rt Hon Richard | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Sackville, Hon Tom | |
| Shaw, David (Dover) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) | Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Nicholas Baker. |
| Shersby, Michael |
§ Question accordingly negatived.