INTERDICTS RESTRAINING BREACHES OF PLANNING CONTROL (Hansard, 16 May 1991)

§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is supported by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. It introduces a power to allow planning authorities to seek interdict in cases where a breach of planning control has taken place or is expected to take place. This express power to take action in this way, irrespective of the stage reached in the planning enforcement process, will greatly assist authorities to ensure that cases of the most flagrant abuse can be dealt with speedily. I know that this new power will be welcomed by planning authorities to help them to protect the environment in our towns and countryside.
Once a developer decides to flout the planning system by putting up some monstrous development without seeking planning permission, it takes some time to go through the full enforcement procedures. Now, an authority will be able to take immediate action to prevent the development from taking place. Let me take another example—that or a developer who intends to cut down an expanse of woodland of outstanding amenity. Interdict will prevent that. Anyone breaching an interdict is in contempt of court, and risks a heavy penalty. I believe that the new clause will be widely welcomed.

§ Dr. Godman
I welcome the new clause. Earlier today, I spoke to Mr. Ian Wilson, the chief executive of Inverclyde district council. Mr. Wilson—an official whom the Minister has met more than once—said that the new clause is precisely the kind of medicine that planning 478 authorities need. He referred to a case that has recently caused a great deal of controversy in Greenock. Developers simply ignored the local authority and commenced the construction of a private nursing home. I think that the Minister is familiar with the case. Inverclyde district council tried to have the construction halted. Under the existing scheme, the builders were issued with an order. But, as the Minister knows, many months can pass before decisive action is taken. If that issue had not been settled in a most amicable fashion this week, the council would eventually have had to take the case to the procurator fiscal. That would be an unwieldy and cumbersome means of dealing with builders and others who are less than scrupulous.
I was pleased to hear the Minister refer to the destruction of woodland. What is proposed will please many rural authorities throughout mainland Scotland, as well as people in the islands.
Presumably, as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has welcomed the provision, consultations took place with legal parties. Subsection (3) of the new clause says: the court' means the Court of Session or the sheriff. Presumably "the sheriff" means the sheriff court. Is the Minister in a position to estimate how long it would take to obtain such an interdict, given that, with modern methods, a stretch of woodland could be cleared within several days, or an even shorter time?
How long would it take to obtain the court's support? Also, has the Minister or his officials estimated the increase in the work load of the sheriff court or the Court of Session? The incident in Greenock to which I referred by way of illustration is not an extremely rare phenomenon, as any member of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities would say. It is necessary to obtain the court's support in a shorter time. There is also the question of the extra work placed upon the sheriff court. Presumably—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—most of the actions will be taken in that court and not in the Court of Session.
I welcome the proposal. It will be greeted with pleasure by many people throughout Scotland.

§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
I thank the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for his remarks. Certainly this will provide another effective tool to enable local authorities to take very quick action indeed.
The hon. Member is anxious about how quickly courts will consider such cases. It will be very rapidly indeed in the case of interdicts—literally within hours. Obviously there is a problem with the work loads before the courts, but that is because cases are taking much longer, and it does not relate to interdicts. Committees are sitting to ensure that the courts process cases as quickly as possible, and improvements have been made in recent months. With those assurances, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.