Town and Country Planning (Amendment) (Hansard, 28 April 1998)

§ Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law with respect to town and country planning. It is vital that planning legislation is reviewed periodically to reflect the various changes in society, which may be socio-economic, cultural or demographic in nature. Some aspects of the law relating to town and country planning are in dire and urgent need of reform, and that is why I seek leave to present the Bill.

One aspect which needs to be addressed is the situation whereby planning permissions granted 25 or 30 years ago remain valid despite nothing but the merest effort to develop being made by the holder of the planning permission. Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, a development must usually be begun within five years of the granting of permission or within two years of the final approval of any reserved matter.

The moot point, and that which concerns me, is when a development is said to have begun. Sweet and Maxwell's "Encyclopaedia of Planning" refers to that and says that a developer can comply by doing

any work of construction in the course of erection of a building"— that is a wide latitude—or even

any operation in the course of laying out or constructing a road or part of a road, for example, marking out the line … with pegs. Therefore, a developer can simply mark out the line of an estate road, which may or may not be developed in the future, with a few wooden pegs, and that constitutes development within the Act, keeping the planning permission extant.

Planning authorities are not using existing powers to place time limits on developments; that causes considerable damage to many communities and brings the system into disrepute. Take, for example, the village of Aberdyfi in my constituency, an old, small seaside village steeped in maritime history.

In the late 1960s, a developer was granted planning permission for more than 200 houses on Copper hill above the village. There was no local need for them then and there is no local need for them now. The fact that those permissions have been in existence for more than 30 years without a single plot having been built on persuades me that there never was a local need for them. The developer is in effect treating them as his pension policy bonanza, and the mere fact of a peg having been hammered into the ground here and there keeps his speculative investment alive.

Quite apart from the fact that many people question whether such speculation is consistent with land policy and forward planning, some fundamental and far-reaching problems are being visited on Aberdyfi and, I am sure, many other constituencies.

When those plots are developed, they will kill off Aberdyfi as a village, a village that we all know and love. Its charm and immense character will dissipate overnight. Such a situation is a block to the sensitive and sustainable development that planning law and procedure should nurture. I say that because, in my experience, whenever 147 an application by a small-scale developer in south Meirionnydd is turned down, one of the reasons which always crops up is that there are already X number of planning permissions for building plots in the locality. The vast bulk of those would, of course, be the permissions on Copper Hill street in Aberdyfi. That is a classic catch-22 situation. We have heard a lot of Joseph Heller recently, and this exemplifies that. One can argue that such a development not only is harmful per se, but is hampering the proper and sensitive development of an area.

Furthermore, it is settled law that a planning permission, once commenced, cannot be abandoned by a non-user. My Bill seeks to deal with that matter. There would, as at present, be an initial five-year term in which to undertake a development, but if the developer has done nothing, or has simply complied with section 56 of the 1990 Act, they would have to reapply after five years to the planning authority, which will examine the application on its merits, question the delay in fully developing, and then issue a fresh permission strictly limited in time. If the development is not fully completed within that time scale, the permission should expire. That would ensure that there is better control of local authority planning policy and it should prevent a recurrence of the Aberdyfi example.

I further pray in aid a speech reported in Hansard on 4 April 1968, when the then Minister of State said:

there is no bar to renewal of the permission. I accept that cases will arise when, for perfectly good reasons outside his control, the owner will not have been able to start his development within the expected time. It may be due to a falling off of demand in the area … it may be due to difficulties over capital, although if that is so, it does not necessarily follow that he should get an extension, for it may be that he ought to convey the land to somebody who is able to develop it—if it is land which ought, according to proper planning needs, to be brought forward earlier for development"— [Official Report, Standing Committee G, 4 April 1968; c. 956.] That could almost be part of today's script. Unfortunately, that declaration of intent was not followed in practice.

The Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales fully supports the Bill. The second main change which I seek would assist many communities throughout Wales, Scotland, Ireland and England, which are in difficulty because villages are dying. They have lost local amenities and basic services such as the local school, the post office, the village shop and the garage. That problem was recognised by the House recently when we legislated to allow rate relief for rural retailers. That is a welcome move, but further steps must be taken.

A factor which undoubtedly exacerbates the problems is the preponderance of second homes and holiday dwellings. They are socially divisive and are empty for most of the year: hence they are of no benefit to the community. They do not assist the viability of village retailers, because their occupants are there for only a few weeks or months of the year.

148 Such properties also bring certain social problems: the usual scenario is that they are purchased by those who can, by definition, afford a second home, which often means that they are earning many more times the average salary of those in the local community. They are able to pay the asking price without quibble, and locals are left in the wake wondering when, if ever, they will be able to enter the property market and buy a house in the community in which, often, they were born and brought up.

There are villages in Kent, Somerset, Cumbria and all over the UK where that problem is evident, but in Wales it has an added dimension because it directly dilutes the indigenous culture and language, which is a great source of concern to all who hold them dear.

My answer would be a register of second homes in every rural community, and a limit on such homes of 10 per cent. of the available housing stock. That would be possible through an amendment to the use classes order, so that, when a full-time residential property is intended to become a second or seasonal dwelling, it shall require planning permission.

As I recall, the problem and that solution were canvassed by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs in its report on rural housing three and a half years ago. I repeat the call for that solution, which is a straightforward, honest and open approach. A prospective purchaser would know whether a community had reached 10 per cent. of its quota because he or she would obtain information from the local authority, and that would be that. Villages can thrive and sustain themselves only if part-occupancy is limited. It is tragic to see villages where only half a dozen local families live year round.

Finally, in true Welsh Methodist minister mode, I come to the third head of my sermon. I consider that a neighbour whose strong views are given to a planning authority should have a third-party right of appeal in the planning process where there is a prima facie case for that. The wheat can be separated from the chaff by making it necessary to have leave to apply in each case. I know that that works perfectly well in many other jurisdictions—for example, in Ireland. I hope that it can be introduced within the United Kingdom jurisdiction.

Those three matters have concerned me for some time and I have viewed them both as a lawyer in the field and as a Member of the House. I therefore commend the Bill to the House and trust that it will receive the support that it deserves.