Land Developers: Planning Approval (Hansard, 11 October 1988)

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, no.

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, I appreciate the difficulties of legislating in this field, but will the Minister acknowledge that changes in legislation in recent years whereby the control over domestic premises has been relaxed, for instance to allow developments of a commercial and industrial nature, need to be taken into account'?
Is he aware, for example, of the case in Enfield in which the council refused a developer's planning applications to develop the back gardens of houses not in his ownership and yet the Secretary of State subsequently granted permission? Is the Minister aware that such a situation causes great distress to the individuals affected, and will he examine whether anything can be done to relieve that distress of innocent householders?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I am aware of the case which the noble Lord mentioned. He will recall that he wrote to my noble friend the Leader of the House, who in turn replied to the noble Lord. The Government do not believe that a developer should have to acquire land before testing whether his proposal to develop it is acceptable to the local planning authority or to my right honourable friend 718 the Secretary of State on appeal. Even if a planning application is acceptable the owner of the land does not have to sell.

§ Lord Broxbourne
My Lords, will my noble friend agree that whatever the advantages or disadvantages—and there are both—of the important suggestion made by the noble Lord opposite, with all his authority and experience in these matters, it would entail basic amendment to the town and country planning Acts in which the grant or otherwise of planning permission is made dependent on the development plan and other material considerations, in which land ownership is not specified?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that in order to implement what the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, would like there would have to be alterations to primary legislation.

Lord Wallace of Coslany
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is concern not so much about the role of developers but about that of the Minister? Is he aware that in my own area, which is Conservative controlled, although councillors objected to an application the Minister has given permission, and as a result the area, and particularly Sidcup, has become a mass of one-bedroom flats which are now becoming an eyesore and the whole district has been changed?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I cannot comment on the example that the noble Lord has given. However, it is right—and it is what Parliament has agreed—that if a planning application is turned down by the council there is a right of appeal to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, with reference to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, does the Minister agree that it might be helpful if at all levels of local government it were known who owns land in the area? Does he accept that that information would help people making planning applications? It would help the local authorities themselves and it would help people who might be affected by planning applications.

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, will know, certain notices have to be served with planning applications. If what he suggests were put into effect it would defeat the object of the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton.

§ Lord Somers
My Lords, is there not something that can be done about the situation in which a developer applies for planning permission, the local authority and residents are both against the proposal, which is turned down, and the developer then goes behind the back of the council to the Minister and central government and obtains planning permission?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the developer certainly does not go behind the backs of the residents or the council; he puts his case to an independent inspector. Both sides have an opportunity to do that.

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, will the Minister listen carefully to what has been said this afternoon, which indicates that there is genuine sympathy in the House for individuals who innocently find themselves affected by the activities of a speculative developer or predator? I acknowledge that there will need to be changes to primary legislation, but will the Minister consider the creation of a special class of landowner—namely, a residential householder—whose land ought not be the subject of planning permission without his permission?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I shall of course consider that suggestion. I believe that it runs counter to many of the bases on which we have proceeded with planning in the past and would mean a major upheaval, with enormous consequences as a result.