Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): It is nice to see you back in the Chair this afternoon, Mr. Pike.

As the hon. Member for Ludlow said, the Opposition basically support the new clause. We believe that there is a real problem of enforcement and that far too many retrospective planning applications seem to be granted automatically. The problem is that the system favours those who proceed with a development without obtaining the proper planning permission. Once a development has gone ahead, it is very easy to manipulate the system in the developer's favour.

It might be worth citing the seven or so reasons given by the CPRE for such lack of enforcement. It refers to

''the complexity of the system; perverse incentives which make planning breaches financially worthwhile for offenders; a bias in the system which favours abusers and leaves local authorities vulnerable to compensation claims; a lack of local authority resources; extensive opportunities for offenders to evade and delay enforcement, draining local authority resources; the deterrent effect on local authorities of all of the above; and local authorities' discretion not to take enforcement action.''

Ministers and other members of the Committee who have dealt with the planning system will know what happens in practice when a developer, or even someone who does not wilfully want to flout the planning rules, goes ahead with a development. As the hon. Member for Ludlow says, many unauthorised developments never even get as far as incurring an enforcement notice, but even if the local authority does serve an enforcement notice the person having carried out the unauthorised development will appeal against it, which probably adds at least another six months' delay to the process. If the appeal is unsuccessful, the person will seek a judicial review, which probably adds yet another year. Meanwhile, it gets more and more difficult for the local authority to enforce against something that has already been there for a year and a half or for two years. There is a need for a new clause like this. It would place further strain on the planning authorities' already scarce resources, which the Government will have to address, but if a law is being widely flouted something needs to be done about it, otherwise it falls into disrepute.

Column Number: 244

I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the new clause, but if they are not I hope that the hon. Member for Ludlow pushes the matter further.

Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh): I entirely endorse the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who systematically listed the reasons why councils find it difficult to do the right thing in taking enforcement action when they know that they should do so. I also endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Ludlow when he said that rural district councils have a particular problem with this. I cite the example of one of my local authorities—Rochford district council in Essex—which, to its credit, attempts to take a robust attitude to enforcement. Like many other rural district councils, however, it is stretched when it tries to do so, as my hon. Friend says. It does not have especially large numbers of planning staff and it is not especially well off. It is trying to do the right thing, but that puts its small planning and enforcement team under particular pressure.

If Ministers want to avoid the situation in which too many councils go down the path of least resistance, the Bill presents a good opportunity to put right a problem in the system that has been there for several years. I urge them not to allow the problem to drift further. I hope that they are minded to accept the new clause today. If, for any reason, they are not so minded, perhaps they might reconsider the issue in the not too distant future.

This has been a problem for a long time. Many councils are attempting to do the right thing, but the system is weighted so heavily against them that it is very difficult for them to do so. If Ministers exist to put right such problems, this is an excellent opportunity for them to do so.

Yvette Cooper: There is a series of problems with new clause 31. I understand the concerns raised by the hon. Gentlemen about enforcement, but the new clause could be interpreted in a way that implied that local planning authorities had a duty to take enforcement action in every case that involved a breach of planning control. That would effectively remove all discretion from local planning authorities, yet discretion is an important part of the enforcement system.

2.45 pm

The fact that the enforcement powers of local planning authorities are currently discretionary was considered as part of our review of planning enforcement arrangements. We hope to announce the outcome of that public consultation later in the year. Local authorities have primary responsibility for taking whatever action may be necessary in the public interest. That provides them with the flexibility to tailor their approach to each case so that it fits the nature and circumstances of the alleged breach of planning control. Local authorities have been issued with policy and procedural guidance to assist them to undertake effective enforcement, and they have a range of powers at their disposal.

Column Number: 245

Minor breaches can often be remedied without the need for formal enforcement action. Such breaches often arise out of a genuine misunderstanding of the planning position, or a mistaken belief that planning permission was not required for a particular development. It is important that a balance can be struck between situations where a development, though unauthorised, is not causing particular harm, and those where enforcement action is essential in order to remedy more serious breaches of control—ones that unacceptably affect public amenity or the use of land, when it is clearly in the public interest for enforcement action to be taken.

If planning permission would have been granted unconditionally had an application been made, the better approach might be to invite the submission of a retrospective application rather than requiring local authorities to enforce every case, even when it would not be appropriate.

Matthew Green: The Minister is pointing out some of the problems with the new clause. Does she not agree that we have problems with a lack of enforcement now? If so, how else would she propose solving them?

Yvette Cooper: Many of the concerns expressed about enforcement were discussed as part of the enforcement review that I mentioned earlier.

Local authorities have discretion and are able to make a proportionate response. However, we need also to consider the role of democratically elected councillors. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Ludlow said about a local authority not doing enforcement. Like him, I would be interested to know which local authority it was, but I would also be interested in the view of local councillors. They are accountable to the local community, and I suspect that many of them would have a lot to say if they thought that the local authority was doing no enforcement. It is appropriate for the community to demand action through their local councillors on appropriate enforcement levels in their area.

Local planning authorities need to consider taking enforcement action to ensure compliance with planning controls in their area. Complaints about alleged breaches of control should be recorded and investigated. If a local authority, having considered the circumstances of an alleged breach, has decided that enforcement action is unnecessary, it should be prepared to explain and justify its decision to the local community and to its elected councillors. Failure to take enforcement action that is plainly necessary could result in a finding of maladministration by the local government ombudsman. It might even be the subject of judicial review. A duty to take action in all cases, as the amendment seems to imply, would remove the freedom of local authorities to exercise judgment, a freedom that is appropriately exercised by the democratically elected local council in this case.

Column Number: 246

Mr. Francois: I have listened carefully to the Minister. She is making much of the fact that councillors have discretion and can therefore exercise their judgment. I understand her point. However, it works two ways. When councillors seek to undertake enforcement action, they have to look at the resources that are available to them and at the amount of officer time and the potential cost to the council tax payer that will be involved. As the law stands, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has clearly laid out, it often takes up to two years to bring a successful enforcement action. The cop-out is to go for retrospective planning approval. Everybody involved in the system knows that. I remind the Minister that discretion works both ways: if she wants local councillors and their officers to do the right thing, they need help.

Yvette Cooper: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is asking us either to impose another statutory duty on local authorities or to provide them with ring-fenced resources. The approach that we have taken has been to give local authorities greater freedoms and flexibilities. It is right for them to be able to take more decisions about how to use their resources. We have also substantially increased the resources available to them, again so that they can decide the priorities in their areas. We are right to do that, rather than continually imposing priorities on them from the centre. What the hon. Gentleman is asking for is not necessarily right—these should be matters for local councillors.

We recognise that there are concerns about enforcement and have been considering them as part of the enforcement review. We held consultation that finished, at the beginning of this year, with 500 responses. A working group that includes people from local authorities with expertise in the field has been considering the matter in detail. Among the issues that have been raised are resources, the role of the courts in the enforcement process, retrospective planning permission and time limits for taking enforcement action. We intend to publish a response to the enforcement review before the end of the year. We shall discuss the issues further under clause 52, so I shall not say anything further at this stage. I do not think that the approach in new clause 31 resolves the problem, so I ask the hon. Member for Ludlow to withdraw the new clause.

 

---

Prepared 21 October 2003