|
New Clause 35
Enforcement
'In the principal Act in section 102 (Orders requiring discontinuance of use or alteration or removal of buildings or works) after subsection (1)(b) in the first place where it occurs for ''may'' there is substituted ''must''.'—[Sir Sydney Chapman.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Sir Sydney Chapman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Committee will be keen to observe that the new clause was to have been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). He has asked me to apologise to the Committee because he has a long-standing and important constituency engagement and he begs to give apologies for his absence from this sitting. He accepted the invitation not only before it was known when the Bill would be recommitted, but before it was known that it would be recommitted.
Column Number: 258
The new clause constitutes an obligation to take enforcement action. I need not rehearse all the arguments because they were dealt with tangentially by the Minister in earlier responses. It is one of those smaller new clauses that has a significant meaning. It refers to section 102 of the principal Act, which is headed:
''Orders requiring discontinuance of use or alteration or removal of buildings or works''.
That section states that if it appears to a local planning authority expedient or in the interest of the proper planning of its area to do so, it may order the discontinuance of the use of a particular piece of land, impose conditions on the use to which it is being put and require steps to be taken for the alteration or removal of the buildings or works where the use of the land is to be discontinued, or if conditions are to be imposed on the continuance of the use of that land. It also refers to the alteration or removal of any buildings or works.
Section 102 includes the words ''they may by order''. The purpose of my hon. Friend's new clause is to change the ''may'' to ''must''. In other words, instead of giving the authority the option and simply permitting it to take action, the new clause would oblige the authority to act.
Whenever one puts forward an amendment or new clause, one likes to act as the devil's advocate to ensure that one does not miss a trick. I suspect that a more jaundiced or cynical person than my hon. Friend might ask what is the difference between an authority being able to order a discontinuance notice if it is expedient to do so in the interests of proper planning and making that obligatory. The problem with making it obligatory is that the authority may find that it is not expedient in the interests of proper planning to serve such a notice. That is a possible lacuna, but the new clause deserves sympathetic consideration. I look forward to the Minister's response.
Keith Hill: I, too, express my delight, Mr. Pike, that you are presiding over our proceedings this afternoon.
Currently, local planning authorities have the primary responsibility for taking whatever action may be necessary in the interests of proper planning in their areas. That includes discretion over whether a discontinuance order is issued. Section 102 of the 1990 Act enables a local planning authority to make an order requiring that any use of land shall be discontinued, or continued subject to conditions, or that any buildings or works shall be altered or removed. That provides planning authorities with the flexibility to tailor their approach to each case to fit the nature and circumstances of the case.
Making the power obligatory, which new clause 35 would do—it was ably moved by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman)—would remove that flexibility. It may also bring into play other elements of section 102, such as the compensation arrangements. A duty to implement in all cases, irrespective of the nature and circumstances, would place an additional and unwarranted burden on local authorities.
Column Number: 259
It is important that local authorities are able to target their resources—we have heard a great deal about resources today—on those cases that are causing most harm. In other words, my answer is about whether we should leave it to the discretion of local authorities to act in the expedient fashion that the hon. Gentleman described or whether we make it obligatory. The argument is about local discretion. I therefore urge him to withdraw the new clause.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thought that the Minister would use the argument about discretion, but he and, with the greatest respect, my hon. Friend have ignored section 102(1) of the principal Act, which states:
''If, having regard to the development plan and to any other material considerations, it appears to a local planning authority that it is expedient in the interests of the proper planning of their area''.
The local planning authority may consider two large categories of discretion before it must act. I do not see why it should not have to act once it has considered those circumstances. Even when it has acted it may impose conditions, such as having to apply for planning permission, and even when it has done that the Secretary of State must confirm the order, and he might decide to convene an independent hearing to allow everyone to be heard. There is plenty of discretion in the system.
Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman is, as ever, expert and persuasive up to a point. We are very keen that local authorities retain not only the two large areas of discretion to which he alluded, but other thorough-going powers of discretion. We see no compelling grounds for placing obligations on the authorities, which the new clause would do. I urge the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet to withdraw the new clause.
Sir Sydney Chapman: I will try to be as brief as possible, but by illustrating the fact that in those exceptional circumstances there are trigger points that enhance the suggestion that we should move for a requirement rather than an option for the local planning authority, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold made a very germane point.
I have listened to the Minister in the sure knowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has tabled three further new clauses, which the Minister will find irresistible. I shall therefore show a magnanimous attitude and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 47
Appeals (non-compliance with development plan)
'1. After section 78, subsection (2), of the principal Act there is inserted—(2A){**em**}Where a local planning authority approves an application for planning permission and—
(a) the planning application does not accord with the provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated; or
Column Number: 260
(b) the planning application is one in which the local authority has an interest as defined in section 316;
the persons who may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State against the approval of planning permission in the circumstances specified above are—
(a) any persons who have lodged a formal objection to the planning application in writing to the planning authority for the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated;
(b) other persons at the discretion of a person appointed by the Secretary of State for that purpose.''
2. Section 79 of the principal Act is amended as follows—
''In subsection (2), leave out (''either'') and after ''planning authority'' insert ''or the applicant (where different from the appellant).''
In subsection (6), after ''the determination'' insert ''(except for appeals as defined in section 78(2A) and where the appellant is as defined in section 78(2B)''.'.—[Mr. Clifton-Brown.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 9.
Division No. 4]
AYES
Chapman, Sir Sydney
Clifton-Brown, Mr. Geoffrey
Francois, Mr. Mark
Green, Matthew
NOES
Betts, Mr. Clive
Clark, Paul
Cooper, Yvette
Follett, Barbara
Francis, Dr. Hywel
Hill, Keith
McDonagh, Siobhain
Rooney, Mr. Terry
Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Question accordingly negatived.
New Clause 48
Design and masterplans
'In the principal Act after section 54A (status of development plans) there is inserted the following new section—
54B. In determining any application for planning permission for development regard is to be had to any design or masterplan expressed as part of any existing permission for development on the application site.'.'.—[Sir Sydney Chapman.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Sir Sydney Chapman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is the second of the four new clauses that were to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. His constituency and mine have few similarities. Isle of Wight has 106,000 electors, and mine has more or less the English norm of about 75,000. His constituency covers about 150 square miles while mine covers less than a tenth of that. His constituency is surrounded by water while mine is landlocked, although in the previous Session I had the privilege of piloting the National Heritage Bill, which was about marine archaeology, in this House.
Column Number: 261
The new clause, which is inspired by the Town and Country Planning Association, also has the support of the Royal Institute of British Architects. I declare an interest as I am involved with the Town and Country Planning Association and have just retired from the Royal Institute of British Architects. The new clause aims to promote and ensure good design.
3.45 pm
It may help the Committee to know that during the short time in which I practised as an architect, the firm with which I was associated were architects to a brewery. When I move on to another earth, all that the country will have will be a few of the pubs that I designed. It was only when I had to design pubs that I realised the importance of field research.
I shall save the Committee time by quoting heavily from the brief prepared by the Town and Country Planning Association, which succinctly and positively stated:
''This clause is prepared by the TCPA to address the problem of disregarding the original design or masterplan for a site once the principle of development has been agreed with initial planning permission. In these cases a good design can be replaced at a later stage of the planning process (at application for reserved matters or full planning permission) when an inferior scheme is put forward in the knowledge that the principle of development on the site has been agreed and that it is always difficult to reject a scheme in these circumstances solely on design factors.''
Indeed, to my knowledge—I do not believe that things have changed—a planning authority would find it very difficult to turn down an application purely on grounds of design, although I believe that they can do so in such beautiful places as the Cotswolds, where a brick building in village built entirely of stone would quite rightly not be permitted. In other parts of the country, however, I have rarely seen a planning authority successfully turn down an application for reasons of design.
In any case, I acknowledge that design is subjective. What one person finds beautiful, other people may find an eyesore. I shall try to stay within the rules of the proceedings, but the mediaeval clergy did not take kindly to Sir Christopher Wren's masterpiece. Incidentally, Christopher Wren and I have two things in common: we are both architects and Members of Parliament. The agreement has worked very well: Sir Christopher has promised to make no more speeches if I promise to design no more buildings.
My real point is that in some cases, the ability not to carry out the original outline design that excites the imagination and that is permitted could be substituted when the principle of a development and the land on which it would take place has been established, because the outline, or initial, planning permission quite properly gives rights to the applicant.
The TCPA goes on to say:
''In some cases this can be described as 'trophy architecture' where a high quality masterplanner or designer is used for the initial application only to see the original scheme replaced with one of much poorer quality later on.''
Column Number: 262
I accept that this breaks new ground, but I hope that the Minister will not decline to accept the new clause for that reason.
The TCPA continues:
''This new clause would for the first time give statutory recognition to design and masterplans and would introduce a duty to have regard to any such schemes which form part of an existing planning permission on an application site.''
Finally, it is my belief that the public are becoming more interested in, and demanding about, good architecture. In the early part of my career, both in politics and at the drawing board, there was a time when the good electors of my constituency decided that it was not appropriate to re-elect me. I had to go back to the drawing board, literally. In the post-war years, there was a great need to get rid of the slums, to replace the bombed buildings, and, with an exploding population, to provide more homes very quickly. Design was secondary to putting a roof over somebody's head.
Now, in one sense, we have a surplus of buildings. However, there is great demand for new buildings. Families are breaking up so more people are demanding smaller dwelling units rather than bigger ones. There is a great demographic and social change in our country. I think that people recognise the importance of good design, and they are prepared to pay for it. If the Government were to respond sympathetically to the new clause, they would be knocking at an open door. The people of our country would appreciate it.
|
