Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Baroness Gardner of Parkes Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 2nd February 2017 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

27: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
“Public consultations
A local planning authority must extend accordingly the length of any public consultations regarding a planning application if any public or bank holidays fall within the consultation period.”

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, this is a simple amendment. As I understand it, the position at the moment is that local authorities can decide to extend a consultation period but they are not obliged to do so. I believe that they should be obliged to do so because Christmas and August bank holidays are sacrosanct for families. It is a bit of a “slickie” if someone can slip in their application around such times —perhaps even by arrangement in less desirable cases—and it goes through, and then people come back from their few days away with their family to find that, suddenly, something they would have very much opposed has been passed. That is the reason for the amendment.

It is important that consultation should be carried out properly on every aspect of planning. It is not just a matter of time but also of the area where the application is for. In my experience, many planning authorities do not understand that in some streets in urban areas the houses are numbered 1, 3 and 5 on one side, and in other streets they are numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Sometimes, they do not seem quite sure which houses they should serve the notice on. It is important that local people understand that something is being considered, so that they can decide whether it is good or bad for their area.

It is very useful in urban areas to put the notice on a local lamp-post or telegraph pole. However, it is not so useful when the next council officer who comes along sticks up a removal notice for someone who is moving house and obscures the previous notice. It is important that councils should be aware of what they need to do to enable people to understand local planning.

I went to a meeting in your Lordships’ House with Nick Boles, who had responsibility for this. One of the big discussions was about just who your neighbours are. If your house is on a corner, you can have four or five neighbours in different streets all around you. It really is important that the right people are notified. Even if it is not 100% right, at least a neighbour will say to you, “Have you seen the notice?”. However, if there is nothing there, you are at a terrible disadvantage. The first thing you know about it is when it has all gone through and it is too late. That is the reason for the amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

I would like to say what a sensible amendment this is. It is impossible to overestimate the amount of cynicism that there is around the whole issue of consultation. There is too widespread a view that it does not make any difference because the planners will do what they want to do anyway, and that switches people off coming forward and participating. A lot of work has to be done to build public confidence in the consultation process. The very specific matter raised in this amendment is important because it is a real issue. I have come across it myself when people have said, “For God’s sake, it’s Christmas. We didn’t know that it was not exempt from the consultation period”. I hope that the Government and my noble friends on this side of the House will take the amendment seriously as a very practical and human suggestion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

The noble Lord makes a very fair point. However, we do not want to flex the legislation and extend the period for the very small minority that fail to meet the deadline when, as I said, the vast majority perform very well. That would send out the wrong message.

I turn to Amendment 27A, spoken to very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor. He was at pains to tell us that, like all the other amendments in this group, this is a very good one. We tend to agree: this is a sensible amendment. It seeks to move responsibility for any town development corporation established under the New Towns Act 1981 from the Secretary of State to the relevant local authority.

I say at the outset that I support the broad thrust of the amendment. This Government are supporting 10 locally led garden cities and towns and 14 locally led garden villages—high-quality new settlements of between 1,500 and tens of thousands of new homes. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has been an influential and important voice in the creation of our garden villages programme, and I thank him for his engagement.

We have seen a strong response locally to our offer of support for locally led garden cities, towns and villages, and we want to do more to help the places that are currently in our programme, and others which may become part of it in future, deliver. The Government recognise that a statutory delivery vehicle, such as a new town development corporation, may in some circumstances be a helpful means of co-ordinating and driving forward the creation of a new garden city, town or village.

The Government also recognise that, in line with our locally led approach, this statutory delivery vehicle, while enjoying significant independence to get on with the business of delivering, should be accountable not to central but to local government. I stress that. That is an argument that has been made not only by the noble Lord but by the Local Government Association and the Town and Country Planning Association.

If there is sufficient local appetite, we will consider legislating to amend the New Towns Act to enable the creation of development corporations, for which responsibility rests locally, not with central government. I reassure noble Lords that the Government recognise and support a locally-led approach to the creation of new garden towns and villages. This fits also with our devolution agenda more generally. As I have indicated, the statutory delivery vehicle of the new town development corporation already enjoys significant independence. However, I believe it should be accountable to local government, not central government.

To that end, should there be sufficient appetite we will look into making local bodies accountable for the new town development corporations, with new legislation should local areas show that they would use it. Discussions stemming from the White Paper would be the first step in exploring local appetite. I hope that with this reassurance and the statement of policy going forward, the noble Lord feels able not to press his amendment. Following the indications I have given, I also ask my noble friend Lady Gardner to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

I thank all those who supported what I had to say. I do not think it is at all onerous for the good authorities that are already doing what the amendment suggests, and it is important to help those who are living somewhere where they are not getting the benefit of this. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 27 withdrawn.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Baroness Gardner of Parkes Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 6th February 2017 Grand Committee

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, although my Amendment 48 is in this group, it takes rather the opposite view—or perhaps comes at it from a different angle—than the rest of the amendments in the group. As I see it, the other three amendments in this group all aim to recoup the costs, but not a penny more. That sounds like an admirable situation, but my amendment is about something quite different. We have heard in the Housing and Planning Bill that there are many developers wanting to do some major work who would be prepared and willing to pay for additional services at an extra speed to progress things. I understand from a number of local authorities that this would be welcomed. They could not afford to suddenly be burdened with huge, extra costs because someone was going to do a big development, but they would be quite willing to provide additional expertise if an additional fee could be charged.

When I spoke to the clerk who grouped these amendments, I asked whether it was appropriate for these amendments, which we are linking together, to be the two sides of the same coin. She said that it was appropriate and that, in fact, it might be an advantage for these two points to be considered together. I do not have strong views on this, but I do know it was aired very definitely in the debate on the Housing and Planning Bill last year, and I thought the case was reasonably well made. It seems to me that if it was possible, it would still be up to the local authority to decide whether or not to use that technique. I certainly think it is worth considering.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 45, to which I have added my name. As it is the first time I have spoken, I would also like to draw the Committee’s attention to my details in the register, particularly as a member of Sheffield City Council.

I have seen the effect of not having adequately funded planning departments and development services. At the moment, most authorities have to subsidise up to 30% and in so doing—particularly in the light of the financial position that local authorities find themselves in—many planning departments are under great stress and many planning officers have far more cases in their case load, which can slow down the planning process and, at times, lead to not the best decisions. That is not because the officers are bad or not looking at detail, but because they are so widely spread that they do not have the time to deal with each particular planning application.

This is not just about local government holding out the begging bowl and asking for these fees. Even the builders and the developers are asking that such money as is suggested in these amendments is allowed to be charged by local authorities. The British Property Federation survey of October 2015 found that two-thirds of private sector respondents would be willing to pay an increased fee which would help keep an effective service. It is not just local authorities but builders and developers who have said that.

As has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, in 2015-16, about £195 million has not been recuperated, which is a huge amount for local authorities and planning services. I hope therefore that the Minister will look at this. I think it will help, not just to speed up the planning service but to lead to better and more timely decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

49: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Retrospective planning permission
(1) Where there has been a breach of planning control, as defined under section 171A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”), the person or body who has caused the breach must make a retrospective planning application for planning permission under section 73A of the 1990 Act (planning permission for development already carried out).(2) In respect of a retrospective planning application, the person or body who has caused the breach of planning control is liable for the payment of fees or charges to the local planning authority in respect of the costs incurred in carrying out the functions connected with the retrospective planning application.(3) The person or body who has caused the breach of planning control is liable for the payment of a significant additional charge, connected to the retrospective nature of the planning application, in addition to the fees and charges the person or body is liable for under subsection (2).(4) In carrying out the functions connected with a retrospective planning application, the local planning authority must consult the people residing in the local area to which the retrospective planning application relates.”

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, I feel very strongly about the issue of people constructing buildings without permission. I have twice been affected by this personally and I think there are examples worth quoting.

One example was my home in a country village, a lovely little one in Oxfordshire with stone walls, where I lived opposite Iris Murdoch’s home. When Iris moved and sold the house, the person who bought it sold off the barn. I had a view from my house right down to the centre of the village where some person had bought the field to keep sheep there to retain the village’s history. One day, I looked out and an extra four-foot wall had suddenly gone up on top of the existing wall. Under planning law, you have no right to a view, therefore there was nothing we could do and we were just stuck with it. However, I was so disappointed that the only way you could see that lovely view was to go up to the little attic and look down from there, where it was still visible.

The other experience I had, which is a much worse example, was in London. My home was in central London and backed on to a listed square. They applied to increase their building by one floor by taking what was then a little roof and turning it into a whole floor. All the local residents went to great trouble to make sure that the angle of light was still fine for the rights to light into our house, which was just three stories high. It went up, and it was fine. The next thing that happened, about a year or two later—I lived there for 35 years—was that I suddenly saw another attic being built which was not following the agreed rights to light that all the experts had said were perfect for the situation. The wall was going straight up. I phoned Westminster Council and found that in fact I knew the chairman at the time. I explained to him how awful it was that our rights to light were being taken away. “Oh”, he said. “What a fuss you’re making. Of course it’s being built strictly in accordance with the planning permission”. I thought that was hard to believe. About 18 months later he phoned me: “I owe you an apology. Unfortunately, it was not built in accordance with the planning permission, but the people have moved in and are living in it now, and we don’t feel that it would be fair not to let them stay”.

Over the years I lived there, the whole terrace of these listed houses virtually put on another floor, which always went straight up the wall and took the light away. Just before I moved from that house, about two years ago, the nice man who lived in the last extra floor—the original one, which had the correct rights of light—said, “I’m just going to bring my house into line with everyone else’s”. It would not have made a scrap of difference to where I was living because about three or four of those represented the space that went along my back wall, and he was the only remaining one. However, I found it hard to believe that something could be done and there could be no comeback whatever. When Barbara Castle entered the House of Lords—my history is that I was a candidate against her in Blackburn in 1970—I had an amendment down in whatever Bill it was to this effect, on retrospective permission. She got up and proposed that it should be made a criminal offence. The House was not going to go that far. However, it should be prevented.

I know that there was that case of the man who built a whole house and hid it with a haystack for six years, then thought that it was outside the statute of limitations and that he had got away with it. However, the court ruled that if you had never made it visible to people, this was not right, and I believe he was obliged to take it down. I am not suggesting that we go that far. However, the nitty-gritty point in this amendment— I have been advised so by planning officers who have dealt with many of these cases—is that unless there is a punitive fee for going for retrospective permission, there is no encouragement to go for any permission ever. It will not cost you a penny more, and you will get away with a lot of things.

I understand also from discussions we have had recently that often little changes have to be made when a building is in the process of being constructed. Sometimes a piece does not quite work out because it cannot fit in or for some other reason, and people have to look at that. I am not including that in my idea of what should come under this legislation. However, if you think you can get away with doing something which structurally alters the position for neighbours and other people and which would probably not be approved if it went for planning permission—or it might have, but there was no encouragement to go for it—why would you try to do things in the right way? This is an important issue and I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

I thank the Minister for his reply which I will read carefully. I may perhaps come back at the next stage with different wording that might resolve some of the points he has raised. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 49 withdrawn.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Baroness Gardner of Parkes Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Thursday 23rd February 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

9: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Public consultations
(1) A local planning authority must extend the length of any public consultations regarding a planning application if any public, or bank holidays fall within the consultation period by one day for each public or bank holiday.”

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

This is in some ways a minor amendment but in other ways a hugely important issue for ordinary people who are faced with a situation where things around them can change without their ever being aware that something was going to happen. I spoke on this at the last stage of the Bill, so I do not intend to take a lot of time going into it again.

It was interesting that in this morning’s paper there was quite a large article about ordinary working families—OWFs. The headline was:

“OWFs (ordinary working families) get May out of a JAM”.


The article goes on to say that the Prime Minister’s earlier comment was about those who are “just about managing”, the JAMs, and now everyone in Whitehall has been told that that must not be used any more. They have to be called OWFs, which is interesting because my amendment is geared to ordinary working families—and all sorts of ordinary families, whether they are working or not.

Your choice of holiday time has changed nowadays. I remember factories closing for the whole month of August. Everyone had August defined as the holiday time, but programmes have changed and it is all a different world now. But your choice is still governed by one big factor, which is school holidays. You are not allowed to take your children out of school at any other time; in fact, we read all the time in the press about someone being fined for taking their child away for a holiday at some other stage. So August is very much a traditional holiday time for families of all sorts. Years ago, when I was in dental practice, the people in the East End of London used to go hop-picking in Kent as their big holiday. That does not happen any more because it is now all done by machinery but that was everyone’s big holiday for the year—and most of my patients were in that category.

Home ownership, which we are all busy promoting for everyone, makes us much more concerned about what happens around us. There is nothing worse than to go away, however briefly, and return to find that things have just been nodded through in your absence. The other unfortunate issue is that it certainly gives opportunities for corruption. Whether it really is corrupt in all cases is a different matter, but the loophole is certainly too open for people to exploit those times when they know that locals will not be around to take an interest and say what their views are.

Amendment 9 is so clear that it does not need any explanation. In Committee, the Minister said that very many local authorities already implement an extra day for a public holiday period. They are the good ones. I hope that this amendment will address the less good ones.

I have gone on for quite a long time about Amendment 10 because it speaks for itself. To give an advantage to anyone to feel that they might be able to sneak something through because everyone is concerned with other things in life—this applies particularly during holiday periods—is an important issue. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness as an ordinary working Peer. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment. I am not quite sure what the position is in relation to Amendment 38 and whether the noble Baroness intends to move it.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

I do not.

[Lord Beecham]

In that case, I will simply commend these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for tabling these amendments and the noble Lords who participated in the debate: the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Tope, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen.

In relation to Amendment 9 relating to public holidays, as I indicated in Committee, I have sympathy with it. It seems to be a common-sense provision. I am more concerned about Amendment 10 in relation to August and Christmas. It makes assumptions about holidays which, while often true, may not always be true. There are other holiday periods. So I am more concerned about that, but I am very happy to talk to my noble friend about it.

I will undertake to implement the provision in relation to public holidays by the end of this year. I would like to be able to talk to local authorities about it. With the firm undertaking that we will implement this in relation to public holidays later this year, which we can do by secondary legislation, and my offer to talk to my noble friend about August and Christmas, which I want to have a discussion about because the amendment raises wider issues, I hope that she will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

Will the Minister clarify when he will talk to me about this? Is he planning to talk prior to Third Reading or at a later stage?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I had not given it much thought; obviously I have quite a lot on between now and Third Reading. On the basis that my noble friend has the undertaking that we will definitely do what she wants us to do in relation to public holidays by the end of the year, the discussion is less urgent because this would not be something that we would do at Third Reading. However, if my noble friend particularly wants to meet before Third Reading—we do not have a date for Third Reading yet, with any certainty—I would be happy to do so.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

The difficulty relates to the other amendment. It is only fair that we inform local authorities and have a discussion with them by the end of the year. I do not think that that is unreasonable. If my noble friend is asking about the other provision, it raises other concerns. The other provision is a common-sense provision, but I would like to make sure, in accordance with my approach, that we have an appropriate dialogue with those who are affected.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

I welcome what the Minister said. It sounds as if he is thinking kindly of Amendment 9, which is so clear-cut that I cannot imagine anyone opposing the idea. But the holiday issue is important to families and, as has been said, to officials in the various authorities. Will the Minister clarify whether, if he brings this out in secondary legislation, we could hope for it to be looked at a bit more rapidly? As he knows, I have been quite disappointed at how long things have taken in relation to the Housing and Planning Act 2016. It went on interminably without us ever seeing any regulations. So if he proposes to deal with this through secondary legislation, I would like an assurance that it will be fairly soon—and if we could have a quick word before Third Reading, that would be helpful, too. Perhaps he could confirm that.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I have given an undertaking to take this away and implement it by the end of the year. It could be that we could expedite it before that, but I have given a very firm undertaking to act on it. I do not think that I have been slow at all. I note what my noble friend said about the Housing and Planning Act, but that was not discussions that we had; I was not involved in that legislation.

I am also very happy to take away the other issue and have a look at it to see whether there is anything we can do in relation to it. However, as I think my noble friend will accept, there are other considerations about when people go away—Easter and so on—so there are broader concerns. My noble friend is right that it is a common-sense provision; it may be that we can expedite it more quickly than the end of the year, but that is the undertaking I will give. I am very happy to meet her in short order when we can both find time in our diary to have the discussion, if that is acceptable to her.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

I am sorry to have made a bit of an issue out of all this, but the Minister has been very good in clarifying what he has said. I pin my hopes on him doing what he said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Baroness Gardner of Parkes Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th February 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

38: After Clause 13, insert the following new Clause—
“Retrospective planning permission
(1) Where there has been a breach of planning control, as defined under section 171A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”), the person or body who has caused the breach must make a retrospective planning application for planning permission under section 73A of the 1990 Act (planning permission for development already carried out).(2) In respect of a retrospective planning application, the person or body who has caused the breach of planning control is liable for the payment of fees or charges to the local planning authority in respect of the costs incurred in carrying out the functions connected with the retrospective planning application.(3) The person or body who has caused the breach of planning control is liable for the payment of a significant additional charge, connected to the retrospective nature of the planning application, in addition to the fees and charges the person or body is liable for under subsection (2).(4) In carrying out the functions connected with a retrospective planning application, the local planning authority must consult the people residing in the local area to which the retrospective planning application relates.”

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, I have brought this amendment back in exactly the same form it had in Committee because I thought the comments the Minister made then really deserved to be re-examined. This is an important issue that ordinary people care about very much. Everyone is very unhappy to find suddenly that something has been given retrospective permission without them having any idea that it was even up for reconsideration.

As the Minister said on that day in Committee:

“How we deal with unauthorised development is an important issue that concerns many people”.


I think that is right. He also said:

“It is important to note that retrospective planning applications must be determined in exactly the same way as any other application, that is, in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.—[Official Report, 6/2/17; col. GC 346.]


He then referred to what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said about this, which was also interesting. The Minister mentioned that if somebody has deliberately concealed the fact that they are doing development, as in the famous haystack case, they can be required to demolish the property.

What I found most disappointing in what the Minister said was that the local authority concerned does have an obligation to consult people—I put the part about consultation in my amendment because local authorities are not doing so. Certainly, in the cases where I have been affected by retrospective planning permission, the first thing I have known about it is when I received a note saying, “We have granted planning permission” for whatever disastrous thing it was near me. I have met so many other people who have been in the same situation. If there is an obligation to consult the same people whom you would have consulted before, why is it not being done for retrospective permission? It all smells a little bit. Is this because someone is trying to slip something through retrospectively and feels that they will get away without any consultation or having to attach any conditions? It bears looking at again.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who mentioned the serving of enforcement notices. The Minister certainly picked up the point about enforcement proceedings, but I am not suggesting going any further on those issues.

I must reiterate that my interest is declared in the register; I should perhaps have said that at the beginning.

The Minister went on to say, regarding enforcement, that,

“there is already a double charge”.—[Official Report, 6/2/17; col. GC 347.]

I had not appreciated that there was already a double charge, but apparently that is the case only if you have an enforcement notice. There is no extra charge if you have simply not applied and come back to get your permission, and the local authority has not notified those people who should be consulted. Is that because there is corruption, or is it laziness on their part? It is very important to have some way of ensuring that—it really would be good. The Minister said that it would not be helpful to delay effective enforcement action. All of these things are true, but why are they not adhering to the letter of the law as it is? Why are ordinary people suffering? They are finding that, instead of being able to insist that some reasonable condition that would suit everyone in the locality be included in the planning consent, and the planning authority would consider whether it was a justifiable condition to attach, they are simply not being consulted and are getting word after it is all over and done with.

I suggested a penalty fee in that proposal because planning officers to whom I have spoken have said to me that, at the moment, there is no disincentive whatever to going retrospectively for permission. You can be brave and just have a go and you have nothing to lose because you have no disadvantage: if you find out that you have not got permission, you go for it then and it does not cost anything more; you might have saved yourself a lot of time, trouble and bother, and you have just gone ahead with what you wanted. On the idea of a penalty fee, the Minister said:

“It is a matter which I know previous Governments have considered and to some extent grappled with, but in the interests of fairness have decided not to take forward”.—[Official Report, 6/2/17; col. GC 347.]


In speaking to other amendments in Committee, the Minister said that he would be looking very seriously at various things for secondary regulation, as to what should or should not be regulated and what should or should not be considered. However, I believe that this is the sort of instance that should be looked into. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has said to me that this is more complicated than I imagine. I am sure, from his wisdom and knowledge, which is very great on these subjects, that I would accept that that probably is a fact, but it does not mean that it cannot be investigated and looked into. If, as I understood from the answers in Committee, there is going to be all this consideration of future regulations, then this merits being looked at much more closely. Rather than going on and on, because we have an awful lot to get through today, I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, this matter was debated briefly in Committee. I made the point then that I had a good deal of sympathy with the intentions of the noble Baroness’s amendment requiring a retrospective planning application, although it did not seem to me that the rest of her proposals—with all due respect—had been fully thought through in terms of how they might be applied.

In particular, subsection (2) in the amendment is unnecessary, because if there was a planning application then, of course, fees would have to be paid. There is also a real problem with subsection (3)—I think I said this to her in Committee as well—which prescribes the payment of an additional charge without giving any indication of how that might be calculated. I suggested that the matter could have gone forward on the basis that that would be determined by secondary legislation, but that has not appeared in this amendment. For those reasons, I am afraid that we cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendment, although I suspect that she will not divide the House in any event. While her intention is very good, the means of carrying it through do not quite meet what is required.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, I thank those who have spoken. I have been very impressed by how clear they have been and by how many have had direct experience of exactly what I have brought forward, which encourages me to think that we have a case that should be looked at. On my last amendment, the Minister remarked helpfully that he would be willing to look at the issues raised, particularly in terms of secondary legislation that was possibly going to come forward later in the year. If he could similarly assure me that this would be the case here, and the matter would not be just dropped and forgotten, I would be very happy to accept that assurance. It is an important issue, and ordinary people feel justifiably aggrieved when something like that happens and they did not even have the opportunity to know that it was going to happen before suddenly getting the letter which says “We have granted permission”. You did not even know anything was going to be considered, and it has gone through the whole retrospective permission without anyone being notified.

Perhaps the Minister could do something to ensure that people considering retrospective permissions see that the correct consultation takes place and that people know that these matters are being considered. It is very upsetting for people when they suddenly find out that it is all a fait accompli. A very telling point indeed was made that if someone is doing this as a deliberate policy, they will do it again and again. A lot has come out in the debate today and I just hope that the Minister will say that he will look thoroughly into these issues in terms of possible regulations or secondary legislation on the subject at a later date.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I shall respond to my noble friend’s suggestion. There is certainly no intention to postpone action on this where action is needed, but I would first like to see the evidence of what the problem is before identifying possible solutions to it. I certainly give her the undertaking that I very much look forward to her bringing forward evidence, but some of this seems to relate not so much to not having the legal process there but to the legal process not being enforced. If we see evidence of that, we can look at how it can be properly enforced, but I am very happy to engage in discussion with my noble friend. I think she knows me well enough to know that that would not be with a view to postponing action but with a view to amassing the evidence so that we can look at this.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

I thank the Minister for that undertaking, which is very valuable. It is up to us now, particularly those who have spoken today and who clearly have direct experience of this. I would be very grateful if they would bring forward cases that they have come across so that the Minister has a fairly good list of things, ranging over different parts of the country, because the practice varies from place to place. He has given a very fair answer to my debate and for that reason I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 38 withdrawn.