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.