Localism Bill

Baroness Whitaker Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Lords Chamber

The land that these Gypsies and Travellers occupy in desperation is not always ideal from a planning point of view: but the blame rests squarely on successive Governments, not on the victims of the laissez-faire policies over the five successive decades since I first became involved in Gypsy and Traveller issues. Having a fixed abode is better than being hunted all over the country by planning officers and bailiffs. It means that the gross disadvantage in terms of health, education, access to other public services and social exclusion of the Gypsy and Traveller people can be dealt with more effectively in time. This clause makes the task a great deal harder. I beg the Committee to alleviate its effect by agreeing to the amendment.

[Baroness Whitaker]

My Lords, in supporting Amendment 154, I have very little to add to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who covered the main ground. I emphasise that at the moment the legislative proposal does not apply only to Gypsies and Travellers; the double whammy covers everybody who is caught in that situation. I am most grateful to the Minister for the meeting we had earlier, at which I think it was registered that there is a certain amount of confusion between the intended and unintended effects. If the legislation is not amended, not only will there be more confusion, but there is likely to be more contentious litigation and the prospect of a challenge to the legislation's compatibility with human rights.

As the Minister will know, previously the UK Government defended the reliance of the planning system on the right to be heard by an impartial planning inspector. This legislation does not match up to any of that. I look forward to the Minister's response.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, my Amendment 155 is in this group. After listening to the complexity of the last amendment, I must say that mine is extremely simple. However, it is not quite what I intended to table. It is headed, “Requirement for consultation on retrospective application”, which is exactly what I believe should happen. However, it says that the local planning authority may require an applicant to do this. My view is that the council planning authority should do this.

I have had personal experience in two parts of the country. In my village, local people supported an application to convert a barn opposite into a home and to build a wall two metres high. Suddenly, we found that we were faced with a wall at least two to three metres higher than originally proposed. When we said that we were not consulted, we were told that the builders of the wall had been given retrospective permission. However, it was given without any of the people who had taken an interest in the application, and in many cases supported it, having any idea that the thing had gone back for retrospective permission. I believe that anyone who sent in comments on the original application should certainly be consulted again, but I do not think I intended it to be the applicant doing it. I intended it to be part of the planning procedure. It is a very simple amendment. It cut out the lovely view we all had of the village green, the only unspoilt part, where there are sheep and so forth wandering around. Instead, we have got a wall three metres extra in height. I think this sort of thing is happening to people everywhere, and it should be covered.