New Clause 31 - Enforcement of planning controls
Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill
2:45 pm

Ms Yvette Cooper (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Pontefract and Castleford, Labour)
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.
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.
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.
