New clause 52 - Planning: Retrospective Applications
Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill
10:45 am
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
There are few issues that more irritate and concern local residents than the belief that if one builds something, one will get permission afterwards. That view is not shared by people who build something and apply for permission afterwards, but it is a widespread perception that planning authorities seldom or never refuse retrospective planning permission.
I am sorry that I cannot give the Minister more detailed information about my constituency now; I am sure that it would encourage him to walk blindfold—or not blindfold, even—round the Isle of Wight. In my constituency we suffer a regular flow of retrospective applications. So much so, that I have come under some pressure—I would not be surprised if other hon. Members have, too—to make development without permission against the law. Some people wish us to use the Bill as an opportunity to make it illegal to develop land without planning permission. I do not know whether the Minister has come under such pressure,
but I receive a regular flow of letters from constituents asking why that is legal.
We have to adjust the balance of perception in the public mind, without going so far as to make it illegal to develop without permission. I have therefore drafted a proposal that would strengthen the power of the local authority, and planning officers, and enable them to say, ''The law says that we do not have to worry about the cost to the developer of remedying or demolishing a development that has taken place without permission.''
Some developers overstep the mark. During an earlier sitting I gave the example of Persimmon Homes' development at Carisbrooke Park. That development has been through at least 26 different applications, which have changed the layout, the size of the buildings, the heights of the buildings, and in some cases the datum ground level. It has been made almost impossible for members of the public to keep track of the applications, or find out whether the developer is developing in line with the permissions given. Furthermore, many of those applications have been retrospective.
If a major developer such as Persimmon Homes is incapable of developing without putting in retrospective applications, I wonder what defences planning authorities and members of the public have. I suspect that developers do that on purpose. They use computers to find the layout that would achieve the maximum possible density—that is in line with Government policy, and I do not blame them for doing it—but then the people who are laying the foundations, or putting bricks and mortar on top of the foundations, gently shift an inch or two, or a foot or two, always towards the end where the development started, so there will be a slightly bigger space at the end of the development, in which a few more houses or units can be accommodated.
For example, a constituent of mine who lives in a bungalow in West Mill road in Carisbrooke found out that a wall would be going up at the foot of his garden—a blank wall, so there was no question of overlooking. Having looked at the plans, he had thought that the wall would be behind the garage adjoining the next bungalow, but because the developer had shifted all the buildings on the site to the west, the blank wall also miraculously moved to the west and ended up at the foot of his garden. Members of the public are enormously irritated when the planning committee, or sometimes the planning officers, feel that they are marginal and have no power to reject amended applications. Although it may not be the law, as members of the public see the situation, the cost of demolishing the house that has been built may seem excessive in relation to both the benefit to the individual and the planning improvement of the area.
Another example is an application for motocross at Arreton Cross in my constituency, where the works were begun on agricultural land before the application was lodged. The planners advised that an application was necessary, yet the works continued after it was lodged and before the planning committee determined it. Again, the people in the village of Arreton feared
that the planners had given the nod to the application. They also feared that the works necessary for motocross to take place on agricultural land—bulldozing the land, creating ramps, bumps, dips and hollows, and in some cases significantly changing the morphology of the area—were impossible to reverse, so that the planners therefore had little choice.
The purpose of the new clause is, first, to describe what a retrospective application is, which is detailed in proposed new subsection (2A)—I do not know why I used the phrase, ''be assigned as'', instead of, ''be designated as'', which is what I meant. Secondly, proposed new subsection (2B) makes it clear that the planning committee would be obliged to
''consider the application as if work on it had not begun,''
and,
''have no regard to any financial loss involved''.
The Minister might regard proposed new subsection (2C) as slightly more controversial, because it would allow the planning authority to
''require that the site be restored''.
However, that is only a permissive power, not a duty, for the local authority. The provisions would also allow the Secretary of State to do the same if an appeal for permission were made to him.
That is a sufficiently clear introduction to the new clause. The problem is the perception of, and public confidence in, the planning system, rather than the need for a change in the law to establish a different procedure. It is important that the public have confidence in the planning system, and it is particularly important that members of planning committees can see the words that give them a power, and understand that they have that power when they perform their difficult functions.