Clause 132

Planning Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 12:15 pm on 29 January 2008.

Alert me about debates like this

Time limits

Photo of Bob Neill Bob Neill Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Deputy Chair, Conservative Party

I beg to move amendment No. 420, in clause 132, page 61, line 28, leave out paragraph (a).

I return to the matter that I inadvertently anticipated earlier—the time limits for bringing prosecutions. The clause puts a four-year time limit on bringing prosecutions  for the new offence of carrying out development without consent or of breaching the terms of an order granting consent. However, under the clause, someone could be charged with one of the offences after the expiry of the four-year time limit if the local authority had applied for an injunction under clause 141 or if it had been served with an information notice under clause 137. The injunction probably relates to something that is fairly significant: a development that actually happened and on which some restraint is required. There will be some certainty in such a case because there will be a hearing on the injunction and the court will make a definitive order.

I am more concerned about the use of the information notice under clause 137 because it would require the person on whom it is served to provide information about any operations they are undertaking to enable the authority to determine whether one of the criminal offences has been committed. The notice would then hang over that person, whether or not the information process is proceeding. Once the notice is served, the time that it takes for that notice to be complied with—it will depend on the complications and nature of the works that are going on—will extend the time available for bringing proceedings. If an authority were strongly opposed to a developer, the time available could be stretched considerably longer than the four-year period.

Most people who have been involved in these things know that quite often in development, there may be a minor infringement of the conditions by, perhaps, a subcontractor acting in good faith. If those infringements are dealt with sensibly, the problem can be put right. In theory, however, the authority would be able to serve an information notice and trigger the provisions of the Act. Even if the information notice was served very shortly before the expiry of the four years, until the whole rigmarole was complied with, the risk of criminal prosecution would arise.

If a lot of notices were served, one after the other—as far as we can see, there is nothing to stop that if the local authority comes back with another notice after the first one has been served—the time in which there is a threat of prosecution would continue well beyond the four-year period. I suspect that that is an unintended consequence of the proposal, and the amendment would remove it.

Our view, which is held by many practitioners in this sector, is that although we do not have a problem in principle with the enforcement provisions of development consent orders, they might be better served if they followed the existing enforcement regime under section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That is why we tabled the amendment and it will be interesting to hear what the Minister says.

Photo of Dan Rogerson Dan Rogerson Opposition Whip (Commons), Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) 12:30, 29 January 2008

I listened closely to what the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said in his case for the amendment. However, I also have in the back of my mind the case put forward by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon about ensuring that enforcement is as powerful as possible. There are many cases every week around the country of smaller developments of the nature that he mentioned, such as  where roof lines are built slightly too big. However, we are talking not about that, but about very significant projects.

It is unlikely that the developers that we are talking about, having invested so much time in this process, will step outside the law. I do not think that there will be many cases of that. Having invested much time and effort in getting a huge application such as this through the process, it is unlikely that they will jump the gun. However, it is important that there is a clear provision that is as flexible as possible for enforcement to be carried out. On this occasion, I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.

Photo of Parmjit Dhanda Parmjit Dhanda Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government

There is an interesting piece of triangulation on the Committee because I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. In a peculiar way, that gives the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon what he has been asking for all this time. He was saying that we have not given in on anything.

I suspect that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has been talking to his old friends in the Law Society, and I confess that he is on to something. He expressed concerns that the clause, which is about invoking time limits for enforcement action, will mean that if an information notice is served under clause 137 before the expiry of the four-year time limit, a developer could find themselves faced with the indefinite threat of legal proceedings, under one of the new criminal proceedings. That may well happen because a local authority that is for ever opposed to a nationally significant infrastructure project could choose to use this process as a mechanism to keep the enforcement going. I am sympathetic to that point.

The Government are considering the application of time limits to the enforcement provisions. In doing so, we will be happy to take the hon. Gentleman’s concerns into account and will come back to him at a later stage. Although I am not accepting his amendment as worded, due to the potential consequences attached to it, I am happy to return to the matter and take on board what he has said. He has a fair point.

Photo of Bob Neill Bob Neill Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Deputy Chair, Conservative Party

I am grateful. In a different Bill Committee, on which the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick) served, this would have been described by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) as a “champagne moment”. I am very grateful to the Minister and will relay what he has said back to those who open champagne in the Temple and the Inner Temple. I accept his point and if we can find a way forward, I will be grateful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 132 ordered to stand part of the Bill.