Planning Bill

The issue of time limits was debated in the other place, and following concerns raised by Robert Neill MP, the Government agreed that it would be not be right for local authorities to be able continually to extend the period in which legal proceedings could be brought and so keep the threat of enforcement hanging over a promoter. The Bill has been amended to preclude this, but the noble Lord makes an important point that we need to be really clear: the period must not act as a hangover. Without making any promises, it would be helpful if he would allow me to re-examine the issue. Finally, I turn to Amendments Nos. 397 and 398 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. Clause 156 gives a relevant local planning authority the power to authorise a person to enter land if it has reasonable grounds to suspect an offence is being, or has been, committed under Clauses 153 or 154. The amendments would restrict the ability of local authorities to investigate potential offences. Where a local planning authority wishes to enter land without a warrant, it would need to give 24 hours’ notice in all cases. At the moment, Clause 156(3) ensures that 24 hours notice of entry must be given to the occupier only when the property to be entered is a building used as a dwelling house. In most cases it will be dealing with big sites with considerable amounts of construction activity taking place. We normally would not expect dwelling houses to be present on such land. A relevant local planning authority will need to have a reasonable suspicion that a nationally significant infrastructure project is being developed on the site before ever contemplating using these rights of entry. In these circumstances, it is inappropriate for local planning authorities to be required to give 24 hours’ notice before undertaking a site visit. Worse still, the effect of Amendments Nos. 397 and 398 may, in practice, be to frustrate the entire enforcement system. Giving 24 hours’ notice would enable a landowner who had commenced an offence under Clauses 153 and 154 to remove evidence of the offence. As regards entry to a person’s private home, authorisation can be given to enter a dwelling house only where it is on land being used for the construction of a nationally significant infrastructure project and only after 24 hours’ notice has been given. It would not relate to land off the main construction site; for example, the home of a developer or engineer in order to seize documents or plans. Ministers believe that the clause as it stands strikes the right balance between the need to respect the rights of individuals to quiet enjoyment of their property and the need to ensure that the regulatory regime for major infrastructure is properly enforced. I hope noble Lords have found the information that I have provided useful and that I have managed to answer all the points made. I hope that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw the amendment.