My Lords, Amendment 153D concerns retrospective planning permissions. It says that, where there is a breach of planning control, the planning authority must issue a notice, "““requiring the owner of the land in, on, over or under which the development has been carried out to make an application to them for planning permission for the development … describing the development in a way that is sufficient to identify it; and … specifying a date by which the application is to be made””."
While the purpose of the clause is, at face value, good, it is suggested that it will not significantly shorten the timescale for inappropriate unauthorised development to be removed. Although the clause seeks to prevent developers running a ground (a) appeal and a retrospective planning application at the same time, it should be borne in mind that, in the event that a retrospective application is submitted closely followed by an enforcement notice, a right of appeal against the refusal of planning permission will still exist. If the intention is to retain this right of appeal, then any appeal, including the appellant's statement, should be submitted within 28 days of the date of refusal. The appeal should then be automatically converted to a ground (a) enforcement appeal so that in essence only one appeal is running.
However, Clause 108 still fails to deal with developers who carry out unauthorised development and who refuse to submit a retrospective planning application to regularise such development. Where the development is inappropriate, it can be dealt with by a notice. However, where it would not be expedient to take formal action, there is no sanction. This causes problems, especially where neighbours have done the right thing and applied for permission while they see a developer cocking a snook at the system and getting away with it.
The planning system should be an open and transparent method of regulating development. Many of the people who decide to circumvent the system avoid the public consultation process, and that must be contrary to the aims of localism. In addition, it puts an onus on the local authority to investigate and evaluate the proposal at the authority's expense when the developer is making a gain. As one planning enforcement officer affirmed, it is important that the public have confidence that the system does not allow rogue developers to continue to take advantage. We suggest that any developer who has carried out unauthorised development should be compelled to submit a retrospective planning application, with a suitable sanction by way of a fixed penalty notice for double the appropriate fee if they fail to do so, and this amendment should be incorporated into the Localism Bill.
I am advised by the RTPI that the amendment is based on Section 33A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006. I beg to move.
Localism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 19 July 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Localism Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
729 c1296-7 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 18:13:22 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_763285
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_763285
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_763285