S3M-2011 Planning Law (Enforcement)

Scottish Parliament

Thursday 4 September 2008

[THE PRESIDING OFFICER opened the meeting at 09:00]

... ... ...

Planning Law (Enforcement)

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan): The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-2011, in the name of Iain Smith, on the enforcement of planning legislation. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes with concern the difficulties faced by planning authorities, such as Fife Council, in attempting to deal with breaches of planning legislation through enforcement and stop notices; considers that development without the appropriate planning approval undermines the rule of law and the planning process and that the present planning legislation does not provide a sufficient safeguard against unlawful development; believes that appeals against enforcement or stop notices should not be permitted on the grounds that planning permission for the development would have been granted or that a planning application for the development has been submitted; further believes that there should be a presumption against approval for any development that has been carried out without the appropriate planning approvals, and desires further debate on these proposals.

17:06

... ... ...

17:30

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson): I thank Iain Smith for providing us with the opportunity to debate this issue which, although it has not attracted the greatest participation or, indeed, the largest audience, is important to people throughout Scotland and which the Parliament engaged with in a broadly consensual way when we introduced the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006.

I will be unable to make any direct reference to the couple of examples that Iain Smith used in his speech. One of them, in particular, is still an active case and, as a minister, I cannot therefore make any remarks about it. Any remarks that I make will not be connected to the examples that were put before us, but I will use the kind of cases that Iain Smith discussed to illustrate the general points.

We are looking at regimes for licensing taxi offices, and there will be a taxi summit later this year. That will be part of helping to control that particular type of business, outwith the planning system.

Chris Harvie made some comments about supermarkets. I will use that as an excuse to illustrate our determination to respond to breaches of conditions when it is our responsibility to do so. There was a supermarket in Dundee that—as was well publicised in the local press at the time—was intent on opening before some very significant conditions were fulfilled. We became aware of that on a Friday morning, and at 2 o'clock the same day we were in court, successfully securing an interim interdict. The supermarket appealed on Saturday morning but lost the appeal. The company was unable to open that supermarket for a significant period of time as a result of our intervention and we were able to gain the remedies that we needed to ensure that the public interest was protected. Of course, it is my officials who do the work; the minister merely consents to it happening. I hope that that is the kind of response that we will see across Scotland, and that our actions will help to ensure that that happens.

Elaine Murray and Alex Johnstone made clear that the presumption to refuse would lead us into dangerous territory. Like them, we would like to see the 2006 act—over which we all laboured long and hard—settle down.

Elaine Murray asked why it is taking so long. My answer is that the secondary legislation is quite complex, Alex Johnstone's suggestion that planning is really very simple notwithstanding—in principle that is true, but in practice it is anything but. We are undertaking serious consultation processes on the matter, but we are not far off being in a position to bring almost everything forward.

We recognise that the lack of human resources in local authorities is a constraint. On a number of occasions we have engaged with the industry and planners and we are looking for ways forward, although it is clear that that will not remedy the situation in the very short term because we cannot magic more human resources out of nowhere.

There are people who abuse the system. I think that the new provisions will make a significant difference to how those people are treated. The 2006 act expands and enhances the range of powers that are available to planning authorities. The introduction of fixed-penalty notices will provide an alternative to the lengthy process of seeking a prosecution if a developer fails to comply with an enforcement notice.

I assure members that it is our intention that the financial penalties will be significant enough to change behaviours. We have heard concerns in the consultation about the proposed level of fines. We continue to consider our response.

Temporary stop notices have been mentioned. They will enable immediate intervention and provide part of the remedy that today's debate has touched on. It is clear from the consultation that there has to be one exception: a temporary stop notice is not the appropriate intervention when it applies to someone's sole residence. That creates an issue when the sole residence is a caravan, but we have to strike a balance and we will bring forward further material on the subject later.

We are in full agreement on appeals against enforcement notices on the ground that planning permission ought to be granted. Mr Smith should note that provision was made in the 2006 act to repeal that ground for appeal. The provision will be implemented in due course.

At first glance, some of the proposals that have been made look attractive, but I think that it is appropriate to wait for things to settle down.

It has been suggested that most of the instances that we are talking about are accidental misunderstandings rather than deliberate actions. The deliberate will pay much higher prices in future. There is an element of unfairness in the present system, because people can bypass its requirements. The changes will mean that if someone applies for planning permission after they have completed a development, they will still have to go through all the same processes. Development without permission will no longer be a potential shortcut to achieving planning consent. That is appropriate.

We must also ensure that the use of powers remains at the discretion of planning authorities. We are clear in the Government that local decision making should lead on local issues, and planning is predominantly a local issue. I am confident that planning authorities will have the tools to provide fair, effective and efficient enforcement of the planning system. In doing so, they will help us to create a modernised planning system that will be trusted by everyone who is affected by planning and development and which will support the development of our communities and economy throughout Scotland.

Meeting closed at 17:37.