Planning Bill

Amendment No. 396A, in my name, would make sure that there is an effective time limit for the new criminal offences introduced by the Bill. Clause 155 places a four-year time limit on bringing charges for committing the new offences of carrying out development without consent or breaching the terms of an order which was granted consent. However, the clause also states that a person could be charged with one of the offences after the expiry of that four-year limit if the local planning authority has applied for an injunction under Clause 164 or if the local planning authority has served an information notice on a person under Clause 160. It is that aspect which gives rise to the problem to which I would like to draw attention. The information notice would require the person to provide information about any operations they are undertaking to enable the authority to determine whether one of the new criminal offences has been committed. Whether or not the information process is proceeding, the threat of a criminal offence will continue to hang over that person. A local authority which, for example, is strongly opposed to the development of a major infrastructure project could use these powers to pursue the developer or operator over a considerably longer period than the statutory four-year limit. It must be quite rare in a major development not to be able to find some infringement at some time during the development project. The result is that the four-year time limit could mean that a person is served with an information notice or an injunction shortly before the expiry of the four-year time limit and could be faced with all the uncertainty of the threat of legal proceedings under one of the new criminal proceedings, which could continue indefinitely. There is no limit on the length of time that that could hang over the developer’s head. The continuing uncertainty facing a person in that position cannot have been intended. Perhaps this is a consequence of the drafting of the Bill which may not have been anticipated. In my view, the enforcement provisions in respect of development consent orders should more closely follow the enforcement provision which is already set out in Section 171B of the 1990 Act. Ministers ought to look at this point before we reach the Report stage. I hope that I will get a sympathetic reply.