For some years legislation to strengthen planning
legislation has been working its way through the system, and this
month it has reached its second reading in the Assembly. The UAHS
has been pressing for the new legislation and welcomes it having
reached this stage, but was disappointed that the fines proposed
for those flouting the law remain pitifully small, and dismayed
that the proposal to introduce Third Party Appeals, which had
been present in the previous version, had been dropped.
The debate at the second reading on 24 June was lively. The minister, Dermot Nesbitt, said he was satisfied there was "no legal imperative" to introduce Third Party Appeals, but said he was still considering the matter outside the present legislation. Mr McGrady, leading the objections to this, countered "the fact that there is no legal imperative means nothing, given that we are here to make the law." Mr McCarthy suggested that it must surely be possible to devise a form of words that would allow a right of appeal for objectors who have substantial backing: "for example, we could measure support by requiring a significant proportion of a local council to support the objectors or by requiring a certain number of signatures."
Jane Morrice, who had established that a very large proportion of appeals are found in favour of the developer, also felt the present system was unjust: "in dealing with large development projects, environmental impact assessments are carried out. We ask the birds, bees, flowers and trees to see what effect it will have on them, but there is no community impact assessment to ensure that the neighbours and the local community are consulted in these stages of the development process." She was scornful of the Minister's justification for doing without third party appeals here on the basis that there was more democratic consultation of planning issues, for example with local councils: "Is it not true that even if an entire council opposed a development, it could still proceed? What value is the consultation process if it serves no end?" Rev Dr William McCrea, as chairman of the Environment Committee, emphasised that his Committee "fundamentally supports the necessity for third-party appeals."
The issue of demolition of historic buildings was also debated at length. Mr McGrady said that "All Members have experienced the rapidity with which modern machinery can obliterate our heritage before anyone can keep a tab on it." Later he added, "The Minister said that it will be possible to list buildings to prevent their demolition. Is he conscious that listed buildings are being demolished and virtually no action is being taken?". Mr McCarthy added that "We need a better system than the Minister standing in the street crying, "Shame!" as the bulldozers do their work." Mr Watson was sceptical of the Department's claimed new commitment to enforce the law using heavy fines and jail sentences if necessary: "I have seen no evidence of that and cannot see how the Bill, as it is worded, will change radically the Department's enforcement policy and practices."
The Bill is back with the Environment Committee,
and it will be interesting to see how they deal with it. Read
our most recent letter to the Assembly after this, or link to
the Assembly's website here.
Mr John Simmons
Clerk to the Committee of the Environment
Northern Ireland Assembly
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX
June 27, 2002
Dear Mr Simmons
Planning (Amendment) Bill
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft of amendments to planning legislation. We realise that speedy processing of these most welcome changes is crucial to allow implementation, but we would ask that the below suggestions be considered at this late stage.
Penalties:
PPS 9: The Enforcement of Planning Control states that "the
Department attaches great importance to the protection of listed
buildings". The proposed increase in the maximum fine from
£5,000 to £20,000 would make very little difference
to a developer set to make a large profit. The courts have not
regarded the illegal demolition of listed buildings, or buildings
within conservation areas with any seriousness to date, when even
the £5,000 fine has rarely been fully imposed. For instance,
the demolition of 85 Botanic Avenue incurred a fine of £250,
and an entire terrace within the Armagh Conservation Area incurred
a total fine of £4,500.
We are very concerned that penalties for the loss of historic buildings in conservation areas do not seem to be addressed separately in the bill. Is the proposed increase in fine intended to deal with both types of illegal demolitions?
The £20,000 fine coupled with the requirement to replicate the lost building and possible jail sentence is obviously an improvement, but we would wish to see a much more dramatic increase. It is worth noting that the 1999 legislation in the Republic of Ireland allowed for a £1,000,000 limit and/or 2 year jail sentence. A level closer to this limit would send out a more convincing message to developers and magistrates that great importance genuinely is attached to listed buildings. Once lost, their historic fabric cannot be replaced.
Trees in the curtilage of listed buildings:
The setting of listed buildings is often undermined by inappropriate
development in the grounds. This could be prevented if the trees
within their curtilage were granted automatic tree preservation
orders, as is being proposed for conservation areas. We would
therefore request that TPOs be offered to these critical sites,
so that the important landscape setting can be assessed.
A key example is the Gocean Lodge in Killyleagh where a locally cherished mature woodland was felled in a pre-emptive strike before an application was submitted for housing in its wake.
Demolition:
We are pleased that demolition is to be regarded as development,
but are disappointed that this will only extend to Areas of Townscape
Character. We would suggest that terraced houses and semi-detached
dwellings could also be incorporated within this provision. The
structural condition of neighbouring properties is threatened
by such demolitions and inclusion would allow assessment of this
impact as well as the contribution such buildings often make to
streetscape.
Third Party Rights of Appeal:
The Society strongly believes that third party appeals are crucial
to the operation of an equitable planning system, and would wish
to express concern at its absence from the Bill. The report by
Green Balance, Leigh Day and Co Solicitors, John Popham and Professor
Purdue on behalf of third parties in England argues the case well:
"Many people find this fact incredible: while a developer may appeal against the refusal of planning permission, no one can appeal against the grant of permission - no matter how good the case for refusal may be. Worse still, planning authorities may be swayed by a simple desire to avoid having to defend an appeal; and thus the mere existence of this one-sided option could tip a decision in favour of the applicant".
We trust that these comments and the attached recommendations from the report on third party rights of appeal will serve to assist the debate.
Yours sincerely
Rita Harkin
Research Officer
Return to News.