Localism Bill amendments on planning enforcement do not go far enough, says Law Society

Government amendments to the planning enforcement regime in the Localism Bill do not go far enough, the Law Society has warned.

Chancery Lane said the Department for Communities and Local Government had accepted the Society’s concerns about what is now clause 112 of the Bill.

The Law Society had claimed that the original proposals would have brought “uncertainty and chaos” to the property market.

The Bill would allow local planning authorities to pursue a planning enforcement order at any time after they become aware that there had been a breach of planning control and require a property owner to remedy that breach, even where the limitation periods had expired.

“This measure, which is intended to re-start the enforcement clock where a breach of planning control has been concealed, applied to concealment by inactivity,” Chancery Lane said.

“So, in the Society’s view, failing to report a breach would be a concealment and would allow the local authority to enforce.  In addition the Bill would make purchasers liable where the breach had been concealed by their vendor or anyone else.  The Society was concerned that this could have a chilling effect on some parts of the property market since, without the certainty that past mistakes could no longer be subject to enforcement action after the limitation period, purchasers would be less willing to buy and lenders less willing to lend.”

The Department for Communities and Local Government has now told the Society that amendments to the Bill – removing inaction from concealment – had been made at the committee stage of the House of Lords in response to its concerns.

Law Society President John Wotton welcomed the changes, but said Chancery Lane’s preference was still for deletion of the clause.

Wotton warned that the innocent purchaser was still at risk. “If there has been concealment in the past, the local authority can still restart the clock and enforce outside the normal time limits,” he said. 

The Law Society plans to press for further amendments it has already proposed to the Bill to protect innocent purchasers.