---

Planning Bill

Amendments Nos. 397 and 398 concern the right to enter land without a warrant under Clause 156. They were moved in Committee in another place. Clause 156(1) states that there is a right to enter land without a warrant if the, "““local planning authority has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under section 153 or 154 is being, or has been, committed on or in respect of the land””." Subsection (2) states that the planning authority may authorise the entering of land without any notice. Subsection (3) states that a person may enter a ““dwelling-house””, but, "““only if 24 hours’ notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier of the building””." Our two amendments would take out subsection (3) and the 24 hours’ notice for entering a ““dwelling-house”” and would apply it to the entering of any land. The issue does not simply apply to land and houses. There are lots of other types of buildings, such as factories, warehouses and offices, in between. The 24 hours’ notice should apply before one enters any land. Before the Summer Recess, there was a debate on the types and numbers of rights of entry by government bodies—I recall something like 600 types. For my part, last year, my farm land was inspected about five times by various government bodies. Each time, I was notified of an inspection. Luckily, I ticked all the boxes. But my point is that it was much appreciated that they gave me 24 hours’ notice. If local planning authorities want to enter land or property, it would be good a thing for them to give 24 hours’ notice. That brings me to a number of other points. Our amendments concern proportionality in respect of rights of entry. The Bill allows entry without a warrant into a dwelling only if 24 hours’ notice has been given. That is not a lengthy period, especially if the occupier is away. Clause 158 deals with compensation if damage is caused to land or chattels. Presumably, a local authority is allowed to break and enter, which seems to be rather a sledgehammer to crack a nut in most instances. There is a safety net under Clause 158(2), which states: "““A person commits an offence if the person wilfully obstructs a person acting in the exercise of a relevant right of entry””." One has to question whether the entering of dwelling houses is compatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; that is, the, "““right to respect for family and private life””." That is certainly debateable. Would it be disproportionately onerous for the authorities to obtain a warrant in advance for entering houses? After all, Clause 157, ““Right to enter under warrant””, refers to the, "““reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under section 153 or 154 is being, or has been, committed””." That is the very thing that Clause 156 deals with. In Committee in another place, the Minister said: "““The clause is about enforcement ... It gives the local planning authority the element of surprise””.—[Official Report, Commons Public Bill Committee, 29/1/08; col. 513.]" I might be splitting hairs, but the right to entry is not about enforcement per se, it is about obtaining entry to ascertain the facts. Has an offence been committed as regards the planning permission or not? It is a fact-finding operation. Enforcement will take place only once it has been ascertained that an offence has been committed, if it has. Why does the local planning authority need an element of surprise? A development without planning permission or in breach of planning permission under Clauses 153 and 154 is not easy to disguise. I shall half-answer that myself. There may be instances where an element of surprise is necessary to obtain drawings and documents before they are removed. But, presumably, a warrant under Clause 157 will be used for that.