Rev Dr William McCrea (Chairperson)
Ms Lewsley (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Armstrong
Mrs Carson
Mr Coyle
Mr Ford
Mr McClarty
Mr Molloy
Mrs Nelis
Mr Poots
Mr Watson

Mr J Lambe )
Mr I Maye ) Department of the Environment
Mr D Small )

The Chairperson: I welcome Mr Ian Maye, Mr David Small and Mr Jackie Lambe from the Department of the Environment. Good morning, gentlemen. I understand that you are going to give a presentation on the issues and concerns raised by the Committee at previous meetings.

Mr Maye: This is Mr Small’s last appearance before this Committee. He is about to go to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, so he will be up before another Committee from now on. His place will be taken by Mr Wilfred Reavie, who is a long-standing member of the Planning Service with legislative experience. Mr Lambe will remain part of the team, so that we will not be bereft of all experience.

The Chairperson: Mr Small, I wish you every success in your new appointment. I trust that you will find it rewarding.

Mr Maye: We will run through the issues, set out in the Minister’s letter of 2 October, which were originally raised by the Committee four weeks ago. We will stop whenever you see fit to ask questions or if you want clarification. We will then move on to the points, primarily of clarification, that were raised two weeks ago.

Mr Small: The Minister’s letter addressed four issues raised by the Committee on 5 September. On two of those issues, the Minister intends to put proposals forward to the Executive Committee and the Secretary of State. On the other two issues, he explains in the letter why he feels unable to accept the recommendations of the Committee.

I will deal first with the issues on which the Minister accepts and empathises with the Committee’s views.

First, the Minister agrees that the proposed levels of fines under clauses 1, 2 and 8 of the Bill should be increased from level 3 on the standard scale (£1,000) to the maximum of the standard scale (£5,000). There is logic in that. The Minister will suggest that to the Executive Committee. His view is that the kind of increase proposed is consistent with the earlier proposal to increase the maximum level of fine available in the Magistrate’s Court from £20,000 to £30,000. To ensure consistency with other provisions in the Planning Order (Northern Ireland) 1991, the opportunity will also be taken to increase the levels of fines available under articles 22 and 66 of that Order. There is a similar rationale for increasing those from level 3 on the standard scale to the maximum of the scale.

Secondly, the Committee asked whether the proposed custodial sentences in the Bill for offences relating to listed building consent could be extended to other offences in the Bill. The Minister empathises with that proposal; such a change would send a clear message to those who seek to breach planning control. He intends to send papers on that to the Executive Committee and the Secretary of State. On both of those issues, the Minister agrees with the Committee’s recommendations.

Two further issues were raised. The first was to do with stop notices. The Committee will recall that the essential point was whether such notices ought to take immediate effect. The provisions, as drafted, allow stop notices to take immediate effect whenever the Department so determines. The Committee’s view was that it should happen automatically. The Minister has considered the issues raised by the Committee but believes that the provisions as currently drafted are appropriate. There are a number of reasons for that.

The first reason is that stop notices are only one of a number of powers available to the Department to stop activity. The Committee will be aware that clause 3 provides the Department with new express powers to seek court injunctions to stop unauthorised activity. The Department already has substantial powers through that process.

The second point is that we are concerned about the possible implications of stop notices taking immediate effect in every situation. The main concern is that it may simply be impossible for developers to make safe unstable structures or buildings that are unsafe or unstable. There are serious potential dangers. The Committee suggested that we make provision for circumstances such as that, under which we could specify that the stop notice would not take immediate effect. Our concern is that it would be virtually impossible for the Department to make those judgements with absolute confidence and certainty. Getting it wrong could have serious implications.

The Minister’s view is that clause 9 gives the Department the power to make a stop notice take immediate effect in cases where, for example, we think that an activity is causing serious environmental damage and should be stopped immediately, and where we can be absolutely confident that there are no dangers associated with doing that.

Finally, the new powers to better enforce stop notices are worth mentioning. The Bill sets out a range of new powers, including higher fines, the proposed new offence of unauthorised activity, and the proposed custodial sentences. That is an important point. Part of the Committee’s concern, I think, is that even where a stop notice or enforcement notice takes effect, the unauthorised activity often continues. The Chairperson made that point at the last meeting. Our view is that the new powers in the Bill will allow us to change that situation. Where a stop notice takes effect, whether it does so within a day or immediately, it will take effect in an appropriate manner. Where it does not, we will use the significant new powers in the Bill to enforce it.

The other point raised was in relation to the protection of trees. Again, the Minister empathises with the Committee’s view that there may be other circumstances in which we ought to be able to apply protection to trees, outside the very specific circumstances of tree preservation orders (TPOs). We discussed at the last meeting our concerns about blanket protection, and I think that the Committee accepted that there were reasons why that was not appropriate.

Nevertheless, the Minister accepts the Committee’s view and agrees with the Committee’s proposal that we should look further at finding some other means of extending control. He has asked officials to liaise with departmental solicitors, and we are doing that at the moment. We have asked for their views on a possible model that would give the Minister some discretion through which he could extend TPO-type control to specified locations or specified circumstances. We are awaiting legal advice on that point. The Minister accepts the Committee’s views, and we are taking the matter forward.

The Chairperson: The first two issues, on which the Minister has accepted our views, we will take as read. I am sure that Members will want to comment on the other two issues.

Mr Molloy: With regard to stop notices, I think that wording could be inserted that would mean that notices would have to be implemented, but with due care given to the protection of the building. I do not think that someone in the middle of taking down a building would be told to stop and would have to leave it in an unsafe condition. The legal people could put together a wording that would ensure that it had to be made safe, but also that the stop notice would have to take effect.

Mrs Carson: I am concerned about the tree preservation orders. It is still a bit woolly. I am concerned that the maximum fine for an offence under the relevant clauses is only level 3, or £1,000. That is not very much. Only yesterday I received letters from people who were concerned about trees being taken down by the Roads Service. We need to tighten up, because once the tree is down, it is gone. We should have a higher level of fine.

Mr Small: That is one of the fines that we intend to increase in the context of the suggestion put forward by the Committee. There are two levels of fines that can be applied in relation to trees. There is one level where damage is done to the tree that is not likely to kill the tree. The level of fine for that, we propose, will be increased to £5,000. In cases where a tree is removed or felled unlawfully, the level of fine in the Magistrate’s Court will be increased to £30,000, subject to the agreement of the Executive. In the Crown Court, the level of fine that can be imposed will be unlimited.

Mrs Carson: It sounds good, and I hope it works, because £30,000 is not much to a large developer. If one or two trees are putting a development at risk, £30,000 or £60,000 can be written off. I am still concerned.

Mr Small: The other relevant provision in the Bill is that, where trees are removed unlawfully in breach of a tree preservation order, they must be replaced. That will be an automatic requirement. It will not free the site for development. The developer may still face the £30,000 fine — or higher, if we take it through the Crown Court — and he will have no development with which to recover that loss.

Mrs Carson: How are we going to encourage more people to take out tree preservation orders?

Mr Small: Tree preservation orders are a matter for the Department. It is for the Department to determine where it is appropriate to place TPOs and to establish some sort of programme for doing so.

Mr Maye: One thing that we are doing, as we have reported to the Committee before, is to conduct a survey of all woodland in Belfast, under the Forest of Belfast initiative. That will lead to recommendations. We would like to replicate that in other parts of Northern Ireland. In the meantime, when an individual or a community group comes to us with a request for a TPO to be put on land, we look very seriously at that. When planning applications are submitted, if there are already trees on the land our own planning officers will often request the imposition of a TPO. We take that very seriously.

The combination of those three approaches should help us to better protect trees as a whole, but the issue that the Minister has asked us to look at is whether we can put a mechanism into this Bill to allow him to protect classes of trees in certain circumstances, such as within the curtilage of a listed building or in an area of townscape character. That is what he wants us to explore, because it would give him great flexibility. We could protect particular classes of trees, rather than looking at individual stands of trees on an individual basis, which is essentially what we are doing at the moment and which is not satisfactory. It means that we have to look at each in a particular way, and that is labour intensive. If we can protect classes by a legislative mechanism, then that is much easier to administer and police.

Mrs Carson: Thank you, I look forward to that.

Mr Poots: In relation to the stop notices, you indicate that the three-day period is there; it could be made shorter. You also indicated the problems there could be if you had an immediate stop notice in relation to raw sewage, for example, spilling out. I think that it should be turned round so that the stop notice should take immediate effect unless there are particular reasons for it not being able to do so. It should continue for a period of up to three days in relation to, for example, raw sewage, or health and safety issues. The emphasis should be on illegal development, and in such circumstances the stop notice should be immediate. Then, if there are other considerations to be taken into account that would allow some development to take place for health and safety, or other, reasons, that should be included. The emphasis of the stop notice should be turned round in relation to the three days to sort things out, because there will be people who will use those additional three days to continue with further development.

Mr Small: I think the Minister’s response on that is that while we accept the reasons for the proposal the Committee makes, we would like to reserve the discretion relating to when the Department feels it is appropriate to make a stop notice take immediate effect — because there will be circumstances in which an activity has to stop immediately, and we will specify through the planning policy statement the kind of circumstances in which we feel that will be the case, and in those cases we will make it take immediate effect. Our concern still revolves around a situation whereby if a stop notice were to take effect in every single case unless the Department specified that it was not going to, the onus would then fall on the Department to determine in a very accurate way in every single circumstance in which there was some potential danger, either for health and safety reasons or some other danger that we may not have foreseen. Where that happens, and where we fail to foresee that danger, and something awful does happen, the responsibility and liability for that will fall to the Department. However, that is not to say that where an activity is being carried out that we feel must stop immediately that we will not use a stop notice. We will make a judgement on a case-by-case basis depending on the individual circumstances, and that will probably involve inspecting the site in each case. We also will retain the clause 3 power of injunction where some major unauthorised piece of development is taking place and where we can, through a court injunction, have the activity stopped immediately. Our view is that the power is there to allow us to do it; we simply want to retain some discretion in how we do it, rather than have our hands tied through an automatic requirement.

Mr Ford: First, on tree preservation orders, I do not see anything in the Minister’s letter that refers to a point that I have made previously about the issue of the preservation of the habitat around the trees rather than merely single trees on their own — something that does not yet appear to be addressed in any part of the UK, but there is no reason why we should not be first. But on a more substantive point, the fourth page of the Minister’s letter has a long paragraph which starts: "Clause 9, therefore". It forms the basis of what Mr Small has just said in relation to whether we go for immediate implementation or the three-day delay. It seems to me that the implications of the references in the Minister’s letter to cost benefit and assessment on foreseeable costs and so on gives the impression that you will only consider, in a minority of cases, acting early if the stop notice takes effect from three days. Surely if the matter is being considered properly, that sort of assessment needs to be carried out in any case? Therefore it seems to me that it can as easily be carried out to determine whether it does not need to come into operation, as to whether it does. The only alternative implication is that you are not actually going to be seriously considering whether a stop notice should take place immediately, because that is the only circumstance in which you would not be doing that assessment anyway.

Mr Small: I think that those kinds of assessments — for example, the cost-benefit analysis that you mentioned — will have to be carried out in every single case, no matter whether it takes immediate effect or takes effect within a day or two days. The other factor that we are just uncertain about is the potential danger that we may not have foreseen, or the potential damage that may result which we had not foreseen, and where liability for getting that wrong will transfer to the Department. Although we can anticipate the kind of health and safety situations that might arise, such as an unstable piece of structure, where we can see easily that matters need to be put right before the stop notice takes effect, there might also be circumstances that we cannot anticipate or foresee, and where we will get it wrong. By requiring a stop notice to take effect immediately, or by requiring the developer to lift his machinery and take it off site, there may be some consequence that we had not anticipated. It is situations such as that that we simply do not want to tie our hands on.

Mr Ford: Is that not dealt with by the point that Mr Molloy made at the beginning of this discussion — that it should be possible to phrase the requirements in such a way as to provide for matters which need to be completed for urgent health and safety considerations or whatever? I am not a lawyer, but I am sure that your lawyers could come up with wording to cover that.

The Chairperson: Although it is true that there may be circumstances that you have not perceived, and, therefore, by having it before the three days you would be leaving the Department open to problems, it can also be turned the other way round. Say, for example, you give three days, and you do not perceive the situation to be dangerous. Is that not leaving yourselves open?

Mr Small: Three days would be regarded as a reasonable period for a contractor or developer to make a site safe.

The Chairperson: It could be three days in which a contractor could do an awful lot of further damage. Most of the people sitting round this table know fine well what happens, for example, when trees are being taken away. It starts about 4·00 am and by the afternoon it is nearly all over. Therefore in those three days, all the damage can be done.

Mr Maye: Issues have been raised this morning that we should take away and look at seriously. There is a germ of an idea in my head that we could reverse the presumption but build in a statutory defence which would enable a developer to do whatever was necessary to make the site safe, at the same time as complying with the notice. There is an issue there for us to look at, and we will do so.

The Chairperson: That is exactly what we were saying at the previous meeting, and the Minister refers to that in his letter. He states:

"The Committee’s view was that a Stop Notice should always have immediate effect unless there were specific reasons, i.e., health and safety, why it should not have immediate effect."

That is really what we are talking about; but we need to get wording that reflects that position.

Mrs Nelis: It has been mentioned that where very serious breaches of planning control occur, the Department has recourse to an injunction or restraining order from the courts. However, that is wide open to interpretation. What would constitute a serious breach of planning control? Why cannot that be dealt with under the stop notice rather than have to avail of the court’s intervention? That point is not very clear. Secondly — and I understand that the Department is protecting its back in respect of an appeal — it is possible that developers or landowners could simply remove the trees from the site before they even submit a planning application. Were that to be proven when their planning application is submitted, how would the Department propose that the planners should deal with that application? Would there be any sanctions on a developer where it is proven that he has cleared the site of the trees or whatever?

Mr Maye: The reason we think it is necessary to have an express power to apply to the court for an injunction is that an injunction, by its very nature, brings very stiff penalties if it is not adhered to by the person against whom it is taken — much stiffer than the penalties that are available to the court or to the Department in relation to a stop notice.

Last year, there was a case in which the Department was in the process of applying to the Attorney-General for an injunction against activity at Bishops Court racetrack. In that case, the bank intervened, took possession of the racetrack and sold it. The case illustrates that the Department is occasionally prepared to seek an injunction. In that case, the Department did not have to pursue it because the bank intervened and effectively took the decision out of its hands. An injunction brings stiff penalties, because if a person does not comply with its terms, he or she is in contempt of court. Therefore the court can deal with that person in whatever way it likes. It brings with it the potential for a much stiffer penalty against developers and others.

Mr Small: The Committee raised the point that the removal of trees on a development site should be made unlawful. The Department’s view is that that would be most effective when an application has been made. The legislation could be framed so that when an application has been made and the development site is cleared, the removal of trees after that would be unlawful. That might be possible.

However, the Department’s point is that, potentially, there is an easy way around that for the developer. The trees could be removed before the site becomes the subject of an advocation, and becomes a development site. The only way to deal with that would be with some kind of blanket control, which the Department has discussed in the past. The Department is considering options that would allow the Minister to specify circumstances or categories of trees for which special protection would be possible. The Department is not yet sure whether that would address that kind of situation. However, it is seeking legal advice on how far it could apply such a power.

Mrs Nelis: Unless the legislative framework indicates that the Department is prepared to deal strongly and seriously with developers who have cleared sites in advance of submitting planning applications, developers will continue to do so. I want to establish whether, if it were proven that a developer had been cute enough to clear a site and submit a planning application six months later, there is some mechanism that planners could use to deal with that.

Mr Small: The Department’s concern is how it could frame a provision that would have that effect. It has sought advice from its legal advisers on how that might be achieved, and on how it might operate.

Mr Maye: The Department and the Minister are trying to find a compromise that does not necessarily affect all Northern Ireland but applies to those parts that have, for example, listed buildings or areas of townscape character. The Minister might want to add other categories, which will allow the Bill to provide the same protection for those areas as that which is provided for a conservation area. That would make life much easier for the Department and for the public, because it would mean that whole areas or the curtilage of listed buildings might be protected in the same way as conservation areas. The Department would be better able to decide which areas are worth protecting.

At present that is a cumbersome process, because the Department must examine individual trees and stands of trees. It must ask arboriculturalists to prepare a report. It must also ask landscape architects to examine the amenity value of the stand of trees. If the Department can find a method that allows the Minister to protect trees by categorising areas, such as areas that surround listed buildings, and so on, I believe that that will go some way towards what the Committee wants to achieve.

The Chairperson: You mentioned the curtilage of listed buildings. Can you explain what is meant by the Department’s comments about clause 23, which deals with trees? There is

"currently nothing to prevent Department from putting a TPO on trees within the curtilage of a listed building. It is not possible to give automatic protection to trees within the curtilage of a listed building due to legal difficulties in defining what curtilage is."

The Chairperson: The Department has said that there is nothing to prevent it from doing that. However, it goes on to say that it is not possible to give automatic protection.

Mr Small: The Department can examine the grounds or curtilage of a listed building, and it can specify protection for individual trees. However, before universal, automatic protection to trees in the curtilage of a listed building can be provided, a statutory definition of curtilage must be developed, so that the blanket control can apply in every case. Legal advice suggests that that would be difficult.

Mr Maye: The Department is trying to think of a way round that difficulty, so that it can provide protection within the curtilage of listed buildings by another means. It is exploring with its legal advisers possibilities that would avoid the need to define curtilage in law, which is the principal problem. If that can be achieved, the Department can develop proposals, which the Committee would welcome, and which would be relatively easy for the Department to implement.

The Chairperson: Did you deal with Mr Ford’s point?

Mr Ford: No. Not yet.

The Chairperson: When do you intend to do that?

Mr Maye: We will come back for the next meeting.

Mr Molloy: On some sites where there was a difficulty about removing trees, the contractors did not remove them, but they undermined them by cutting the roots, and the trees soon had to be removed. That sort of case demonstrates the need for legislation that requires individuals to seek permission before removing any trees. That should apply in the rural community or on any new development. A judgement can be made on each application, and, if the individual does not apply for permission, he or she will be acting illegally.

Mr Maye: The Department does not want to make life hard for the farmers and individual householders who may be affected by that sort of blanket protection. The Department is trying to reach a compromise that allows it to protect trees that merit protection — for example, in areas of townscape character, such as a village of listed buildings — without applying blanket protection. Blanket protection brings with it regulation, and regulation brings with it a burden on individual householders and farmers, which the Department is keen to avoid.

The administration of such a system would be a burden on the Department. It is keen to avoid creating difficulties for farmers, because that sort of blanket regulation would hit them hardest. However, householders would also be hit every time they wanted to crop or prune trees in their back gardens.

The Chairperson: You said that the Department would consider its response to that point and to the previous point about stop notices, and it will try to find a solution.

Mr Armstrong: The age of the tree must be considered, because if it were to die soon naturally, there is no onus on anyone to preserve it.

The Chairperson: Is it not the case that a tree that is threatened with decay can be removed?

Mr Small: Yes. There is a provision to deal with that.

Mr Maye: It applies also to trees in conservation areas, or whatever areas the Department brings under control.

The Chairperson: The Committee will move on to the next part of the presentation.

Mr Lambe: I would like to go through the issues that were raised at our meeting two weeks ago. The first issue concerned the proposed power to allow the Planning Appeals Commission to dismiss appeals in cases of undue delay. The Committee asked whether the Department could obtain some figures on that from the other Administrations.

I contacted colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and in the Scottish Office. They told me that the figures are not readily available. Their understanding from the Planning Inspectorate and the Scottish Reporters Unit is that the figures are so small that they are not recorded separately. It was a question of fractions of a percentage of the overall number of appeals.

The cases are subsumed into the category of withdrawn appeals. Often the appellant withdraws the appeal, rather than have a dismissal of an appeal on his planning record. Often it is thought that having a dismissed appeal on the record will prejudice any future application or appeal. Is the Committee content with that information, or does it want further clarification from the other Administrations? I am happy to go back to them.

Mr Small: The outcome of our discussions was that the power is very rarely used. Other Administrations do not consider it to be essential to business. That supports the views expressed by the chief commissioner of the Planning Appeals Commission. He said that he does not see the need for the provision, because he does not need that power. Discussions with colleagues in other jurisdictions seem to support that. Although the power exists in England, Wales and Scotland, it is not often used. Rather than make a provision in the Bill that may not be needed, the Department will take up the chief commissioner’s suggestion and remove the clause, if the Committee is content.

The Chairperson: The Committee will refer clause 19 for further consideration and take a look at the Department’s response. If you have any further information on that, please let the Committee have it, because it is important.

Mr Maye: The other side of the coin is that, although the power is rarely used, it is used in a small number of cases. The Committee might want to bear that in mind. The Bill would provide a discretionary power, which the Planning Appeals Commission could use if it sees fit. It is up to the Planning Appeals Commission to make that decision.

The Chairperson: On the one hand, we can leave the provision in the Bill — just in case it is needed. On the other hand, the Planning Appeals Commission said that it was not necessary.

Mr Maye: The Department is happy to do whatever the Committee thinks is most appropriate.

The Chairperson: The Committee needs time to think about it before it makes a final decision. Members should examine the clause carefully and we would be grateful for further information.

Mr Lambe: The second issue that was raised concerned the statutory definition of "curtilage". I obtained a copy of the legal advice that was given to the Department, which I can give to the Committee. Perhaps the Committee will want its own legal advisers to give a second opinion on it.

The third issue concerned the building preservation notice that is known as "spot listing". The Department was asked who would determine cases of disputed claims for compensation. The matter would be dealt with in accordance with the way in which the Department deals with claims for compensation in relation to tree preservation orders, where it has refused consent to fell or remove a tree. Applicants would submit their claims for compensation, and the Department would assess them using the services of the Valuation and Lands Agency. If the Department cannot negotiate or arbitrate a dispute, the case would be referred to the Lands Tribunal, which would have a final say in the amount of compensation that would be payable.

Another point was raised about tree preservation orders compensation. The query concerned the amount of money that had been submitted to the Department in relation to claims for compensation as a result of refusal of consent to fell trees. There are currently two cases, both of which are with the Lands Tribunal awaiting hearing. One involves a firm known as Russell Brothers and has a value of around £100,000 in relation to loss of development value of land. I do not have the name of the developer in the other case, but it involves Edenaclogh wood, and the claim is for £90,000, comprising £40,000 in relation to loss of timber value and £50,000 in relation to loss of development value of the site. Those are the only two claims with the Department in relation to compensation. In the past there have been large payments — in the Finnebrogue case it was £300,000. One of the proposals in the Bill is that we can specify in future tree preservation orders the limitations that there will be on compensation liability. For example, we can state that the development value of the land in question will not be open for negotiation in any compensation claims.

Mr Molloy: It seems that if compensation can be paid to a developer who cannot develop a site because of a tree preservation order on it, a farmer or any individual who does not get planning permission for building a house on a farm should also be able to get compensation in that situation. Is that correct?

Mr Maye: In certain circumstances compensation would be payable, but not in all circumstances.

The Chairperson: What circumstances?

Mr Maye: I can look into that and come back to you, but we have made some payments in those sorts of circumstances.

The Chairperson: It is important for us to get those details.

Mr Maye: To add a gloss to what Mr Lambe has said, I looked at one stand of trees recently in Belfast, which, in all respects, was worthy of protection, but the potential compensation value for loss of development was assessed by the Valuation and Lands Agency as being £17·5 million. If we can rule that out through the Bill, so that compensation is payable, we would have no hesitation in protecting such a stand of trees, but at the moment there is a difficult judgement to be made when sums of that nature have to be balanced as part of the equation.

Mr Lambe: Another point was raised in relation to clause 27, which extends the Department’s grant-aiding powers. The point was made that the clause as drafted would not appear to extend the power to provide grant aid for bodies such as Planning Aid. At the time we undertook to look at that further. Clause 27 extents an existing power to grant-aid certain bodies under article 120 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. The Department has existing powers under that article to grant-aid such bodies as Planning Aid, and that is the power that we are currently using. The purpose and intention of clause 27 was to regularise a position whereby the Department was making payments on an extra-statutory basis to bodies such as building preservation trusts. The opportunity was being taken to regularise the position by making those payments statutory. It would be a normal requirement from the Department of Finance and Personnel to regularise in statute the grant-aiding powers as soon as it is practicable to do so.

The Chairperson: Under which article do grants, including grants to Planning Aid, come?

Mr Lambe: They are currently covered under article 120 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which is being amended by a provision in clause 27 of the Planning (Amendment) Bill, which is extending the grant-aiding powers of the Department.

The Chairperson: But not removing the powers.

Mr Lambe: No, it is simply adding to the grant-aiding powers.

The final point was in relation to article 40 agreements. The Committee had some sympathy with Lisburn Borough Council, which, during the consultation return on the Bill, contended that it should have a greater role in drawing up article 40 agreements and, in particular, where an application for modification or discharge of part of the planning agreement had been submitted. Unfortunately, we are not yet in a position to get back to the Committee with a final answer. We will put papers to the Minister for a decision on that this week, and hope to return to the next Committee meeting with an answer.

The Chairperson: Can you come back on clause 21 which concerns advertisements?

Mr Small: We have nothing specific. During our most recent presentation, we discussed the advertising provisions. The intention of the current provision in the Bill is to extend the definition of advertising. The Committee made comments about mobile advertisements on trailers, and how the Department dealt with that. We said that we were reviewing advertising, which is likely to result in either subordinate legislative change, or procedural change in the area of enforcement. It will not necessarily result in changes to primary legislation.

The Chairperson: You say that it is "likely". That gives us no reassurance whatsoever. Is it coming in subordinate legislation?

Mr Small: We cannot say, because we are in the middle of the work involved.

The Chairperson: We were told that the Department was conducting a review of enforcing advertising control, which was possibly a matter for the next planning Bill.

Mr Maye: If it would be helpful, I will bring the completed report to the Committee for consideration before decisions are taken on how to progress.

The Chairperson: The Committee’s question was: why not this Bill? We were told that this might be a matter for the next planning Bill, but only the Lord Himself knows when the next planning Bill will be. Surely now is the time to do something about this matter.

Mr Maye: I will bring the report of the review to the Committee as soon as it is ready so that members can discuss it.

The Chairperson: Have you anything further to add?

Mr Small: I think we have covered all the issues that the Committee has raised.

The Chairperson: We have a letter from Friends of the Earth on the subject of third-party appeals. We will let you have a copy of that. We wish Mr Small well in his new brief. Thank you.

3 October 2002  (ii) / Menu / 10 October 2002 (i)