New clause 2 - Planning permission for subdivision of agricultural holdings for purpose of sale
Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill
2:45 pm
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
It is fortunate that three of the protagonists in the debate of 9 July, which has been referred to, are present: you, Mr. Hurst, who had a problem with Gladwish Land Sales; the Minister, who replied on that occasion; and me. It is useful to refer back to what happened on that occasion to remind the Committee of the problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight introduced his new clause excellently, and the Committee is indebted to him for bringing up the matter so that it can be debated. I think that there are problems with his new clause, but in essence he has tabled a measure to deal with a problem that definitely needs a remedy.
In the 9 July debate, citing an example that you had given, Mr. Hurst, I referred to the fact that
''Gladwish Land Sales Ltd. bought a 40-acre plot and subdivided it into plots of one fifth of an acre. The fear was that those who bought plots would start unauthorised development by putting up fences and putting in roads, hard-standing for caravans and so on, and that the whole area would become an eyesore.''
That mirrors the experiences of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight and the reason why he has tabled his new clause.
The question is what to do with such problems; the issue spills over into unauthorised development by travellers. The two are connected, although not intimately. I also said:
''Planning permission is required for a change of use from agriculture to gardens and amenity land. There could be a minor change in the law, so that if plots were of an inadequate size to be viable for agricultural purposes—that would certainly be true in the Braintree case—planning permission would be required to subdivide the land. That is a germ of a solution.''
I went on to mention that previously
''the Minister said that
'if the problem is occurring on farm land, those affected could ask the local planning authority to consider whether anything has occurred to create a situation where agriculture realistically could no longer be carried out, and therefore whether an unlawful material change of use . . . has occurred . . . If no application for change of use has been submitted, the local authority may decide, subject to its own legal advice, that enforcement action would be feasible and appropriate.' ''
Although I have suggested that route to Ministers and we have had correspondence on the matter, from my own planning experience I think that it would be difficult to obtain such an application for a change of use. Therefore, a stronger sanction needs to be introduced in law.
In addition to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) has been working on the problem for a long time. He has suggested that we need to introduce to planning law the concept of a notice to remedy when significant harm has been caused and he has said that in cases of significant harm a notice could be served on a person whose identity was unknown to the local planning authority. That concept is not new; it exists in injunction law, whereby an injunction can be served on a person or persons unknown. My hon. Friend has also described criminal sanctions, although I have reservations about those.
I mentioned in the 9 July debate that my hon. Friend had suggested that
''if the person on whom the notice was served refused to reinstate the land, the local authority should be entitled to do that work itself and to charge the person who created the problem. The fine and any costs could be registered under the Local Land Charges Act 1975.''
I went on:
''We must seriously consider all those matters when the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill returns to this House and is recommitted to a Standing Committee in September or October. I undertook in my letter to the previous Under-Secretary that the Opposition would co-operate with the Government in drafting and agreeing relevant amendments.''—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 9 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 259–60WH.]
I have had a conversation with the Minister for Housing and Planning, who is only too aware of the problem and who recognises that something needs to be done. I have skated around some of what could be done. I suspect that the Minister who replies—I am not sure whether it will be the Minister for Housing and Planning or the other Minister—will say that the Bill is not the right vehicle, but exactly the same argument as applies to high hedges is involved. A serious problem needs to be remedied.
An associated difficulty is that involving travellers buying up pieces of land and stationing caravans there, without planning permission, as a permanent encampment, using the exemption in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That is a similar problem—unauthorised use of land—that the planning system seems incapable of dealing with. I would like some assurance that Ministers recognise the problems—which will not go away, but will get worse—and intend to deal with them. If the Minister says, as I suspect she will, that the Bill is not the right vehicle to deal with the problems, I would like some assurance that she intends to take the problems seriously and produce legislation in future. The
problem is that there is a planning Bill only once every 10 years, and I am not sure where the matter will be dealt with if not in the Bill.