|
Yvette Cooper: I am happy to respond to the further remarks of the hon. Member for Cotswold. He seems to have changed his position a little since lunch-time.
Matthew Green: A good lunch.
Yvette Cooper: Clearly, he has had a good lunch.
The hon. Member for Cotswold has switched from carping to congratulating the hon. Member for Isle of Wight—I use that word cautiously, because it came from his hon. Friend, not from me.
2.45 pm
The hon. Gentleman spent some time this morning speaking about the difficulties of treating this as a planning issue, and the consequences for planning departments of having to deal with many cases that do not need planning permission. However, this afternoon he seems to be saying that this is a planning matter and could be dealt with.
I should like to repeat the points that I made as clearly as possible, given parliamentary procedures. We have considered in detail whether we could do certain things through the planning Bill. We have concluded that that is not possible, without trying to do things differently. To treat this as a planning matter, rather than one of disputes resolution or antisocial behaviour, would cause considerable problems and would not be the ideal solution.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I press the Under-Secretary a little further? We are getting to some common ground. A serious conciliation issue needs to be addressed. Can we take it from what the Under-Secretary says that she believes that there is a need for legislation on this issue as soon as possible? Whatever route we take, can she assure us that the Government are intending to legislate as soon as possible?
Yvette Cooper: I have said many times that the Government strongly support legislation on that issue. As I said at the beginning, we regret that the private Member's Bill did not get through. We have been seeking different ways to get the legislation on the statute book at the earliest opportunity.
As I spent some time saying earlier, we are considering very, very seriously whether it is possible to deal with this issue in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, as my noble Friend Lord Bassam said. We have given as many hints as possible about the routes we are exploring and we have mentioned the timetable within which we have to respond formally and publicly to the House of Lords on that Bill. As I have said, the House will have plenty of opportunity to return to the matter on Report—if the Committee chooses—after we have responded to the House of Lords on the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill and after the Queen's Speech.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet): I understand the logic of what the Under-Secretary is saying. She is coming to the conclusion that the correct place for measures to deal with the problem is probably not a planning Bill. There is a possibility that such a provision might be made in the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.
Column Number: 146
If that Bill is found not to be the route, for any reason, we would enter a new Session of Parliament, at which time the Under-Secretary could argue with perfect sincerity that the Government were hoping to bring forward legislation, but that it is not a priority in that Parliament. Perhaps she could respond to my earlier point. Could she give a commitment that the Government would give every possible help to a private Member who chose to bring the measure before the House and who was fortunate in the private Members' ballot at the beginning of the Session?
Yvette Cooper: We have already done that. We gave considerable help to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ealing, North and supported his Bill through the House. We have to recognise that, given the persistent opposition of a small number of hon. Members, for whatever reason, the private Member's Bill route is difficult. Nevertheless, I give the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet an undertaking that should it not be possible to resolve the matter through any timetable, or other vehicle, we would continue to support any private Member's Bill that came forward, just as we have done with the one introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North.
There will be further opportunity on Report for hon. Members to return to the matter if they wish to do so. I urge the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to withdraw the new clause.
Mr. Turner: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New clause 2
Planning permission for subdivision of agricultural holdings for purpose of sale
No. NC2, to move the following Clause:—
'After section 57 of the principal Act (planning permission required for development) there is inserted the following section—
''57A Planning permission for subdivision of agricultural holdings for purposes of sale
(1) Planning permission is required for—
(a) the subdivision of an agricultural holding for the purpose of sale; and
(b) the sale of an agricultural holding which has been subdivided since the appointed date other than for the purpose of sale.
(2) In this section—
(a) 'subdivision' means land divided into one or more units of less than one hectare, and 'subdivided' shall be interpreted accordingly;
(b) 'agricultural holding' has the same meaning as in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986; and
(c) 'the appointed date' means 1st July 1993.''.'.—[Mr. Andrew Turner.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Turner: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause is about the subdivision of agricultural holdings for the purpose of sale. In preparing my remarks, I discovered that this activity has taken place in a number of constituencies, not least your own, Mr. Hurst.
Column Number: 147
The matter came to my attention when the Isle of Wight County Press reported that the Isle of Wight county wants legislation to control companies buying parcels of land, subdividing it, then selling plots that have no hope of getting planning permission. The report referred to a particular company that I shall come to later. Councillor Barry Abraham, councillor for Wootton, told the County Press:
''What galls me is people buying land and selling off parcels.''
He is talking about a farmer. The councillor goes on:
''I don't know if there is anything we can do through the LGA about this practice of people buying land on its 'hope value'.''
I then met representatives of the Isle of Wight branch of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, including Ted Peach who is the treasurer. They drew my attention to a practice that was going on in Alverstone and Shorwell in my constituency. At Alverstone, 10 acres in the east Yar flood plain were split into 27 plots ranging in size from 0.15 to 0.73 acres and advertised on the internet as ''Sandown pasture/woods/streams''. The site is one of importance for nature conservation and is within an area of outstanding natural beauty; it borders a main river called Scotchells brook and Alverstone Mead local nature reserve. It is a natural relict fen wetland with peat-based soil and an expanding reed bed with typical fauna, including water voles.
I was told that a caravan is already installed on one plot without planning permission. It is positioned within 1 m of the brook bank despite there being no services such as sewage disposal points, mains water supply or rubbish disposal. A public water supply intake is situated in the main river Yar, about 200 m away. Wetlands are one of three priority habitats in the Isle of Wight biodiversity action plan for protection and enhancement. The potential of 27 plots being used for leisure in various ways is completely contrary to that plan, as well as to the unitary development plan.
The subdivision of agricultural holdings has been widespread, certainly since 1993 when the proprietor of the company was referred to in this place as undertaking such activity. I was supplied with a good deal of information about his company, which is called Gladwish Land Sales and which boasts that it is the official sponsors of the Herne Bay football club—I do not think that that is related to its land sales activities. It advertises on the internet some 74 different sites in different parts of the country, from Ashmansworthy and Ashwater in Devon to Winfrith in Dorset and Wittersham in Kent—and let us not forget Shorwell and Alverstone in my constituency. The company gives information to the purchasers of the land. For example, it quotes an article of 22 March 2001 from the Daily Mail, the headline of which is, ''Your house is illegal but it's your human right''. The article goes on:
''A £750,000 house condemned as 'the most flagrant breach of planning permission' has been saved from the bulldozers so as not to infringe the human rights of the owner.
Column Number: 148
It is the first time that the human rights legislation which came controversially into force in October has been used in a planning dispute and could have serious implications for development laws.''
That is quoted, I am sure, with the intention of increasing the value of the small plots of land that the company has set about selling. The company also tells people about caravans on land—I am indebted to my constituent, Miss V. A Gwynn of Shalfleet on the Isle of Wight for passing on this information. The company says:
''A Farmer is permitted to have a 'shelter for seasonal worker' on his/her land.
To be a Farmer you have to have at least an acre of land and be registered as a farmer with the MAFF. The Ministry can also sometimes give you help with buying raw produce to start your crop''—
that sounds unlikely, but still. It goes on:
''A shelter for a seasonal worker can be a caravan and it can be used day and night as long as you are working on the land, therefore you require products that grow all the year round. Being a shelter, it is never called your 'home' and you should have a home elsewhere.
As it is not your home you do not pay rates on it but likewise you cannot demand a refuse service or any other services that are supplied by local councils.''
It appears that this practice is widespread. In an Adjournment debate on 4 April 2003, you, Mr. Hurst, referred to parcels dividing land into 236 individual plots with an asking price of between £3,000 and £6,000 a plot, and you reported that Farmers Weekly had run an article in March on the problem in Norfolk in which a spokesman for Gladwish Land Sales was quoted as saying:
''It might be that one day some of these plots will get permission for development.''
The key thing is the hope value—or, at least, that value with regard to the potential for development. However, the hope value is not the only key thing. There is also the current-use value of the land when it is divided up into sites for holiday caravans and, perhaps, for camping—not for use as an organised caravan park, or anything of that kind. That is also causing difficulty. The land does not have to be physically divided. So long as individuals can recognise their plots, they can put caravans on them—moveable caravans rather than mobile homes, which in my experience are seldom mobile—and they can use them as and when they wish, which may be far from often.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) referred to the same issue on 5 June 2003, when he mentioned a site of nature conservation interest that is also an area of outstanding natural beauty in his constituency. The then Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women replied that an article 4 direction had been issued: I understand that those directions can be used in these cases.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) took part in an Adjournment debate on 9 July in which he referred to similar divisions of land by families of travellers. That is difficult for planners to deal with, because it is hard to enforce the use of land in a wide variety of ownerships—some of them, perhaps, well known and others less well known. In my experience, most
Column Number: 149
planning committees do not regard enforcement as the highest priority: some of them do—particularly those in the metropolitan green belt—but others do not.
An official of the National Farmers Union wrote:
''We would agree that this nettle should be grasped, though we do have reservations about the approach adopted in your New Clause.''
I, too, have reservations about that approach, but it was the best that I could come up with. I hope that the Minister will respond in a manner that indicates how she feels that this nettle can be grasped.
I will not describe the architecture of the new clause because it is perfectly clear, but my key objective is that, whether or not the land is divided physically or merely in ownership, it should under certain conditions be subject to the requirement for planning permission.
I defined ''subdivision'' as
''one or more units of less than one hectare''.
It is clearly possible to sell off one area of less than one hectare from a field so that one does not need two or more units of less than one hectare. I have also defined an ''agricultural holding'', and I have suggested that planning permission should be required either when it is subdivided for the purpose of sale or when it is sold having been subdivided in the past 10 years.
| 
