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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight on tabling the new clause. I think that the memory of the hon. Member for Cotswold fails him slightly because I, too, was present at the recent debate.

There is indeed a difficulty, and it has been outlined well. The issue becomes a problem because it goes beyond people putting caravans on land and using it that way. There is great danger that in most cases the plots of land are bought by people who are not local—in fact, they may even live abroad. Such plots are bought over the internet as a speculation and then just left. They grow wild and fall out of use, which can be of considerable detriment to the countryside, particularly in areas of outstanding natural beauty.

We have heard about a few areas that suffer from the problem. I understand that it affects Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Isle of Wight, Kent, Lancashire, Oxfordshire, Suffolk, Surrey, Sussex, Wiltshire, Dorset and Norfolk, and those are just the places affected so far. Shropshire is not yet on that list, but I have great fears that we could be one of the next to be hit. At least eight companies that I have information on are dealing in that business. I understand that one company suggested on its website, although the suggestion has since been removed, that it is unethical for prospective purchasers to approach the local planning department to discover the development potential of land before completing their purchase, so we see some of the techniques that may have been used to encourage people to buy plots.

Before the Minister tells us some ways that we might deal with the problem, I want to concentrate on possible routes that might be used and why they are not working. Clearly, the erection of unlinked demarcation posts does not constitute development as defined in section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The erection of fencing does, but it is allowed under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. If there is fencing, the local planning authority can act to withdraw the GPDO article 4 directions, but it cannot take action retrospectively. To withdraw an article 4 direction, one has to predict that a problem will arise. Also, I understand that in some cases quite large fields are subdivided in a single weekend, so clearly the order will not deal with the problems that exist.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. Of course he was present on 9 July and he made a pertinent contribution.

I meant to deal with the article 4 procedure in my speech. The problem with the procedure, as clearly identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling in a dreadful case in his constituency, is that although it can be issued by the local authority it then has to be confirmed by the Secretary of State. In the dreadful case I refer to, it

took six months for the article 4 direction to be effected but, as the hon. Member for Ludlow said, such changes can take place over a weekend. The mechanisms in the planning system are simply not rapid enough to deal with such developments.

The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point.

A local planning authority can make a discontinuance order by virtue of section 102 of the 1990 Act, which requires fencing to be removed prior to the article 4 direction. However, that provision carries a liability to pay compensation, so local authorities might even have to pay the people who are attempting to exploit the countryside—that is the simplest way of putting it.

There is a possibility of using an untidy land notice under section 215 of the 1990 Act, but that is applicable only when land has become seriously degraded. The recipients can appeal to the magistrates court. That consumes local planning authorities' resources and does not deal with the problem of the fencing, which is one of the visual impacts on the countryside.

The change of land use has already arisen as a possible means of enforcement, but it could be difficult to prove that a change has taken place and it might not result in the removal of the posts and fences. It would be almost impossible, particularly if the land were in the hands of different owners, to use that provision to get the fences removed.

The final course left open to local authorities is compulsorily to purchase the land. They could, at some considerable cost, do that under section 226 of the 1990 Act, if there is a purpose that is necessary to achieve the interests of proper planning of the area in which the land is situated. It would take the local authority a lot of time and could cost a lot of money. It appears that none of the possible routes to deal with that problem have the remedies at the moment.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight has done the Committee a service in bringing the issue forward. I suspect that the proposals are not technically perfect, as is always the case with Opposition amendments, and will not be accepted as they stand. I would, however, like the Government to try to make it clear how they intend to deal with things. They might say, ''The Bill is not the vehicle. It is dealing with the system, rather than the detail of planning.'' We need a commitment to get the changes through in another way—for example, through changes to the General Permitted Development Order 1995. The Department consulted on that and, at the end of last year or early this, said that it had decided not to make any changes.

I suggest that two simple things could be done. First, we could alter the presumption that the local planning authority may issue an article 4 direction stopping the development stone dead—that has to be confirmed by the Secretary of State and cannot come into effect until the Secretary of State has confirmed it.

Secondly, there is the route that I have suggested to the Minister on change of land use. If one has to get

planning permission to convert agricultural land to a tennis court or a garden, there is no reason why one should not have to obtain such permission, under a change in the law, for converting it to paddocks. If that were the law, the owner could be required to reinstate the land to its former use and, if they did not do that, the local authority could come in, do the work and charge for it—however many owners there were.

There may be merit in both those routes. If the Ministers will consider seriously how to deal with the problem, perhaps they might consider other similar problems around GPDOs that also need looking into.

I do not want to trouble the Committee by tabling another new clause to be debated some time next week, but I shall throw into the pot the difficulty of adjoining fields being leased or owned by a company that holds car boot sales on those fields. If that company held 13 such sales a year on each field and if there were five or six fields on the same road, the residents there would have to put up with one or two car boot sales every weekend of the year. That would be an abuse of the GPDO. The Ministers promote article 4 as a means of dealing with such a problem, but because it already happens there is an issue around the payment of compensation—it has to be removed before the article 4 direction can be issued.

I hope that the Ministers will consider that in the round and that they will not come up with a one-fix solution. Perhaps they could look at a range of problems that effectively come from the GPDO route and promise the Committee that there will be a solution presently. I believe that the solution could come through regulations. We do not need primary legislation to deal with the issues at hand.

I, too, join colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight on introducing what I believe is an important issue, the seriousness of which is gathering pace almost as we speak. I am indebted to the CPRE for sending me a briefing paper, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ludlow has been drawing heavily on it. Indeed, he has saved me a little time, because I do not need to rehearse the points that he made. I will begin by addressing three separate but related points.

First, I mentioned earlier in our proceedings the profound effect that the Human Rights Act 1998 will have on town planning law. That Act embraces the legislation created by the European Court of Human Rights, and Committee members may recall—the Ministers certainly will—that somebody challenged our planning appeals system and public inquiry system under that Act, but the House of Lords accepted the Government's appeal. Our constituents are beginning to realise that—rightly or wrongly—they can challenge a great deal of our law through the Human Rights Act. I mention that as a friendly warning to the Government. I do not think that they have realised quite what they have undertaken by incorporating the ECHR legislation into British law.

Secondly, the issue under discussion is largely to do with the grossly different value between the cost of

agricultural land and the cost of that land if it has development permission. I am old enough to remember serving in 1986 on the Select Committee on the Environment—as it was then called. It conducted an inquiry into the metropolitan green belt, which was of keen interest to my constituents in north London. In 1986, the average value of agricultural land in the metropolitan green belt area was £2,500 per acre. If that land got permission for development, its value immediately went up to £250,000 per acre. Today, 17 years later, I do not think that I am far wrong in saying that the cost of such agricultural land has gone down from £2,500 per acre to perhaps as low as £1,500 per acre, but the value of metropolitan green belt land with planning permission has probably gone up to £5 million per acre. Therefore, there is a tremendous incentive to develop land, if that is at all possible.

Thirdly, I note that the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight is termed in phrases relating to agricultural holdings, but this problem could extend beyond agricultural land to other forms of land. It is important to remember that, given the price difference, a lot of land in established green belts throughout the country can be not particularly attractive, yet have an inherent enhanced value.

Although I am persuaded by the two suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold about making changes within the existing planning law, I am inclined to agree with the CPRE that the existing town planning legislation offers no satisfactory means of addressing the problem, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Ludlow.

Local planning authorities may serve an article 4 direction only when it is expedient to do so. That is another relevant factor—although, for technical reasons, I will not bore the Committee with that at this time. Whether or not we are dealing with what is euphemistically called an untidy land notice or a change of use, on balance I do not think that we could take any effective action to deal with this problem through those means.

In conclusion, it is possible compulsorily to acquire such land—I cannot remember whether my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold or the hon. Member for Ludlow mentioned that. I hold the old-fashioned view that compulsory purchase should be a last resort only. Also, if it is employed in this sort of case, it will be costly to the taxpayer, so I do not recommend such a route. The problem does not yet exist in my constituency, but it does next door in Hertsmere and the issue has been raised by my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison).

I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold mention the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay, who is presumably a lawyer. If I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold correctly, my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay thought that the right way to deal with the problem is by a notice to remedy or an injunction. I do not claim to be competent enough to say yes or no to

that, but I ask the Minister to treat seriously my hon. Friend's suggestion.

This is a serious problem, which is despoiling goodly and increasing parts of the countryside. In setting down their posts, people will move the boundaries a bit and perhaps strip the surface of the ground, which will make the place look even more unsightly. Then a few bricks or a caravan will appear. That must be tackled quickly and at its source. In the past 25 years, there has been only one case that I know of in my constituency where the green belt has been breached. It was breached by somebody with an agricultural holding, who happened to be on the windward side of a good chunk of my constituency. He introduced a pig farm, as he was perfectly entitled to do. The odour from that farm, rather than the unsightly buildings themselves that had been created, led public opinion to support in part the idea that the pig farm should go. People were prepared to have a small housing estate in its place.

People know how to abuse our planning system if they choose to do so. My conclusion from the debate so far is that this injunction law or notice to remedy route will probably be the most effective way of tackling the problem. I say that without any disrespect to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, to whom the Committee should be extremely grateful—I certainly am—for raising this serious emerging problem, which is scarring too many of the landscapes of our green and pleasant land.

In my brief contribution I want to reinforce the thrust of the points that have already been put to the Minister, and to amplify the plea for action. As you will be aware, Mr. Hurst, this is certainly a problem in Essex. There are a number of instances of exactly this type of activity taking place. It is happening in your constituency, Mr. Hurst, and I am sad to report that it is now also happening in my constituency of Rayleigh.

I want to reinforce three points. First, the people who act in this way understand the law very well indeed. Activity is clearly co-ordinated in some cases. These people behave in a particular way and there are patterns to the behaviour. They have obviously taken specific legal advice about exactly how far they can push the boundaries of their activities. Such people are not acting at random; they know exactly what they are doing, and they know how to exploit weaknesses in the law.

Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold pointed out, these people are working on a completely different time cycle. Although the law acts at a relatively sedate pace, these people suddenly appear, practically overnight—during a weekend, in some cases. That is what has happened in my constituency. Suddenly, a group of people appeared and occupied some green belt land, with the support of the owner who, it transpired, had sold it to them. The law has to catch up and to be able to react with similar vigour to those who attempt to despoil our countryside in that way.

Rochford district council, one of my two local authorities, is involved in a complicated legal action in similar circumstances to those that I have described. The hon. Member for Ludlow mentioned some of the current legal alternatives available, but also pointed out, in detail, some drawbacks to each of them. There was no one neat and fast solution. In Rochford, the council has been doing everything it can under law to address the case, but so far it has taken them almost a year and cost a fair amount of public money to keep coming back to court. The council tax payer has had to finance that, and the people involved are still there.

My third point is that it is patently evident to me from my constituency experience, that the law is not powerful enough. I am assured that officials will look into the matter in detail, and I will be interested to hear what the Ministers have to say. By one method or another, Ministers must act. There must be some deterrent to protect the countryside, and in particular the green belt, from these people who have learned to exploit the law so effectively for their own gain. We must not let that go on. We must have a firm promise of action, by one route or another, from the Ministers. I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight for raising what I believe to be a genuinely important issue in an appropriate manner.

New clause 2 would require planning permission to be obtained for the subdivision of an agricultural holding into units of less than 1 hectare for the purpose of sale. It would also require planning permission to be obtained for the sale of an agricultural holding that has been subdivided since 1 July 1993 for a purpose other than that of sale. I recognise the attempts that many hon. Members have made this afternoon to deal with the issue. Those points have been raised by you, Mr. Hurst, and other hon. Members, in Adjournment debates, in correspondence and in meetings. Sometimes they were raised as concerns about the impact on the local environment, with areas falling into misuse, and sometimes they were raised with regard to gypsies and travellers using sub-plots.

I would like to put aside the issue of gypsies and travellers, because that raises other issues related to the availability of authorised sites and similar matters. Those problems are important, but raise the further issues of preventing unauthorised encampments. We need to look at the provision of authorised sites for gypsies and travellers in those circumstances. However, there is clearly a broader issue about the dividing into sub-plots, which is often initiated by those who seek to make money from speculating on changes in land use in future and selling the land to others.

We need to be honest about the fact that we have a problem and no solution. Hon. Members have offered different ways of responding, all of which involve further difficulties. The new clause deals with the sale of land rather than the use to which the land will be put. That is quite a difficult stretch of the approach to planning law. It is not what the land use planning system is intended to cover, which is the use to which land is put. Subdivision of land for genuine agricultural purposes is perfectly acceptable and

should not require planning permission. Likewise, selling a plot of land that remains in use as agricultural land is perfectly acceptable. It is only when the intention is to put the land to a different use that the planning system comes into play, as it should. Planning permission is required for any material change of use.

The subdivision of agricultural land, particularly in areas of outstanding natural beauty, can have an adverse effect on the scenic nature of the environment. The subdivision itself can be unsightly and can even lead to longer-term effects. If a developer buys a plot of land and discovers that planning permission has not been granted for the use that he or she has in mind, there is a real danger that the plot could fall into a state of neglect and disrepair.

I want to clarify something. The Minister said that subdivision is a particular problem for areas of outstanding natural beauty, which is the highest planning designation, but if one lives next door, it is equally a problem whether the subdivision takes place in an area of outstanding natural beauty, in a national park, on green belt land or even in a green field. We should not necessarily limit the discussion to areas of outstanding natural beauty.

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I do not intend to limit the discussion. The issue with areas of outstanding natural beauty is that the effect is on the scenic nature of the land. If we are talking about a plot of land next door, it may not be the scenic nature of that land that is affected, but there may be other issues relating to convenience and the way in which the land is used.

The question is, what are the ways of approaching the different issues and what might we be able to do about them? The hon. Member for Ludlow raised the issue of fencing and posts, and talked about the way in which that problem arises. Certainly, individual plots will usually be marked off by some form of fencing or posts, which can be erected without the need for planning permission because they are covered by a permitted development right.

If the local authority wishes to remove that permitted development right, it can do so by the article 4 direction, to which several hon. Members have referred. The article 4 direction is supposed to be used only in exceptional circumstances, when a threat to the interests of the area, or proper planning, has been demonstrated, and the direction needs to be confirmed.

If the article 4 direction is to be any use when a threat exists, prompt action is required by local government and Central Government to ensure that the permitted development rights are removed before the uncontrolled and potentially harmful development takes place. We are in the process of contacting Government offices to emphasise the importance of prompt action when being requested to confirm an article 4 direction. Hon. Members have raised problems with us and cited cases in which that did not occur and delays prevented the action from being useful.

As I understand it, the problem is that the planning authority issues an article 4 direction, which then has to be confirmed by the Secretary of State, after he has considered all the objections. As I already pointed out when citing the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, that can take up to six months. If the presumption were altered so that the local planning authority could issue an article 4 direction that would be effective immediately and would then have to be confirmed by the Secretary of State, having considered all the objections, that would be a much more satisfactory route.

That is one of the issues that we need to consider further. Officials are currently working with local authorities to explore what more can be done within existing legislation to address environmental adverse effects of the subdivision or sale of agricultural land; to ensure that local authorities are aware of their powers; and to work through what the obstacles are in more detail. Some of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised about the time confirmation takes and whether there are different ways of dealing with the matter are exactly the kinds of things that we want to explore in more detail with local authorities. We are also reviewing the permitted development rights and examining the enforcement regimes in the light of clear changes of use in some of these areas. The question then becomes one of enforcement in relation to breaches of a planning law where a change in use has clearly taken place and should not have done so.

On many occasions, the local authority will have no idea that a change is about to occur. So the issuing of an article 4 direction, however quick and whatever the presumption, will fail to stop it happening. As I understand it, once it has happened, the local authority can issue a discontinuance order before it issues an article 4 direction, but it must pay compensation. This affects car boot sales in my constituency just as much as it affects the subdivision of land. The Minister has not yet said anything about this. Where the problem, or variety of problems, already exists, it seems highly unfair on the local taxpayer to bear the burden of paying for the problem to be sorted out. Will the Minister say something about compensation?

Not in detail at this stage. We are seeking to explore these sorts of issues with local authorities to try to work through them. There is no obvious and easy solution. If there were, we could all easily table amendments to the planning Bill and sort the whole thing out. We also need to examine the potentially perverse consequences of possible restrictions. So I would proceed with caution. As I said, we are keen to work through all this in some detail with local authorities, and we are also examining as part of our reviews parallel issues regarding the permitted development rights and enforcement regimes. What more can be done to help mitigate this problem? I can therefore tell the Committee that I will consider these matters further.

I thank the Minister for giving way again. She says that she will consider the issue. Will she

give us some sort of time scale? I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister announced a review of the general permitted development order two years ago. About a year ago, he came back to say that the Government had consulted and were not going to make any changes. I am receiving letters about car boot sales at the rate of about a dozen a week. At the moment, the local council is finding it difficult to deal with the issue, and I am sure that other hon. Members will receive letters about subdivision at some considerable rate.

I am concerned that the Minister is saying that the Government will examine the issue. I wonder if that means another two years before we hear that the Government will not make any more changes.

I certainly undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman much more rapidly than that about the problem of car boot sales, which he faces in his area. I should be grateful if he could give me further details.

I am happy to report to the Committee on progress made in relation to the broader issues, but I caution Members about believing there to be a simple answer. I undertake to consider the matter further with local authorities, as will the Department.

The permitted development rights consultation is expected later this year, which is a relatively rapid time horizon. However, it would be inappropriate to accept the new clause at this stage because it raises difficult issues about expecting planning permission to deal with the sale of land, rather than its use.

As we have heard, this problem has already been discussed for two years. Several hon. Members from different parties have politely but plainly told the Minister that the problem is getting worse. It is spreading around the country because the people involved are fully cognisant of the detail of the law. The Under-Secretary has said that the Government are advising local authorities about their powers. We have heard all that rehearsed this afternoon. Local authorities know what powers they have and how weak they are. We are all trying to inform her that there is a genuine sense of urgency. To say that there will be a consultation exercise some time later in the year, when the Government have already had two years does not cut the mustard. We need action in the near term. Will the Under-Secretary take that away from the Committee and do something about this?

Hon. Members must recognise that to deal with the problem we need a solution that will work. Many of the solutions that have been offered, albeit in good faith, could lead to other problems or have difficulties attached—exactly as I have explained in relation to the problem with the new clause. I recognise the problem that the new clause is trying to solve, but the solution that is offered is not appropriate and would cause all sorts of other difficulties, including around the subdivision of land for genuine agricultural reasons.

We must recognise that some times there are not simple, easy solutions for certain issues and that we might need to look further at what can be done. If there were a simple solution, we would all agree on it and there would be consensus in the Committee, as there has been on other issues where we have recognised that specific things can be done to remedy existing problems, whether within or without the planning system.

The new clause does not solve the problem we are talking about in the way that it needs to and it creates further additional problems. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to withdraw it.

The urgency of the matter has been demonstrated, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). I remind the Committee that the problem arose not in 2001, but in 1993 when the proprietor of one of the companies was criticised in the House for his activities. I am sure that it is not only this Government that bears responsibility for not doing anything about that. However, it is getting worse. As I said before, there are 74 locations on the list that I have before me, which is dated 16 May 2001. Only one of those is in Yorkshire—at Oakworth. I do not know where that is, but I know that it is not near Pontefract or Castleford, because it is in West Yorkshire. [Interruption.] I am sorry. My geography is clearly awry. We do not know very much when we get north of the Solent.

There are many sites in the south and south-east of England and there is no reason why such activity should not spread to some of the parts of England that are almost as attractive as the Isle of Wight, such as Ludlow, Pontefract and Castleford. I believe that we must take advantage of the existing legislation, because as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold says, there is only one planning Bill every 10 years—unless we are extremely unlucky. Although I accept that the new clause may not be the perfect remedy, I am clear that the legislation is the right vehicle. To change the metaphor, it would be a great pity if the Minister were to miss the bus.

For a Bill to be recommitted to a Standing Committee is an unprecedented procedure and given that it is likely to be submitted to their lordships, where it will be given detailed scrutiny, it is unlikely that it will be on the statute book this year. That will probably happen next year, so gives the Government time to do something, if they are so minded. May I join my hon. Friend in urging the Minister to do something, if the Government have the time and are so minded. The problem is getting worse and it needs to be solved.

I agree. It is not unreasonable to say such things in the terms in which both my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh have said them. I accept that the article 4 direction needs to be explored by Ministers and that it might turn out not to be the right route. However, I urge that, if possible, that should be done in time for amendments to be tabled—if not on Report, at least in another place, so that our noble Friends and other noble Lords can examine the Government's proposals and hold them to account before the Bill completes its progress.

Will the hon. Gentleman indicate whether he seeks to press the new clause or whether he wishes to withdraw it?

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.