Planning Bill

I rise to speak to my Amendment No. 417A, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I thank the Minister for tabling her two clarifying amendments to Clause 183. As I represent rural interests, I hope that she will not mind if I probe a bit more. These generally permitted development order rights are important to small farmers, particularly in the western half of the country where I come from. On the whole, these permitted rights—and this is probably a huge generalisation—do not affect larger farmers quite so much as their desired development mostly comes above the size limits of the buildings. Most of them are not so much engaged in small-scale part-time diversification projects, but for smaller farmers these rights can make or break their business. I add that the Government have, rightly, greatly encouraged, and been very helpful to, diversification by farmers and landowners, possibly reducing their reliance on government subsidies and other government support. Suffice it to say that many farmers—and it is not only the farmers because some rural tourist businesses are also affected—rely on the use of these permitted development rights to carry out modest scale developments that are essential to the running of their business. We are talking about the temporary use of land, such as the odd day’s game or clay pigeon shoot, holding a motocross day or a car boot sale, allowing two or three caravans to park in a spare field, or erecting very small agricultural or forestry buildings. Local planning authorities can issue Article 4 directions to bring specific developments within planning control in specific areas. Currently, they require the Secretary of State’s approval and there is a liability to pay compensation if the permitted right is withdrawn. These safeguards are entirely appropriate. It is interesting to note that the Department for Communities and Local Government has recently undertaken an internal review of permitted development rights to see what scope there is to relax them even further. Perhaps I have misread Clause 183 in its amended form, but it would seem to me that it is going slightly in the opposite direction. On the other hand, reading between the lines of the debate in the other place, in response to the amendment of Mr David Curry MP to this clause, I got the impression that it was not the Minister’s intention to undermine permitted development rights for small family farms or for agriculture and forestry in general. I seek confirmation of this fact.