Farming in the Uplands - ARCHIVE: Defra

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Ev 14 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence 27 October 2010 Dr Stuart Burgess and Professor Mark Shucksmith place it is. I was struck by how empty it was and what potential it had, if only there was super-fast broadband and the other elements of infrastructure there, which could attract people to come and live and work, set up businesses working from home in this fantastic environment, and how easy it would be to enable that and what the pay-off would be. I just think that that could be a pilot and a lesson to us all, if Barnard Castle Vision’s work there were to succeed up the dale. Q56 Chair: I’m delighted that North Yorkshire is a pilot project. Stuart Burgess: I think young people need broadband and mobile phone coverage as well. I stress young people here because, certainly from an educational point of view, we went to a number of places where obviously during the school session they have broadband in school, for example, but when that system closes down and some of the young people go back to their upland community areas, they have no broadband access there to enable them to do their homework, for example. There’s an educational dimension to this as well. Professor Shucksmith: There was a wonderful quote we had from a girl at school, who could do her homework if she took her computer up to the top of the hill— Chair:—in the rain. You are right that they are allocating it to Digital Dale, but we’ll obviously monitor how the pilot project goes. Thank you. Q57 Thomas Docherty: National Parks, I’m very interested in that. I’m of Cumbrian upbringing. If you asked most people who live in Copeland and Allerdale what they think of the National Park Authorities, the Friends of the Lake District and the National Trust, they will tell you that, historically, those organisations have prioritised what’s called the pencil-tin approach to the Lake District. They use that phrase because, in Kendal for example, there are long-standing fights between Rexel and the Friends of the Lake District. I’m not sure that you’ve seen the written submissions that some of those organisations have made, but they question the need for the change to the statutory powers of the National Park Authorities. My understanding is you’re recommending that great emphasis be placed on social and economic, and that there should be—correct me if I’m wrong here—a rebalancing, so that it’s not just about those who visit or retire to the National Park, but those who wish to raise their families and work in the National Park. Have I understood you correctly on that point? Stuart Burgess: Absolutely, yes. Q58 Thomas Docherty: The second point is to what extent do you think at the moment the National Park is achieving that balance, between those who need to make a living and raise their family, and those who see it more as a tourist destination or retirement area? Stuart Burgess: There’s a difference, in my own experience of travelling around the different National Parks, of emphases. Some National Parks put a strong emphasis on tourism and also conservation, whereas other National Parks are trying to be a little more, from my perspective, innovative, trying to say, “Okay, there is something very beautiful and valuable about National Parks, but if we’re not careful we’re going to see them as museum pieces in the future.” I firmly believe that, historically, all rural communities have evolved through generations and centuries. Just to preserve the National Parks per se is quite wrong. Again, it’s holding the balance. This is a phrase I’ve used already: holding the balance between those two opposite feelings. In holding the balance, there has to be innovation; there has to be more flexibility in terms of planning, for example, and more realisation that these are places where people live, but they can also work and enjoy the sheer beauty of the countryside. It is holding that balance between those tensions, which is not easy, I must admit. Professor Shucksmith: Can I just add to that? I’m familiar with the way that Friends of the Lake District tend to be referred to locally as the Fiends of the Lake District. My view is that, when the National Parks legislation was established, we didn’t think about sustainable development in the way that we do today. People thought that it was possible to protect and keep in aspic the very visual aspects of the landscape, which have always been prioritised. We have a much better understanding now, and that understanding of sustainable development is about the interlocking, economic, social and environmental systems. We have an understanding of sustainable development comprising these three different elements. Talking during the course of the inquiry to the Chief Executive of the Lake District National Park, he has a very exciting vision, and the Park Authority has a very exciting vision, of wanting the Lake District to be a model for sustainable development. In his view, when he spoke to us, the lack of an economic and a social objective with the same priority as the existing statutory objective is an obstacle to pursing the sustainable development of the Lake District National Park. I don’t know whether other National Parks have the same view of that but, it seemed to us, that it’s important that we would be able to have modern thinking about National Parks, in the same way as we do the rest of the country, and to prioritise economic and social objectives with equal weight to the environmental aspects. You ask how much they’re doing that already. We mentioned in our report that the Sustainable Development Fund, which since 2003 has been available, has been applied in some of the National Parks. That’s an encouraging sign but, nevertheless, if you look at an issue like affordable housing, I don’t think there has been any affordable housing built in the Northumberland National Park within the last 20 to 30 years—not one house, as I understand it. In the Lake District, it takes forever. I think it took 14 years to get agreement in Threlkeld to provide any affordable housing. There is fantastic work being done by organisations like the Cumbria Rural Housing Trust in places like Coniston and so on, but it is really difficult. The CRC did a study three or four years ago about housing in the National Parks, which showed how difficult a process it is, given the way that the statutory objectives are set at the moment. I think in some places there’s a willingness to try to rebalance EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: Not to be published in full, or part, in any form before 00.01am GMT Wednesday 16 February 2011
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 15 27 October 2010 Dr Stuart Burgess and Professor Mark Shucksmith these, and a feeling that this legislation that we’ve called for would be assistance. In other National Parks, a different view may be taken. Q59 Thomas Docherty: On page 77 you have a recommendation about the Park Authorities being enablers, but you want them to have equal status between the two functions. How specifically do you deliver that equal status? Professor Shucksmith: Specifically, you would require an amendment to the legislation, which changes it. At the moment, you have two statutory purposes for National Parks, which are the conservation of the natural and cultural heritage essentially—it’s a bit longer than that verbatim—and the second is promoting access and enjoyment of the countryside. In pursuing those, you have at the moment to have regard to the economic and social interests of the area. If that was no longer “having a regard to”, but was given the status of a third equal objective, that’s what we’d recommend. Stuart Burgess: Having travelled around all the National Parks now, I think I came to the conclusion that we either stay as we are or we’re challenged by some of the things we are proposing, and indeed others who are forward thinking in this, and try to say ourselves, “These places ought to be vibrant places and communities. Let us see what we can do to make them so.” That’s important to me. Q60 Neil Parish: Do they have too much power, the National Park Authority? Q61 Chair: Do you agree with the fact that it’s the only planning authority that includes, on the authority, those who live or who have businesses outside the area, who may be competing with businesses inside the area? Do you think that’s fair? Professor Shucksmith: I don’t know if that’s the case. I don’t know if other planning authorities can’t have people— Chair: I believe it’s the case. I think for other planning authorities you have to live there to be elected as a member. Professor Shucksmith: Are you thinking of the ministerial appointees? Thomas Docherty: You can be a councillor if you have significant work in a local authority. Chair: It is probably appointed. It is frequently raised to me, as a newcomer to a large part of the National Park, that it can inherently be uncompetitive. Thomas Docherty: It’s also because they don’t have a stake in making it work. Chair: They don’t have to live there and live with the consequences of their decisions. Q62 Neil Parish: Will you answer my question? Stuart Burgess: Do they have too much power? Neil Parish: Yes. Stuart Burgess: They are interpreting those two statutory requirements. In many ways, they are interpreting those, in my estimation, quite narrowly. What we’re trying to do is to add a third, which would encourage them and make them think much wider than those two at the moment. Having a third one would, I think, provide the impetus to what we’re saying about providing some vibrancy in the National Parks. Q63 Neil Parish: Would that change them, if you don’t change their ethos? Chair: Would you agree to my question that the composition should be changed? Stuart Burgess: That the composition should change? Yes, I would go for a change of composition. Professor Shucksmith: There is the review going on at the moment of the governance of National Parks. I believe that Defra is going to report on that in January, or make their proposals in January. Chair: We’ll have an opportunity to ask them. Professor Shucksmith: I was just going to say that the rationale for having ministerial appointees is that there is a national interest in the National Parks, as well as a local interest. That argument, it seems to me, is widely accepted. There’s the question of what proportion that should be and whether the local representatives should be directly elected to the National Park, or whether they should be appointed in the way they are at the moment. Q64 Dan Rogerson: Part of your recommendation 4.1 is about rewarding farmers for managing national assets in harmony with developing business and market enterprise. Do you want to say a little bit more about what a national asset is? Professor Shucksmith: The national assets we tried to set out, right at the beginning of the report, in terms of things that the public value particularly about National Parks and upland areas more generally. That would include the landscape, wildlife, biodiversity, water resources, carbon storage, all those environmental public goods, which are the most readily known. It seems to us it also includes many aspects other than environmental assets, such as cultural heritage. Rural areas and the upland areas in particular are often thought to embody aspects of national identity and even spiritual aspects, if you go back to Wordsworth and The Prelude. There are many aspects of the uplands that are seen as valuable public assets, environmental, social and cultural. We also believe there are economic aspects, and that there is a potential for things, not just food but including food, to be produced and sold to markets. They’re not necessarily things that require public subsidy, public support. Some things there can be supported by the market as well. EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: Not to be published in full, or part, in any form before 00.01am GMT Wednesday 16 February 2011 Q65 Dan Rogerson: Do you think there are potential conflicts between, as you mention, the cultural assets that people feel a great affinity for, and the landscape value and those sorts of assets, and, for example, energy generation? That’s something that’s controversial in my constituency and many others as well. How do you think you could balance those things, and how could landowners, farmers and those who manage it be rewarded? Stuart Burgess: Probably with great difficulty, having been at a particular meeting in the South West where, on this particular occasion, this was a big issue. I totally agree with you. I came to the conclusion that
Page 1 and 2:
House of Commons Environment, Food
Page 3 and 4:
House of Commons Environment, Food
Page 5 and 6:
Contents EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: No
Page 7 and 8:
Summary EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: Not
Page 9 and 10:
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: Not to be p
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24: EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: Not to be p
Page 39 and 40: 5 Upland communities EMBARGOED ADVA
Page 47 and 48: 6 Conclusion EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY
Page 49 and 50: 4: A new approach to funding EMBARG
Page 59 and 60: Witnesses EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: N
Page 61 and 62: Oral evidence Environment, Food and
Page 63 and 64: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Page 73: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Page 77 and 78: Tom Blenkinsop Richard Drax George
Page 79 and 80: walked they ain’t coming back, be
Page 81 and 82: great, but there is the wider issue
Page 93 and 94: to engage in a conversation with th
Page 95 and 96: Q161 George Eustice: One of the com
Page 113 and 114: Written evidence Environment, Food
Page 125 and 126:
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
show all

Farming in the Uplands - ARCHIVE: Defra

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?