My Lords, I declare my interests in farming and land ownership as set out in the register. I am also a farmer and landowner in the Chilterns AONB.
I am enthusiastic in my support for Amendments 272 and 273, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and I have considerable reservations about Amendment 139. This is due to the experience of how changes in the financial support of farming have affected the profitability of farming in marginal land and the consequent need for diversification of farming businesses in the Chilterns AONB—and probably in all the others. Farming is not the only business in these areas. I cannot give precise figures, but nationally, 23% of all businesses are based in the countryside and 85% of these are not in farming or forestry.
The inclusion of these two amendments would ensure that promoting the economic and social well-being of local communities and businesses in national parks and AONBs is assured. These amendments are not limited to business but cover concerns that arise about the provision of affordable and small-scale housing developments in villages, as well as community facilities and the like. Failure to promote and allow economic
and social progress in these areas will also encourage people to go ahead with unapproved activities in their buildings, which could be both damaging and short-sighted for the community and themselves. These amendments would not undermine the existing purposes but strengthen the first purpose and reduce the risk of continuing the existing one-dimensional approach, which prevents the diversification that could feed into the financial resource required to conserve and enhance these landscapes and ensure overall sustainability.
Businesses that produce natural landscapes need to evolve to adapt to the challenges of climate change and migration to the countryside, as do the land managers who deliver nature recovery. Environmental considerations currently overrule economic and social decision-making, resulting in a lack of a sustainable flow of funds for businesses. This is weakening the current recovery of nature and the aim of connecting more people to the natural world and tackling climate change.
7.45 pm
A sole focus on the existing purpose, without upgrading the socioeconomic duty to a statutory purpose, will make the delivery of nature recovery harder and more expensive to achieve. The socioeconomic statutory purpose would ensure viability for the businesses delivering this recovery and that funds are available from a diverse income stream. The duty to foster the economic well-being of businesses and communities needs to be given a greater weight in management plans and decision-making.
The timing of these amendments is also topical, as Natural England has recently published plans for four additional AONBs, as well as more SSSIs and national nature reserves. An SSSI in Penwith, Cornwall, has, according to my bible, Farmers Weekly, resulted in 300 farmers facing
“a lengthy list of restrictions on their ability to farm, including stock levels, planning restrictions and limits on vehicular activity”.
For many, their current businesses will be unsustainable. The article also points out how Natural England has ignored its own rules and procedures on safeguarding and is causing further distress.
Clearly, if current farming and other business models need to be changed, the Government must allow the necessary diversification. This might involve the conversion of farm buildings and the approval of sensitively designed new buildings for rural businesses, including pubs and tourism-related enterprises. Permitted development rights are helpful but insufficient in many cases.
The purpose of this Bill is levelling up areas and communities across the country. Restricting to the nth degree what can be built or done in national parks and AONBs would negate the purpose of the Bill. It would result in the depopulation of these areas as jobs disappear, and whole communities could suffer. Residents and businesses cannot thrive in aspic.