HC Deb 30 July 1981 vol 9 cc1241-4

'(1) A regional park is a park set in the countryside and extensive in size, located so as to be convenient to serve the recreational needs of a substantial number of the inhabitants of the area.

(2) County ccuncils shall have power—

  1. (a) by order to designate lands within their region as regional parks, and
  2. (b) to manage as a single administrative unit any parts of any such park which are under the control of the council,
and where it is appropriate that lands extending into more than one region should be designated as a regional park the councils concerned may jointly exercise the powers conferred by this subsection.

(3) Subject to subsection (4)(c) below, an order under subsection (2)(a) above shall not take effect until it is confirmed by the Secretary of State, who may confirm such order either without modification or subject to such modifications as he considers expedient.

(4) The Secretary of State shall by statutory instrument prescribe the procedure for making orders under subsection (2) (a) above and the form of such orders; and (without prejudice to the generality of this subsection) the regulations shall make provision as follows:—

  1. (a) that before an order under subsection (2)(a) above is submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation, notice of the terms of the order shall be given to the owners, lessees and occupiers of land within the areas designated in the order, and to such other persons, if any, as may be specified in the regulations:
  2. (b) that objections and representations with respect to the order, if duly made in accordance with the regulations, shall be considered by the Secretary of State before he confirms the order;
  3. (c) that if no objections or representations are made in respect of any order, or if any objections or representations made are withdrawn, the order shall not be submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation, but shall be confirmed without modification as an unopposed order by the council or council:; who made it; and
  4. (d) that copies of confirmed orders shall be served on such persons as may be specified in the regulations.

(5) Any statutory instrument made in terms of subsection (4) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(6) Where a planning application is made in relation to lands which fall within an area designated as a regional park, the planning authority shall have regard to the fact that the area has been so designated in considering the application.'.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We have done a pretty good job with our national parks in protecting the landscape of England and Wales. They now protect most of the wild and dramatic areas of those countries. More recently, the countryside parks have been developed by local authorities. But nothing like as much recognition, care or concern has been given to the rest of the British landscape—the need to care for the fanned parts of lowland Britain, the rolling chalk downs, the limestone escarpments, and similar areas. For many years some of us have argued that we should extend or create new national parks in the lowland parts of Britain, but our proposals have always been rejected on the ground that the areas were not large enough or were unsuitable.

The new clause contains a proposal to recognise as outstandingly attractive many of the lower parts of eastern and south-eastern England. The wording of the new clause is almost the same as the equivalent provision in the Countryside (Scotland) Act. The new clause proposes an intermediate area, not quite with the status of a national park but with considerable significance, for the lower parts of England and Wales. The Scottish legislation has just passed into law, and it is therefore logical that English legislation should contain the same provision.

In the new clause I have taken out the references lo Scotland and put in "county councils" for England and Wales. I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Areas such as the Surrey hills, the Malverns, the Kent and Lickey hills, the East Sussex Downs and the Norfolk Broads would all be ideal for development as regional parks. Many of these areas already attract large numbers of people for recreation and leisure purposes. Many of them contain substantial areas which are already owned by the local authorities, and there would be advantages in bringing the ownership by the local authorities together into one scheme of management and giving the areas almost the same status as national parks.

As regional parks, they would have many advantages in developing tourism. We already have one regional park which is outstandingly successful, and that is the Lee Valley, which people from London and the urban areas visit. It was established by a special Act of Parliament in 1966, and it is sad that we have not developed any more such parks since then. Similar legislation for Scotland comes into force this year, and therefore I do not imagine that the Government will have any major difficulty in accepting the new clause.

Mr. Monro

I echo the praise by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) for the work of local authorities in this connection. He will understand, perhaps better than most, that the average size of a country park is about 200 or 300 acres. Regional parks are very much larger—something approaching the size of our national parks—and that is an altogether different exercise.

I accept that the Countryside (Scotland) Act, which received Royal Assent earlier this month, contains a power similar to that which the hon. Gentleman seeks. However, as he knows, there are no national parks in Scotland. That legislation was an opportunity to deal with the matter on a regional basis in Scotland, rather than creating national parks.

We all agree that we want to progress as quickly as possible. The argument is simple. It would be inappropriate at this late stage to introduce such a new concept without formal consultation. In any event, we have the well-established national parks system in England and Wales. We do not have anything similar to that envisaged in Scotland in relation to regional parks.

In the longer term it might never be appropriate, given that we already have national parks and that local authorities have power to establish country parks which seem to be working satisfactorily. It is not the right time to introduce legislation to set up a new system which has not been discussed. I appreciate the remarks by the hon. Member for Stockport, North about local authority efforts towards conservation. However, he would be well advised to withdraw the clause.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)

The power in the new clause is discretionary and, therefore, the Minister's argument about consultation with local authorities is not very strong. Local authorities which did not wish to take advantage of the power would not have to do so. Consultation would not be absolutely necessary since there would be no requirement on local authorities.

Mr. Monro

The proposal involves discretion. In many areas a regional park would be inappropriate. To bring such an arrangement into a Bill without consultation with the Association of County Councils and other local authority bodies would be wrong. More important, we have our fine system of national parks in England and Wales. Local authorities can purchase and deal with ground that they own through the country parks. It would be wrong, out of the blue, to give them power to establish regional parks and new powers over land. Allowing local authorities to establish national parks of their own would not be in the interests of conservation.

Mr. Ted Graham (Edmonton)

The Minister cannot have it more ways than one. The basis of his argument is that the proposal is inappropriate for England and Wales because we have the national parks system. When was the last national park created? I believe that it was in the late 1950s. It is almost 25 years since a national park was created.

I hope that the Minister is not saying that we do not need the new clause because the object can be achieved in other ways through legislation when he is not prepared to consider other ways. I cannot understand why he is not prepared to accept the new clause. He should at least say that he intends to give serious thought to ways of encouraging the creation of regional parks.

I commend to the House the experience of the GLC, the Hertfordshire and Essex county councils and the London boroughs in creating the Lee Valley regional park. It is unique. It required parliamentary legislation. It has worked well. However, after 20 years it needs a new lease of life. It needs to be revamped. All the bodies that I mentioned are considering how to do that. This is a first-class opportunity to provide something that cannot be provided by a small authority. The GLC is a small authority in that context. There needs to be collaboration.

9 pm

I support the concept of the new clause. If the Minister cannot say anything more helpful, I hope that he will take on board the fact that it is not good enough to say that we have the opportunity to create regional parks by using the opportunities available for national parks. In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) mentioned a number of places where there is a crying need for national parks and areas of outstanding beauty. We are concerned now with places of recreation that are closer to the urban fringe than the national park concept.

About 10 million people enjoy and take advantage of the countryside for recreational activities. The Government should be more ready and willing to agree that if we cannot have more national parks we should introduce legislation, or amendments to existing legislation, to make the creation of regional parks a reality.

Mr. Cryer

I shall be brief because I know that the House is anxious to debate a wide range of amendments. I ask the Minister seriously to consider the possibility of introducing legislation that is similar to the new clause. The provision in the new clause is optional and does not bind local authorities. I would understand the Minister's point about consultation if the provision was a requirement on local authorities. Local authorities in large urban areas that could develop a regional park would like the opportunity to do so.

My constituency contains Haworth, where the Brontes lived and worked. About 200,000 people visit it each year. It is near to Halifax, Bradford and Leeds—the urban centres that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has in mind. There is a country park in the vicinity, but with so many visitors each year the local authority might wish to take advantage of creating a regional park. My hon. Friend and I were prudent in putting forward a new clause that gives local authorities a valuable alternative in their consideration of the usage of areas and the facilities that they need in areas such as Haworth. The visitors also use the moors that inspired the Brontë writers.

I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. The new clause would have been another string to the local authorities' bow. It would have been welcomed by most of them. I am sorry that the Minister will not accept it. If my hon. Friend pushes it to a vote, I shall support him.

Question put and negatived.

Forward to