HC Deb 15 July 1986 vol 101 cc976-84

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

11.55 pm
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border)

I wish to raise before the House an issue of considerable significance to conservation generally which touches on the long-established interests of my constituents on the Wedholme Flow just off the Solway coastline, 10 miles west of Carlisle.

Wedholme Flow is one of the three largest sphagnum peat bogs in production in the United Kingdom. Through the years, the use of peat has changed. At the turn of the century peat from Wedholme was used to bind up the wounds of those wounded in the first world war. Indeed, in Scotland one thinks of Flanders moss as one of the best known sphagnum peat bogs. Then the peat was used as moss litter for bedding horses and, finally, peat has now been developed by the horticultural industry as a suitable medium for enriching the soil throughout the gardens of England.

Wedholme peat is rated as being the finest sphagnum peat produced in the United Kingdom, and, indeed, the wrapper on a bale of peat produced there states, internationally acclaimed Golden Moss Peat the world's finest Sphagnum Moss Peat". The peat works are an integral part of the small community around Kirkbride and peat has been cut there for over two centuries. In the Enclosures Act 1816, an area of peat moss was allocated to named individuals actually residing at that time within the parish who became in effect the freehold owners. The principle of the award was a residential qualification. Every household was apportioned a strip approximately one chain wide and extending to an area of about three acres. A similar award was made to Newton Arlosh parish in 1814. These are, therefore, long-established rights worked over many years by the residents of Kirkbride and Newton Arlosh.

However, over the past few months a cloud has been hanging over the moss. The Nature Conservancy Council is endowed by Parliament with important functions which my constituents appreciate. In 1959, just over a third of Wedholme Flow was designated a site of special scientific interest. Some 270 hectares was so designated. Mr. D. A. Radcliffe, the chief scientist for the Nature Conservancy Council, in 1977 wrote in his book "A Nature Conservation Review" that Wedholme Flow, forms a single extensive raised mire unit, but is severely modified and …only a very limited section of the mire system is now viable". By "viable" Mr. Radcliffe means viable for conservation purposes, and he goes on to note that the area of intact Sphagnum rich raised mire vegetation is now reduced by cutting and by recent fires to a section about 0.4 kilometres long by only 90–180 metres wide. The maximum area, therefore, intact is only just short of 18 acres and yet some 667 acres have been included within the original site of special scientific interest. Now with its richer purse, the Nature Conservancy Council is having another bite at the cherry and it wants to include some 780 hectares or almost 2,000 acres, which is more than 100 times the size of the original unspoilt part.

The stint owners now face a greatly enlarged SSSI. In support of its notification, the council has published a great list of species alleged to be special on the moss, but my constituents' researches have revealed that only one species on the entire list is not a "bog standard" species. Indeed, nearly all the species are listed and drawn on a poster produced for children describing sphagnum bogs and produced by the British museum. As part of its extension of operations, the council proposes to raise the level of the water table which will make the bog unviable to work for peat cutting and will undermine the areas of grassland on the fringe which for some reason the council has decided to include, which have been grant aided for drainage purposes in the past. Indeed, it is ironic that the only species of any rarity on the moss, Sphagnum Molle, like a dry site and the Council's very efforts to alter the hydrology of the district could kill the only species that can be said to be in any way rare.

My constituents have consulted one of Britain's top experts on peat and he has confirmed that, whilst the existing SSSI is indeed special, there is no justification for extending it by more than 100 times. The Nature Conservancy believes, apparently, that in order to protect the existing SSSI it needs a huge buffer zone where it can control the activities which would — in its view — endanger the existence of the current site. However, my constituents' specialist has confirmed that the two areas are quite hydrologically separate and therefore there is no need for such a large buffer zone. Nor is there anything special on the proposed extension of the SSSI which would justify the designation as "special". The whole of the stint owners' area has been worked on for over two centuries, and there is no way that the original mire can be intact, and we come back with the basic question, what is so special about the site? Is this really a site of special scientific interest? Why have there been no scientific papers written on Wedholme Flow in the past? Why have students of flora and fauna not been flocking there?

Unless it is thought that the existing peat workings are injurious to conservation, it must be explained that this is not the case. Even on areas which have been worked, these are now returning to a sphagnum lawn—even near drained farmland.

At the core of this application is the council's assertion that it needs this massive amount of extra land to protect the existing site. What expert evidence has the council for this assertion? It wishes to raise the water table but has not produced a detailed hydrology report on what the proposals would mean for the water table, nor has the council provided a proper detailed scientific analysis of the bog. My constituents' expert has said that the two areas are hydrologically separate and one could not support the other. This is borne out by a Mr. D. A. Greg, who was commissioned by the NCC in 1975 to make a report on the various mosses in the area. In his report he states: On a large scale Wedholme Flow can be divided into three areas. The central band of peat workings spreads right across the bog from east to west leaving two sections of raised bog which are isolated from each other. The council seems to be relying on this report and that of a busy young lady, Miss Jane Smart, who in November 1980 recommended that the SSSI boundary be extended. She visited four bogs between 1 August and 5 August 1980 before reaching this conclusion on Wedholme Flow—but even then she said: A full survey would need to be carried out to determine the precise limits of the area. Where is the NCC's full survey to determine the precise limits"? In lieu of that survey, is the council going for a catch-all 2,000-acre plot instead?

Having established that the flow is not special, how do my constituents challenge the NCC? The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the subsequent financial guidelines for management agreement make no provision for compensation for members of the public who defend their own and who protect their family's long-cherished property. My constituents have been advised that they must now seek professional advice, which will obviously cost them considerable sums of money. How do they best protect their own, when taking on the might of the Nature Conservancy Council, with its far greater financial purse?

The council has listed an impressive array of 28 operations likely to damage the special interest which completely erodes the basic fundamentals of ownership of the land. The stint owners have been advised that the only way that they can achieve proper compensation is if planning would have been forthcoming for their part of the bog. This has been no problem in the past, and the stint owners would naturally expect to sell part of their bog to the commercial company operating the peat working there. Very little land in acreage terms is involved, but it is a right that the stint owners have exercised for 200 years and a right that they wish to pass on to their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. They will now be deprived of that right, because the county council will automatically reject any planning permission for commercial peat workings if the NCC expresses an interest in the land. In any event, if the council raises the water table, the place will be too wet for milling and selling of peat and all workings will become worthless. That could have severe employment repercussions for the area in the longer term.

A further scandalous part of the council's powers is its position as judge and jury. If the stint owners apply for planning permission for their area for commercial peat extraction, who does the county planning authority have to consult? None other than the Nature Conservancy Council. And will the council give its approval to further peat extraction if it means it having to fork out four, five or six times the amount of compensation than if planning permission was not forthcoming? Clearly the council has a vested interest to say no to further planning consent to extend its ambitions to acquire the land. The stint owners are caught in a classic Catch 22 situation—if they apply for planning consent, nothing can be more certain than that the council will be unable to find a reason for granting consent.

One other worrying feature of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is that it introduces no independent body to assess whether those sites are of special scientific interest. Section 28(1) states: Where the Nature Conservancy Council are of the opinion that any area of land is of special interest by reason of any of its flora, fauna, or geological of physiographical features, it shall be the duty of the Council to notify that fact. Why should the stint owners have to resort to judicial review to assess whether the council has properly assessed the site as being special in its entirety? Why is there no provision for independent consultants to give their opinion?

In this instance, the council has not begun to attempt to satisfy the scientific interests of the stint owners as to its proposals. More seriously, it has completely overlooked the terms of section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968, as amended. The section reads: In the exercise of their functions under this Act and the Act of 1949 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it shall be the duty of every Minister, and of the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council and local authorities, to have clue regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas. Can it be in the economic and social interests of rural areas to bring about a cessation of all peat workings to attempt to expropriate their land with as little compensation as possible? Is not the enclosure award of 1816 of equal historic and hence scientific interest? For two centuries now, peat from the flow has gone to heat the houses of the residents, to dress the wounds of the afflicted in the first world war and to bed Army horses. Now the produce of Wedholme flow is being spread, even on this very day, among the gardens of England, including my own, introducing conservation and beauty into the back streets of the depressed areas of England —I include my back garden in that description! Has the council really had, due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and the economic and social interests of rural areas in its desire to control this land? Does it really need 100 times the special mire area, when it already has under its control a large number of mosses and bogs, including Glasson Moss, of more than 259 hectares, and Bowness common, of 802 hectares? Indeed, the Bowness common notification is very similar in terms to that of Wedholme flow.

I must say to my hon. Friend the Minister in conclusion that I consider this a form of back-door nationalisation. I see no need for the NCC to take over all that extra land when there is more variety of surface microtopography on the existing SSSI. This is too complicated an issue to go into in this short debate, and I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to a meeting between herself and representatives of the stint owners who are affected. I hope that when she replies she will agree that commercial workings of peat and conservation of bogs can go hand in hand, and I hope that she will conclude from the evidence I have given her tonight that an extended Wedholme Flow is not really all that special.

12.11 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Angela Rumbold)

My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has raised with considerable eloquence and forthrightness a number of important issues relating to the present system for selecting and notifying sites of special scientific interest and the impact of SSSI notification on the owners and occupiers of the land concerned. I shall try to deal with them as fully as possible in a way which I hope will demonstrate that the current arrangements are both necessary and appropriate.

As my hon. Friend has said, under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Nature Conservancy Council has a statutory duty to notify as an SSSI, land which is in its opinion of special interest by virtue of its flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features.

In the case of Wedholme Flow, in my hon. Friend's constituency, the site is an extensive lowland raised mire, which is the largest of a series of raised mires on the south Solway plain, as he describe. They now represent the largest and finest concentration of that particular type of habitat in Britain. Lowland raised mires have, since the 1800s, been subject to significant losses. I am advised by the Nature Conservancy Council that the total remaining area of the habitat in Britain, which now possesses relatively few major concentrations of such bogs, amounts to approximately 1,800 hectares, of which almost half is within the north Cumbria complex.

Wedholme Flow is thus one of the largest and best remaining examples of the lowland raised bog habitat in Britain. It also possesses great conservation interest, and that has been recognised through its notification as a site of special scientific interest.

My hon. Friend inquired at length about the basis of the decision. I am advised that the NCC in fact conducted a considerable amount of scientific research over a substantial period before deciding on the area of the site to be renotified. Since as long ago as 1959, the site has been under continuous study by the NCC and others and several scientific reports, including those to which my hon. Friend—referred have been produced. I have not had the opportunity to study all of them in detail, but I understand that they confirm the importance of Wedholme Flow in conservation terms, and I should point out that, although the area of the original SSSI is of slightly higher quality, the northern area — that is the part within the proposed extension of the SSSI — is richer in species and has substantial conservation interest.

In 1984 and 1985 the NCC carried out detailed scientific surveys of the site, which involved the careful identification and recording of data on the species of the area and investigations of the topography of the basin in which the site is located, the surface contours and peat depth. The outcome of that work has confirmed that the whole of the renotified site is a single and discrete hydrological unit rather than several separate units, as has been suggested by some others. The NCC's decision was a careful and informed one and was based on detailed scientific investigations. The NCC concluded that the extension of the area of the SSSI was necessary for two reasons.

First, the additional area is considered by the NCC to have sufficient intrinsic scientific interest to merit notification in its own right. The totality of the site is important. The section comprising the Newton Artosh peat awards includes the best intact raised bog surface, with original surface pattening, in England. It supports a complete range of raised bog vegetation from high hummock vegetation to aquatic pool vegetation. It also supports several rare plant species such as bog rosemary, several rare sphagnums and all three of the sundews.

Secondly, knowledge of peatland hydrology has increased significantly since the original notification of the site. Since the early 1980s, the NCC's understanding of peat hydrology has been radically changed as a result of its own researches and there has been a series of publications by British and European specialists. I have a list of these publications, which I will send to my hon. Friend if he considers that they would be helpful.

This body of informed scientific opinion now suggests that, if the existing conservation interest of the site is to be maintained, it is necessary to ensure that the whole of the basin in which Wedholme Flow is located, rather than just a proportion of it, needs to be conserved. Because the existing SSSI and the northern extension form one hydrological area, if the northern extension was not included, peat digging would continue and the quality of the whole mire would deteriorate. This would lead to the loss of peat deposits, peat wastage, the threat of oxidation, drying out of the surface, the loss of pattening and the loss of vegetation areas, and the part that forms an integral part of this basin and is thus important to the well-being of the site as a whole.

Having said all that, however, and in the light of my hon. Friend's constituents' specialist views, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 procedure includes provision for interested persons to make representations or objections to the NCC concerning particular notifications. The NCC is statutorily required to consider such representations or objections in deciding whether a particular notification should be confirmed and could be challenged if it failed to do so.

I therefore suggest that if my hon. Friend believes that his evidence suggests that the NCC may have got it wrong in this case, he should pass this to the NCC as soon as possible so that its objection procedures can proceed, as set out in the Act.

The NCC is a responsible scientific body and I am satisfied that it will give careful and objective consideration to any objections or representations of this kind. I do not think that it would be appropriate for the Government to seek to intervene.

Now, as my hon. Friend knows, having notified the site, the NCC considers that the continued extraction of peat from Wedholme Flow would be incompatible with the maintenance of the conservation interest of the site and has therefore included peat extraction in the list of potentially damaging operations. That means that owners or occupiers who wish to extract peat from the site, on whatever scale, would need to go through the statutory notice procedures set out in section 28 of the Act. All this my hon. Friend has clearly understood and also clearly rather dislikes. However, this would enable the NCC to consider the impact of particular proposals and, if necessary, to explore the possibility of protecting the site through some form of voluntary agreement that could include provision for payment and compensation.

As to the effect of SSSI notification on those with ancient rights to cut peat, I understand that, in the case of those who currently exercise the right to take peat for domestic purposes it has been the NCC's normal practice to grant a time-limited consent for such operations for a period of two years.

It is during this two-year period that the NCC would try to reach agreement with the stint holders concerned about ways of conserving the special interest of the site. That could involve the payment of compensation in respect of the value of the peat not cut. Alternatively, the NCC might be prepared to offer to buy out the stint or even to direct the peat cutting to another area of the site where it could go ahead without serious damage to the conservation interest.

There are, however, a number of stint holders who do not currently exercise their rights and would thus be ineligible for compensation. It seems to me logical that compensation should not be payable in respect of rights which are currently not being exercised, the suspension of which would not result in any actual loss to the stint holders concerned.

The arrangements whereby the NCC has to be consulted on all planning applications affecting SSSIs are designed to ensure that, in deciding such applications, conservation factors are given due weight along with other relevant facts and arguments. This procedure provides an important safeguard for some of the most important areas of our national heritage. It is true that the NCC would not compensate the owner or occupier of an SSSI for not carrying out an operation for which planning permission had been reflected, possibly on NCC advice. I can see nothing objectionable in that.

Owners of other types of land who are refused planning permission do not, as a general rule, have any entitlement to compensation. It would, in my view, be inequitable to treat owners of SSSIs more favourably, and would indeed give them a positive incentive to put forward damaging proposals.

As for the general arrangements for notifying SSSIs, my hon. Friend has suggested that the cards are stacked against owners and occupiers of such land and that they should therefore be given a right of appeal against SSSI notification. I do not think that the current system is weighted against the interests of owners or occupiers or that the existing safeguards for such interests are inadequate. I shall briefly explain why.

The machinery in section 28 is essentially a delaying mechanism. Its purpose is to provide a period of temporary protection for a site — four months — to enable the NCC to discuss, and if possible agree, with the landowner or occupier, suitable arrangements for the long-term management of the land. Landowners may thus be constrained only for a maximum of four months by notification of their land as an SSSI. Unless during this period the land were to become subject to some other form of statutory constraint, the owner would thereafter be free to proceed with whatever operations he wished, subject of course to the necessary consent under planning legislation. Parliament therefore concluded that SSSI notification does not involve any ultimate loss of rights over land and decided that an appeals machinery was unnecessary. This remains the Government's view.

If voluntary agreement cannot be reached during the four-month protection period, the NCC could ask the Secretary of State to make a nature conservation order to extend the period of protection for up to 12 months. Alternatively, it could seek to acquire the land compulsorily by asking the Secretary of State to approve a compulsory purchase order. In the case of a proposed nature conservation order or a CPO, the landowners would have a statutory right to object to the proposals and to have their objections tested against the NCC's case at a public inquiry. Indeed, several nature conservation orders have been challenged in this way and one has been revoked. It seems that the existing arrangements contain sufficient safeguards for the rights of landowners.

The NCC has a duty under section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968 to consider the economic and social interests of rural areas, which my hon. Friend has mentioned. The NCC is very aware of this duty in carrying out its other and equally important duty to notify SSSIs. Its procedures are designed to ensure that these considerations are given due weight in decisions affecting individual sites. The NCC accordingly consults my own Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Forestry Commission and local and water authorities about all extensions to SSSIs, and would take careful account of any comments or observations from any of these committees.

Another important safeguard is that all renotification proposals have to be approved in advance by the appropriate NCC advisory committee. These committees, which are in effect the NCC's board of directors, are broadly based and include representatives of farming and landowning interests as well as scientists and academics. The composition of these committees ensures that the NCC's renotification proposals are subject to the scrutiny of a wide range of interests other than purely conservationalists. However, the fact that section 37 considerations have to be taken into account does not mean that they will always win, and there will inevitably be occasions when the interests of conservation should be given precedence over economic or social considerations.

I hope that it will be clear from this explanation of the background that the procedure for the notification of sites of special scientific interest and their protection are designed to facilitate and encourage discussion, negotiation and voluntary co-operation. They are intended to provide a period of protection for the land, a breathing space, during which the Nature Conservancy Council can explain to owners and occupiers the nature of the importance of a site in conservaion terms, and discuss with them suitable and mutually acceptable arrangements for the future management of the land.

I hope that I have managed to convince my hon. Friend that the arrangements set out in the 1981 Act strike a fair and reasonable balance between the legitimate interests of landowners and occupiers and the need to conserve the natural heritage. However, if he wishes to bring the stint holders to discuss this matter more fully with me, I would be more than happy to meet them at a mutually convenient time and place.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Twelve o'clock.