HC Deb 09 December 1999 vol 340 cc1096-102

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

7 pm

Mr. Huw Edwards (Monmouth)

I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise an important matter on the Adjournment.

Much of Monmouthshire is forest land which forms part of the Forestry Commission estate. The Hendre, Tintern, Wentwood and Chepstow Park forests are some of the superb forests in my constituency. Arguably, at this time of year—the late autumn—Monmouthshire is at its most beautiful. Many travel to New England to see that part of America in the fall. They need not go that far; they could come to Monmouthshire and see it in the fall.

Part of my constituency lies in the Wye valley area of outstanding natural beauty and it has special designation. It was therefore with utter astonishment that, a few weeks ago, I studied a fax of the particulars of sale of 812 acres of Chepstow Park wood by Forest Enterprise. It was marketed by a Sussex-based agent, Fleury Manico. The particulars of sale stated: Freehold for Sale—Major Leisure Opportunity—May be suitable for Holiday Village Operation—Our clients"— that is Forest Enterprise— are seeking to dispose of their freehold interest in this site with full vacant possession to be given upon completion. Our client is not obliged to accept the highest, or indeed any offer received. Bids were to be received by noon on 22 October, just 10 days after I and many of my constituents had seen the particulars of sale. The site, it was stated, was within two hours' travel time of 10 million people.

That was the first time that I had heard of Forest Enterprise's intention to sell off the wood, a major area of my constituency. Apparently, it had been approached by a major holiday operator, but I do not know which operator that was. I checked with the director of planning and economic development at Monmouthshire county council and it was apparent that the local authority had received no notification. The Wye valley AONB officer said that he had heard rumours, but that he had not been notified by Forest Enterprise. Local community councils had received no notification, and the National Assembly for Wales had apparently received no notification.

It was incredible that a public body proposed to sell publicly owned forestry without any public consultation or even notification to public bodies. The sale was advertised in two professional journals, Estates Gazette and "Leisure Monthly". Further, Forest Enterprise seemed to be employing a sealed-bid method of sale that raised suspicions that the sale was being rushed through with a preferred developer in mind. I therefore tabled an early-day motion that drew attention to the "secretive and underhand" method of sale. However, I have spoken to the director of Forest Enterprise and I am happy to accept that that was not its intention.

The failure to notify me as the local Member of Parliament was impolite; the failure to notify the local authority was inept; but the failure to make any effort to notify the residents who live in the vicinity of Chepstow Park wood—in the beautiful villages of Itton, Devauden and St. Arvans as well as in the town of Chepstow—was inexcusable. Not surprisingly the residents came in their hundreds to a public meeting in Itton village hall to express their concern and anger at the proposed sale and method of sale. They had bought properties in an AONB which they believed had been given special protection.

My constituents are incensed at repeated attempts to sell their countryside, because it is within two hours' travel of 10 million people. I have joined them in objecting to other grandiose schemes that have been promoted by developers; for example, the Severnside international airport scheme and the Legend Court theme park. I shall now support their opposition to the proposed sale of Chepstow Park wood for a holiday development which would require a perimeter fence, deny access and destroy the fauna and flora of the wood.

We want to attract people to that part of Monmouthshire to stay at local hotels and guest houses, but it is felt that a holiday village operation would deny people that opportunity.

The campaign has united the political parties in opposition to the sale. I shared a platform at the public meeting with the local Assembly Member and local county councillors, including the leader of the council, Councillor White, who assured the meeting that he would fight tooth and nail on behalf of local residents.

There was unanimous opposition to the sale, and the "Save Our Wood" campaign was formed. It has organised a petition that has already attracted 5,000 signatures and messages of support from conservation groups and individuals throughout the country. I pay tribute to Mr. Ken Futcher and other members of "Save Our Wood" for their effective, rational and decent campaign.

I fully share constituents' concerns about the sale of the wood in principle, but I am concerned also about the manner in which the process has been conducted: the failure to consult or even notify local public bodies; the failure to advertise the sale locally; the brief period for the receipt of offers; the sealed bid method of sale, and the lack of any consideration given to local people purchasing the freehold to establish a trust to keep the wood as a local amenity.

Chepstow town council has complained to the National Audit Office that Forest Enterprise has acted totally against the public interest in this matter and negated its public duty. Welsh Assembly Member, David Davies, has referred the matter to Counsel General in the National Assembly for Wales.

In letters to me, the chief executive of Forest Enterprise has stated that what is for sale at present is the exclusive option to take forward a planning application and … the advertisement in the Estates Gazette may have misled the point. The chief executive of Forest Enterprise and the director for Wales have replied in detail to letters that I have written to them. I would like to express my appreciation to them for attending a meeting in my constituency to discuss the issues and clarify certain points.

From those contacts, it has transpired that Forest Enterprise acknowledges that it did not notify key bodies about the decision to sell and that there was no discussion about the proposed sale with the Welsh Assembly Secretary, Christine Gwyther, or the Assembly's Agriculture and Rural Development Committee. Forest Enterprise acknowledges also that two bids have been received, including one from the developers who had made the initial contact.

Forest Enterprise acknowledges that it would have to assess the suitability of any private developers before agreeing to the sale of an option to purchase, and that it considers that the planning process may be a suitable forum for public consultation. It assured us that the wood would not be sold unless planning permission were granted, and Forest Enterprise would remain neutral during the planning process. Fortunately, we were assured that no irrevocable decisions have been taken and that it would agree to a period of several months to allow public representation to be made and to seek the local authority's views.

I shall respond to Forest Enterprise's points. I do not accept that the planning system is an appropriate forum for public consultation or that Forest Enterprise could remain neutral during the process, because it facilitated the sale and stands to make a considerable capital receipt from the scheme's success.

The planning authority could well refuse planning permission and the applicant could appeal to the National Assembly's planning appeals system. The developers have a right of appeal if the application is refused, but the citizens and local community do not have a right of appeal if it is granted. Although I am satisfied that Monmouthshire county council would not support such a planning application, I cannot prejudge such a decision.

I am grateful that the assistant director of planning, Mr. Ashworth, has stated that a large-scale tourist development within the AONB would not be in accord with the unitary development plan policies, so a planning application for such a development would probably be refused.

To their credit, the Government have changed the policy from that of the previous Conservative Government and put a stop to the sale of large-scale forest land. In reply to a parliamentary question this week, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary states: We have stopped large scale sales of forest land by the Forestry Commission. Our policy is that the Commission may only sell agricultural land, land associated with houses and other buildings, unplantable land and relatively small and isolated blocks of forest land which do not make a significant contribution to its objectives and which are surplus to its requirements."—[Official Report, 7 December 1999; Vol. 340, C.527W.] None of those conditions applied to Chepstow Park wood. However, there is a get-out clause: the commission may also sell areas for development where that is in the public interest.

Forest Enterprise states that it must consider a developer's inquiry where it deems it to be in "the public interest", but how can the public interest be assessed if there is no consultation with local authorities, those in the AONB or the Welsh Assembly? Public interest cannot be synonymous with the Exchequer's or developer's interest.

I accept that forestry locations can be developed as potential holiday operations, and such operations may be welcomed in many areas, especially in Wales, but surely the starting point should be a strategy for the environment, economic development and tourism, which would involve collaboration on all fronts with the National Assembly. Only then should consideration be given to interest from potential developers.

I have written to the First Secretary of the National Assembly about the matter. I understand that there were no discussions with Forest Enterprise prior to the advertisement for the sale of the freehold of Chepstow Park wood. I have asked for clarification of whether the policy adopted for Chepstow Park wood would be applied equally to other Forestry Commission land in Wales.

Chepstow Park wood lies in the Wye valley area of outstanding natural beauty, to which Parliament has given a special designation. It is stated: The primary purpose of ANOB designation is to conserve natural beauty and account should be taken of the need to safeguard agriculture, forestry and of the economic and social needs of local communities. The Government's intention is to strengthen the position of designated AONBs, and that will be greatly welcomed in my constituency.

According to the woodland trust, Chepstow Park wood is an ancient woodland site and appears as such in the ancient woodland inventory. Only 31,000 hectares of ancient woodland remain in Wales, and at 331 hectares, Chepstow Park wood is one of only three planted ancient woodland sites in Wales that exceeds 300 hectares.

According to Gwent wildlife trust, this forest is one of the significantly wooded areas in Gwent and is of value as a relatively undisturbed habitat for wildlife and as an undeveloped area of open space, which is of significant landscape value. Chepstow Park wood is an ancient woodland site which lies within the Wye valley area of outstanding natural beauty and is therefore of significant historic and amenity value. One constituent, Mrs. Attley from Devauden, wrote to me: The woods themselves are a constant reminder of how long it takes for something truly beautiful and natural to be created and how easy and quick it is to destroy it for ever. We have brought up our children in this area and have ridden our horses and walked with our dogs in these … woods for many years and we have great respect for this spectacular place in which we are lucky enough to live. I implore my hon. Friend the Minister, in collaboration with the Welsh Assembly Secretaries, to intervene to instruct Forest Enterprise that its decision to sell Chepstow Park wood is contrary to Government policy, contrary to the moratorium on the sale of large-scale forest, and contrary to the Government's commitments to promote biodiversity and sustainability and to provide greater public access to the countryside. I assure the House that I shall give my constituents the fullest support in opposing any attempt to take Chepstow Park wood out of the public domain.

7.13 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), particularly on the case that he has made so powerfully for the wood in his constituency. As someone who has been to his constituency, I can confirm what a beautiful area it is. I quite understand why he is so anxious to ensure that it is not spoilt and why he is so keen to work with his constituents to raise the issue. I assure him that the issue of Chepstow Park wood is now well known at the very highest levels of the Forestry Commission. He has certainly had great success in raising the issue and making his concerns clear.

I am very happy to communicate those concerns to both the Forestry Commission and Christine Gwyther—as my hon. Friend rightly said, forestry management has been devolved. Decisions on Chepstow Park wood are therefore ones for the forestry management strategies of the Welsh Assembly.

I recognise the case that my hon. Friend makes, and I shall be pleased to go through the Government's policy on the disposal of Forestry Commission woods. I shall try to address my hon. Friend's concerns and take them into account.

As my hon. Friend rightly says, the Government stopped the large-scale disposal of Forestry Commission land. That was a manifesto commitment, and I am pleased that the Treasury made financial assistance available to the Forestry Commission, because the previous Government had worked on the assumption that the commission would raise a great deal of its income from forthcoming sales. That hole in the commission's budget therefore had to be plugged.

The Forestry Commission was, in effect, undergoing a process of back-door privatisation, which I do not believe the private or the public sector wanted. Accordingly, we have given the Forestry Commission a new policy on the sale of land, and I shall take my hon. Friend through it.

The Forestry Commission's objectives are to protect and expand Britain's forests and woodlands, and to increase their value to society and the environment—not just their financial value, but their value for people, wildlife and the future, as my hon. Friend noted.

The previous Government's policy was to reduce the size of the commission's estate. During the time of the Conservative Government, the commission sold 36,000 hectares of forest in England, about 15 per cent. of its total forest estate. We do not have such a policy and we have stopped those large-scale sales.

The Forestry Commission manages a large and valuable estate, some parts of which are ancient and special, such as the New Forest. Other parts of the estate may be of less direct value to the Government, the community and the commission. For example, some parts are farmland let to tenant farmers, and some are isolated blocks of commercial forestry that are expensive and difficult to manage.

Like any large landowner, the Forestry Commission needs to be able to buy and sell land in order to manage its estate efficiently and meet its objectives. It may make sense to sell an isolated block of woodland, if the money raised can be used to acquire another area that can be opened up to the public or that has high conservation value.

We have not imposed a complete moratorium on the commission buying and selling land for the purposes of estate management. Some woodland is leasehold and does not have public access. As part of our commitment to increase public access, we have no problem with the commission selling off one block of woodland to which there is no access, and using the money to buy another block of woodland that can be opened to the public.

Parts of the estate, such as the New Forest and the Forest of Dean, will never be sold, so the commission does not have carte blanche to sell what it wants. The commission may sell agricultural land. In the past, the commission has bought large areas of land for afforestation, but parts have been retained in agriculture. Where those are managed on agricultural tenancies, we have no objection to the commission selling them to the sitting tenants.

The Forestry Commission may sell unplantable land. The commission does not need to retain ownership of areas that are unsuitable for planting, perhaps because they are too high up the hill. Those areas are often let to farmers for grazing, and they can be sold. Other areas, such as wet areas, may be of great conservation value, and may be sold to conservation bodies to be managed as nature reserves.

Assets such as houses and buildings that may be surplus to requirements may be sold. There may also be small blocks of isolated land that do not make a contribution to the overall objectives and are surplus to requirements. They, too, can be sold. Thus there is a range of woods that can be put on the market, and the money used as part of the aims outlined in the English forestry strategy.

When small woods are considered for sale, we are keen that local people should have the opportunity, if they wish, to buy those woods. We have encouraged local trusts to take over small areas of woodland that are important to local people. Other organisations have also bought parts of woodland for public enjoyment and recreation. I am keen for people to have that opportunity.

Mr. Edwards

Does my hon. Friend accept that such a purchase to create a trust is almost impossible if there is no local advertisement and if the advertisement is directed only at major developers?

Mr. Morley

I understand my hon. Friend's point. As he said, the Chepstow Park wood proposal must go through planning procedures. It is unlikely to be sold for development unless planning permission is granted.

As a general principle, I am in favour of giving local people and organisations the opportunity to bid for woodland that is to be sold. Although I cannot comment on Welsh policy and the actions of the Welsh Assembly, we may need to consider an overall strategy to ensure that local people are not denied an opportunity to make a bid if they want to do that. I shall be happy to discuss that with the Forestry Commission.

The Forestry Commission has a good record in involvement with community forests—for example, Thames Chase and Red Rose forest in the north-west. Overall, we have set the Forestry Commission a sensible long-term policy on sales and acquisitions. It allows the Forestry Commission the flexibility to manage woods efficiently and to dispose of and acquire woodland and land as part of its policy of maintaining core public woodland, which people throughout the country value so highly.

As my hon. Friend said, he knows the policy—he has tabled questions to me about it—and he knows that it does not apply to Chepstow Park wood. He rightly said that we should consider the question of selling forests in the public interest. Chepstow Park wood falls into that category. There is a demand for high quality country holidays in Britain. Several self-contained holiday villages have been built in attractive rural areas—often sensitively—and have proved to be popular. They encourage many people who do not normally go to the woods to get out there. They enhance the local economy and create many new jobs, which are especially welcome in rural areas.

When considering such schemes, the views of local people must be taken into account. Some developments mean that people who used to enjoy a particular wood can no longer do that, or that their enjoyment is restricted. In some cases, planning conditions specify the creation of an equivalent amount of woodland by the developers. Planners can consider that.

When considering a planning application, local authorities will consult widely and in detail. That means that my hon. Friend and his constituents will be able to make representations as part of the planning procedures, which are designed to allow them to do that. It has been made clear to my hon. Friend that the Forestry Commission has a neutral role. The planning authorities will decide whether Chepstow Park wood is suitable for development.

My hon. Friend made some important points. First and foremost, he represented the views of his constituents effectively. He referred to areas of outstanding natural beauty and how they should fit in with the sort of development that we are considering. He mentioned disposal policies and questioned whether the provision for giving local people a chance to make bids is sufficient. He also raised the planning of such schemes, the most appropriate way for people to make representations and the role of the Forestry Commission and the Welsh Assembly in the democratic process. They are important issues and I believe that he will have the opportunity to make those representations as part of that process.

My hon. Friend raised important issues about disposal policy that are worthy of further consideration and I can certainly give him the assurance that I shall hold discussions with the Forestry Commission and Christine Gwyther, who has ministerial responsibility for them in the Welsh Assembly. His views have been well put—he has made his case succinctly—and I shall ensure that they are passed on to the appropriate bodies and in the appropriate places.

Question put and agreed to.

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