Forestry (Hansard, 24 March 1986)

§ Mr. Rifkind

[pursuant to his reply, 21 March 1986, c. 315–16]: The statement on forestry policy made on 10 December 1980 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, at column 1405, said that the Government saw scope for continued planting at broadly the rate of the previous 352W 25 years (about 30,000 hectares per year) and that planting of this order would be compatible with preserving an acceptable balance with agriculture, the environment and other interests. Since 1980, new planting, at about 23,000 hectares a year, has fallen significantly short of this figure. Scotland has been the focus of interest for new planting. I have, accordingly, considered what measures might be taken to facilitate an increased rate of planting that is consistent with maintaining a balance with those other interests.

Policy has long been to encourage forestry planting on the poorer land and to preserve arable land and the better hill land for agriculture. The Government remain committed to a prosperous agricultural industry and in particular to the maintenance of a thriving hill sheep sector, but I believe there is scope for forestry planting in blocks of appropriate size, type and location on land which hitherto would have been reserved for agricultural use. Applications under the Forestry Commission's grant schemes will continue to be considered on their merits through the usual procedures for consultation between the commission and others. In advising the commission on agricultural implications my Department will continue to pay regard to factors such as the quality of land, the viability of the unit and the extent to which forestry proposals integrate with and benefit agriculture. It will also continue to take into account the importance of the land in the agricultural structure of the area. But within this overall framework it will in future acknowledge a presumption in favour in the following cases:

In the case of hill land

(a) where the application is in respect of land not essential to the viability of a unit consisting of unimproved or unsuccessfully improved peats or peaty gleys which although of agricultural potential are not being agriculturally exploited; or
(b) where the application is in respect of land which, although of good quality, is not capable (by virtue of its size, slope or location) of making a significant agricultural contribution; or
(c) where the application, although in respect of land which would not otherwise meet the criteria for clearance, forms part of a plan accepted by the Department which takes account of agriculture and forestry and specifies the continuation of the unit in agricultural use for at least 10 years.

In the case of upland and arable land other than prime land (class 4 or poorer in the land capability classification for agriculture)

(a) where the land forms part of a farm-forestry proposal promoted by the farmer and remains part of his business; or
(b) where the land requires capital and/or maintenance inputs which are high in relation to the agricultural production achievable.

The Department will maintain a presumption against clearance for afforestation of prime land (LCA classes 1 to 3) except in the case of proposals for small stands for eg. shelter, amenity or sporting purposes.

In appropriate cases other than on prime land clearance will be given to the restoration of opencast coal and mineral sites for forestry as an alternative to agriculture.

The general threshold on hill land below which clearance is not required will be increased from 20 to 40 hectares. Other thresholds on hill and upland farms will remain five hectares for arable and former arable land, for reseeded land and for land consisting 353W predominantly of better soils and 20 hectacres for land not in these categories. The requirement for clearance will also continue on areas below these thresholds where agricultural grant has been given within the previous two years or where the application forms part of a series of adjacent or connected areas.

These changes will provide the basis for a more flexible approach to new planting proposals while safeguarding essential agricultural interests. It will, however, be no less important to ensure that environmental and other interests are equally safeguarded. There is a general duty on Departments to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside and the Forestry Commission has a particular duty to endeavour to achieve a reasonable balance between the needs of forestry and the environment. It is already the practice for the Forestry Commission to consult, as appropriate, local planning authorities, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission for Scotland and the Red Deer Commission. Where an objection arising from these consultations cannot be resolved, the matter is put before the Forestry Commission's regional advisory committee, which considers the conflicting arguments and seeks to reconcile them.

This system has worked well but it is now right to consider whether the composition and procedures of these committees could be adjusted to achieve a better balance between forestry and other countryside interests and to improve public accountability. To this end, and in response to the undertaking given in the Government's reply to the Countryside Commission's report "A Better Future for the Uplands", the Forestry Commission is today issuing a consultation paper which seeks comments on a number of proposed changes.