Countryside Planning (Hansard, 21 March 2001)

§ Mr. Raynsford

A competitive and sustainable agricultural industry is vital to the economic, social and environmental well-being of rural areas. The Prime Minister's Action "Plan for Farming" and the White Paper "Our Countryside: the Future" emphasised the Government's desire both for agriculture to be prosperous, forward-looking and sustainable, and to encourage diversification and enterprise. Reform of the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is changing the direction of agriculture and the England Rural Development Programme provides a major switch of CAP funds to support the new approach.

Planning policies for the countryside are set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 7, "The Countryside: Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development" (PPG7). That guidance is now four-years-old and needs to be clarified in respect of the Government's policy on farm diversification. I am therefore amending the text of the guidance to reflect the importance that the Government attach to effective planning for sustainable farm diversification projects and the re-use of redundant farm buildings.

The first point in paragraph 2.8 of PPG7 is amended as follows: encourage rural enterprise, including the diversification of farm businesses;

254W

Paragraph 3.4 no longer adequately reflects the significant changes now shaping the agricultural industry. I am therefore deleting the current text and replacing it with the following: 3.4A—The Government's long term strategy for farming was set out in "A New Direction for Agriculture" published in December 1999 and was taken a step further with the launch of the "Action Plan for Farming" in March 2000. The England Rural Development Programme (ERDP) was launched in October 2000. Together, these are providing opportunities to help the industry become more competitive and diverse and to promote environmental aims. Farming continues to make a significant contribution to the economy of rural areas but increasingly diversification into non-agricultural activities is vital to the continuing viability of many farm businesses. Local planning authorities should set out in their development plans the criteria to be applied to planning applications for farm diversification projects. Local planning authorities should be supportive of well-conceived farm diversification schemes for business purposes that are consistent in their scale with their rural location. 3.4B—The ERDP will, through the Rural Enterprise Scheme (RES) and the Processing and Marketing Grant (PMG), provide support for selected diversification proposals, subject to competition. Success in securing RES and PMG funding may depend upon obtaining prior planning permission for diversification proposals, but the potential availability of any grant funding is not a material consideration when determining a relevant planning application. Further guidance on development related to agriculture (other than that covered by permitted development rights) and to farm diversification is given in Annex C, which includes a non-exclusive list of examples of potential farm diversification. It is usually preferable for farm diversification schemes to re-use good quality existing buildings and put them to a new business use, rather than build new buildings in the countryside. New buildings, either to replace existing buildings or to accommodate expansion of enterprises, may also be acceptable provided that they satisfy sustainable development objectives and are of a design and scale appropriate to their rural surroundings.

Planning guidance relating to the protection of England's best quality agricultural land is also contained in PPG7. The Rural White Paper signalled the Government's intention that decisions about the development or protection of best and most versatile agricultural land (BMV land) should rest with local authorities. Additionally, the Draft Soil Strategy for England, which we published for consultation on 6 March, sets out our wider proposals for protecting and managing our soil resources.

Paragraphs 2.17 and 2.18 of PPG7 are therefore withdrawn and the following paragraphs should be substituted: 2.17—Development of greenfield land, including the best and most versatile agricultural land (defined as land in grades 1, 2, and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification), should not be permitted unless opportunities have been assessed for accommodating development on previously-developed sites and on land within the boundaries of existing urban areas (see PPG3 in respect of housing development). Where development of agricultural land is unavoidable, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality, except where other sustainability considerations suggest otherwise. These might include, for example, its importance for biodiversity, the quality and character of the landscape, its amenity value or heritage interest, accessibility to infrastructure, workforce and markets, and the protection of natural resources, including soil quality. Some of these qualities 255W may be recognised by a statutory wildlife, landscape, historic or archaeological designation, such as a National Park or Site of Special Scientific Interest. 2.18—Local authorities planning to allow the development of greenfield land, where soil or agricultural quality is a consideration, should seek advice from MAFF and from other relevant bodies such as English Nature, the Countryside Agency, the Environment Agency or English Heritage as appropriate. They may also be required to consult one or more of these agencies of any intention to allow development under the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, and in respect of development plan proposals as described in Annex C to PPG12. The decision whether to utilise BMV land for development is for each local planning authority, having carefully weighed the options in the light of competent advice.

MAFF will continue to provide technical advice to local planning authorities on agricultural land quality issues and other matters relating to agricultural development as described in Annex B to PPG7. My Department expects to issue good practice guidance on methodologies for integrating competing sustainability considerations later this year. In due course the Government expect to repeal the statutory right available to the Minister of Agriculture under section 18(3) and 44(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to require the Secretary of State to intervene in development plans to which MAFF have unresolved objections.

My Department will be writing to every planning authority in England to inform them of the clarification of PPG7 set out in this statement and a version of PPG7 which consolidates these and other changes already announced will be posted on the Department's website at: www.planning.detr.gov.uk. Other planning policy guidance notes and mineral policy guidance notes that refer to PPG7 should be read in conjunction with this statement.