Environment: Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

My Lords, like others, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Renton for giving us the opportunity to consider AONBs. He has given us opportunities in the past. I remember well his introducing the 1999 AONB Bill, which was effectively put on the statute book by Part 4 of CROW Act. My noble friend played a large part in getting through those measures, which went a small way to alleviating some of the problems which have already been touched on and which AONBs have to address—at least when one compares them to other designations. I, too, have an interest to declare. I live and farm in an AONB in east Hampshire, much of which, incidentally, is in the Diocese of Portsmouth. So I am delighted to follow the right reverend Prelate, who takes a great interest in the rural part of his diocese. It is inevitable that since 1949 unfavourable comparisons have been made between AONBs and national parks, as they have in today’s debate. If you were to be driven into an unknown part of the countryside and told that the area was designated, you would be hard pressed to know whether you were in a national park or an AONB, or indeed in some other form of designation or some area not designated at all. The truth of the matter is that the English countryside, of which we are so proud, has a sort of seamless continuity. The fact that we have quite different legislation for different forms of designation and different funding arrangements simply accentuates the inconsistency of our approach to managing those parts of our countryside which we value. This was made inevitable by the very nature of that legislation in 1949 and those who framed the legislation very carefully made it clear that the administrative structure for national parks was to be completely different to the administrative structure for AONBs with completely different funding arrangements. Although the planning powers were similar in some respects, the planning administration was very different. The Minister will hear others, I am sure, talk about resources which are clearly different. Having recognised the problems that AONBs have had to address, it is only fair to point out the minor improvements that resulted from the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 in which my noble friend played an important part. There are now statutory management plans. There is government guidance on a number of measures, particularly on how organisations whose activities impact on protected areas should consider their obligations in AONBs. We have heard about Defra’s sustainable development fund which very often gears funding of considerable proportions from elsewhere. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act allowed for the conservation board which had already been rolled out in Sussex as a precursor or trial. Conservation boards have now been rolled out elsewhere, as my noble friend Lord Plumb told us, not least in the Cotswolds. But these inherent problems remain. Most people understand the nature of a national park. You know when you have driven into a national park because it is usually evidenced; the identity of national parks is well understood, appreciated and valued. However, it is not always clear when you have entered an AONB, or even if you live in an AONB in some cases. There is no linkage, or inadequate linkage, with conservation bodies and biodiversity action plans. Local authorities have biodiversity action plans but they operate rather removed from the AONB structure. We have heard how important conservation of the built heritage is in AONBs but again this happens almost as a separate exercise, not inevitably connected to the activities of the AONB, although it will of course get a mention in the management plan. Education and the creation of new jobs and appropriate skills within the protected landscape are quite difficult issues to mesh into the concept of an AONB with this very limited resource and management structure. I have not read every statutory management plan but I would assume that each one talks about contributing positively not just to the rural economy but to the quality of life of those who live there and the quality of the environment in a way that is compatible with the protected landscape. This is the challenge for all who try to ensure that protected areas conserve what we value—and visitors expect things usually to remain as they were on their last visit—without making it a handicap and a hardship to have to try to earn a living there. Planning powers are, without doubt, important. They should help to prevent unsuitable development, although many would complain that they have not always done so. In a sense it is the stick rather than the carrot, but equally important to the stick is the carrot. If there is to be a champion for each AONB, if there are to be organisations like the conservation boards and the management boards about which we have heard today, they need to be able to champion new markets for the products of this protected landscape. They need to champion ways in which education and tourism that is compatible with these protected landscapes can be promoted. They need to champion better conservation practices than those in the generality of the wider countryside. Yet we have heard from my noble friend Lord Plumb just how large these organisations must be, taking in as they do a wide range of local authorities and other interests. I forget just how many people my noble friend said sat on his committee, but it seemed a rather unwieldy organisation. I think the Secretary of State appointed 15 members. The climate change committee, which the Minister successfully steered through this House, has only eight members, with perhaps two or three to come. That suggests a rather more appropriate management structure for championing these areas of outstanding natural beauty without trying to reconcile a large number of bureaucracies, local authorities, NGOs and other interest groups. That is not to say that they should not be represented. I am sure there are other ways of ensuring that they can participate in dialogue and discussion, but ultimately there must be someone who champions areas of outstanding natural beauty and who owns the problem. The problem, as I said before, is to ensure that all who have an interest in these areas of outstanding natural beauty, whether because they live there, work there or visit there, recognise that to be within the area of outstanding natural beauty could give them an advantage denied to others. We are a long way from that concept at the moment. Realistically, many people who try to earn their living in these protected areas feel that they have to jump over more hurdles than others do in order to get planning permission for developments, even if it might be seen to be in the long-term interests of the economy. My own area is heavily wooded. Some 25 per cent of it is wooded, which is much more than the Cotswolds AONB. As noble Lords may know, the south-east of England is the most heavily wooded area. A lot of these woodlands are quite frankly derelict. In the 19th century, they were managed for charcoal burning. A whole range of products came out of these woods. It was very labour intensive but was an important part of the rural economy. That dropped by the way as charcoal was no longer needed, and there was not the money or the income stream to manage these woodlands properly. Now, however, an opportunity is staring us in the face—biomass in the form of woodchips, and the use of combined heat and power. To get this going, however, you need to put together an awful lot of players in the field. You need planners, district heating schemes and the public procurement of schools, hospitals, government offices and the like. If they commit themselves to CHP plants, people will go back into the woods to manage them and produce by-products—we are not talking about timber—on a large scale for use as biomass. That is precisely what parts of our areas of outstanding natural beauty need. They need markets, not subsidies—they do not need more money from Defra. They simply need long-term strategic thinking, with a board that understands the objective precisely, and plans that can be implemented over years, not months. In a modest way, this is precisely the sort of long-term strategic direction that we talked about in our debates on the Climate Change Bill. There should be one for each AONB. It should not be an organisation in which every local authority and interest group has to be represented. It must be an organisation that can actually deliver; that can stand up and say, ““You are now living in an AONB. We are going to make you proud of it. We will give you opportunities which others would love to participate in””. When we have made an AONB something that people can buy into and be proud of and do not see as just another planning obstacle, we will no longer talk of areas of outstanding natural beauty, as we are in this debate today, as the Cinderellas of the protected designation systems.