Campaign to Protect Rural England

 

CPRE welcomes much of this Bill, and looks forward to working with a truly independent body that is responsible for all landscape, access and wildlife aspects. 

 

There are however, some flaws in the proposals, which CPRE believe need to be amended in order to make the organisation properly effective in championing the natural environment.  These points are outlined below.

 

What we support

CPRE welcomes the idea that landscape, access and wildlife should all be looked after by one body. 

 

It is sensible “joined up” thinking because the landscape is inextricably linked to wildlife habitat and access by footpath and bridleway.

 

It is wise to make sure that advice to the Government on all three subjects is coordinated and ensures all three aspects are considered. 

 

It is good that Natural England (NE) will also be responsible for urban and coastal landscapes as well as the countryside, which will help make its advice consistent and comprehensive.

 

We are very pleased that the Government has said that NE will be an organisation which only has responsibility for the environmental part of sustainable development,

 

and not have to concern itself with taking on economic and social responsibilities as well. It will work within an overarching context of supporting sustainable development, but it will not have to further economic and social progress itself.

 

This is very important in ensuring NE itself is focussed and effective in protecting the natural environment.

 

We also welcome the promise the Government has made on several occasions that NE will really be independent. 

 

The Government has recently said that NE will be a “trenchant champion of the natural environment”.  This is vital. 

 

There are always huge pressures on Governments and local authorities to make decisions which will adversely affect the landscape, the ecology of the countryside or the coast and the ways people use the countryside for recreation. 

 

Unless NE is truly independent, it is likely to submit to pressure from the most powerful influences put upon Government.

 

Why we are worried

We are worried about three main things in the Bill which we think will weaken the new organisation:

 

1) Reconciling some kinds of open air recreation with conserving the natural environment will be difficult;

 

2) The countryside, as opposed to the landscape (which can mean a suburb or an urban fringe) will no longer be specifically championed by a statutory body;

 

3) Landscape will only be “conserved” by NE while biodiversity will be “protected”.

 

1. Conflict between open air recreation and the conserving of the natural environment is resolved

 

NE will have great difficulty reconciling some sorts of open air recreation with conserving the natural environment unless the Bill gives clear instructions to the organisation that where there is conflict between these two things, conserving the natural environment will take precedence. 

 

The Bill lists the main things for which NE will have responsibility, and these include: protecting biodiversity; conserving and enhancing the landscape; and encouraging open air access and recreation.

 

It is very likely that some proposals made by the Government, local authorities or private interests for open air recreation will conflict with protecting the landscape, protecting biodiversity and perhaps most of all, with the quiet enjoyment of the countryside or the coast.

 

The sorts of things which could cause a problem include:

 

• holiday villages and holiday cabins
• off road driving and motorbikes;
• golf courses and driving ranges;
• theme Parks;
• war games/paint ball sites;
• power boating;
• coastal marinas;
• some inland water sports; and
• some equestrian installations.

The cumulative effect of such developments and the implications for rural traffic levels, car parking, access roads, light pollution and the disturbance of wildlife may also provide instances of considerable potential damage to the natural environment.

 

Examples of current or recent proposals for open air recreation where conflict with biodiversity and landscape interests are likely to be encountered

 

Area	Development	Explanation
Lake District, Cumbria	Motor boats on Lake Windermere	Tranquillity of the National Park threatened by motor boats – speed restrictions have now been imposed
South Devon, Devon	Motorcycle training centre in AONB	Tranquillity of AONB will be ruined by noise and biodiversity effected due to soil erosion
East Riding of Yorkshire/North Lincolnshire	Proposal to light up the Humber Bridge	Threatens rural environments either side of bridge and wildlife value of river which has a high conservation status
Gloucestershire	Restoration of Cotswold canal	Wildlife value of canal is threatened by its restoration to a working waterway
Basingstoke, Hampshire	Restoration of Greywell tunnel, part of the Basingstoke canal.	Opening the tunnel would disturb Daubenton Natterer and Waterer bats colonies as well as numerous special and marginal water plants
Canterbury, Kent	Horsiculture in AONB	Fields are being divided up, the ground is littered with brightly coloured jumps and shelters are being erected, all of which are detrimental to the landscape
Sevenoaks, Kent	Golf Course	A lot of spoil is being put on the site affecting the natural landscape of the area.
South East	Recreation on heathland	Conflict between those that want to protect the landscape and its rare species, and those that want to roam freely and walk their dogs.    Scramble bikes and other motor sports are also a problem
Great Blakenham, Suffolk	Snoasis ski resort	Development of ski resort in a disused quarry may lead to increased noise, air and light pollution, and is a threat to wildlife in the area

  

It is very unlikely that initiatives from within NE, or where NE is a partner, will provoke such serious conflicts of interest within the statutory purposes.

 

Much more likely will be proposals from other quarters, sponsored by Government, local authorities or by private interests, where NE will either:

 

• be asked or expected to support the initiative officially or at least not hinder its achievement; or

• be in the position of expert adviser or witness in the deliberation or planning of a proposal.

NE will also be closely involved in the regional spatial planning and local planning processes.  The agency’s contribution to these processes would need to be clear and decisive if the Government’s intentions for NE to be a ‘trenchant champion’ of the natural environment are to bear fruit.

 

Where conflicts can be reconciled, this would not influence the vigour with which all the agency’s purposes could be pursued.

 

In fact, the absence of confusion or internal conflict within NE might enhance the pursuit of access and recreational opportunities and encourage best practice and good advice from NE to prevent conflict.

 

So CPRE is calling for a “conflict resolution” clause, which will make it clear that when there is a serious or an irreconcilable conflict between open-air recreation and conserving the natural environment,

 

NE will give greater weight to the conserving of the natural environment.

 

This ‘conflict resolution’ provision should apply to all the work of NE across England and not merely to nationally protected landscapes, such as National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

 

This is because the new agency will be the sole statutory body in England charged with defending and enhancing the natural environment (and specifically its wildlife and landscape character) from proposals and activities which might be damaging, either individually or cumulatively.

 

It is important to point out that giving Natural England this statutory direction will not mean that actual outcomes will always be in favour of the natural environment. 

 

On occasion, perhaps on a significant number of occasions, NE’s recommendation to a planning committee, for example, might be ignored or overruled. 

 

But there will at least be a clear analysis and public communication of the effect of recreational or other initiatives on the natural environment, and its enjoyment in ways which do not threaten it, by the body with statutory duties as champion of the natural environment.

 

2. The statutory role of protecting of the countryside is retained

 

At the moment, the Countryside Agency has a statutory duty, written into its official purposes, to preserve the countryside, and not just National Parks and AONBs. 

 

Although we would prefer the duty to be described as “protecting” the countryside rather than “preserving” which nobody wants, at the moment the Bill does away with that duty altogether. It talks about the landscape being conserved and enhanced, but that is far from being the same thing. 

 

We need NE to have an explicit duty to protect the rural part of the landscape, the countryside, which has special qualities of its own which are valuable to everyone. 

 

We call on the Government to add this duty to those already listed in the Bill

 

3. The landscape as well as biodiversity is protected

 

At the moment, the Bill gives responsibility to “protect” biodiversity, but only to “conserve” the landscape.  There are two problems with this:

• The word “conserve” has a less active meaning than “protect”.  The latter word has the sense of going out and defending something rather than just keeping things as they are.  We’ve taken legal advice on this and our legal adviser says this is likely to be the case:

• If biodiversity is “protected” but landscape only “conserved” in the final Act of Parliament, anyone wanting to understand the legislation will see it as the deliberate intention of the Act to make this distinction.  The landscape is likely to be seen as less in need of “protection” than biodiversity.  

We are calling on the Government to amend the Bill to make it clear that the landscape should be 'protected' and not merely conserved.

 

For more information please contact:

Sam Redding or Tom Oliver

Telephone number:020 7981 2800

Email: SamR@cpre.org.uk or TomO@cpre.org.uk