Examination of witnesses (Questions 398
- 419)
WEDNESDAY 15 DECEMBER 1999
KIRSTY MCHUGH,
MR MARK
SHARMAN and MR
MILES MIDDLETON
Chairman
398. Can I welcome you to the final session
this morning on our Inquiry into the Rural White Paper. Can I
ask you to introduce yourselves, for the Committee's benefit?
(Mr Sharman) Thank you, Chairman. Good morning. My
name is Mark Sharman. I am the Principal Policy Adviser at British
Chambers of Commerce; and I will let my colleagues introduce themselves
in a second. On my left is Kirsty McHugh, from British Chambers
of Commerce; and on my right is Miles Middleton, who is a past
President of British Chambers of Commerce and a member of our
Regional Affairs Forum.
(Ms McHugh) Kirsty McHugh. I am the Policy Adviser
with responsibility for environment, transport and anything to
do with regional affairs, including rural and urban policy.
(Mr Middleton) I am Miles Middleton. In addition to
being associated with Chambers of Commerce, I am also the past
Chairman of the Rural Development Commission, currently a board
member of One North East, and also a board member of the Countryside
Agency.
399. Thank you very much. Do you want to say
anything, or are you happy for us to start questioning you on
your memorandum?
(Mr Sharman) We are happy for you to start questioning
straightaway, Mr Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you very much.
Miss McIntosh
400. Are there any particular types of industry
you would like to see developed in rural areas? If I say just
a little; my constituency is the Vale of York, it is deeply rural,
there are some market towns, but, as you can imagine, farming
is particularly in crisis at the moment. It would be helpful if
you could give us some guidance?
(Mr Sharman) I think that the view of the BCC is that
we are fairly open, as far as particular issues regarding industries
are concerned. Obviously, there are certain industries which we
feel are more appropriate to rural areas than others, and I am
thinking, for example, that you may wish to avoid some industries,
but not all, and I will ask my colleagues to come in briefly on
this in a moment, which require large amounts of heavy transport.
But I think that the vital thing about developing the rural economy
is that it is a mixed-use economy that allows people to work in
the kinds of industries and the kinds of jobs in which they wish
to work, whilst retaining the ability to live as close as they
wish to to their workplace. Miles, do you want to pick up on a
couple of those points?
(Mr Middleton) May I just add that there are certain
industries, of course, that do make fairly heavy demands upon
rural roads. I am thinking particularly of forestry and quarrying,
and other extractive industries, both of which are important,
and both of which, of course, can bring big economic benefits.
Some of these problems can be mitigated, particularly by delivering
more services up to the point of time, at the point or place within
the forests themselves, for example, more value added services
at that point in time.
(Mr Sharman) Kirsty, do you just want to come in on
the transport issues there?
(Ms McHugh) I have nothing much more really to add,
on the transport issues. I think it is fairly obvious that you
need the infrastructure, both in terms of roads and public transport,
to sustain particular sorts of industries; and also you need the
skills base as well in the rural areas. And it is not just local
authorities sort of saying, "We would like certain sorts
of businesses and companies to locate and be developed" in
their areas, it is also they have to provide the infrastructure
for that to be able to flourish. One thing which I think is pertinent
for rural areas, also urban areas, is that, quite often, there
is just one big employer in an area, and if that employer decides
to relocate or goes bankrupt that can have an absolutely devastating
effect on the local economy. So it is the mixed economies we are
particularly interested in encouraging.
(Mr Sharman) Linked to Kirsty's point, as well, I
think it is important that local authorities and other people
involved in economic development activities in rural areas look
particularly at issues surrounding the growth of indigenous businesses.
I think that, quite often, local authorities are very good at
small start-up businesses, but actually then, when a business
grows and perhaps looks to planning applications to expand their
business, because they have grown beyond a particular size, there
is an issue for them there, that they may have to move out of
the area.
401. In your memorandum, you write that "structure
plans should recognise and encourage the creation of industry
`clusters' in rural areas." I just wonder how you would see
that developing and what sort of clusters you had in mind? And
I wonder if you could just comment, as Chambers of Commerce, nationally,
would you give safeguards that there should be no development
of green belt sites?
(Ms McHugh) In terms of industry clusters, we actually
quite like what the Government has been encouraging with the regional
economic strategies, and particular clusters may be to do with
e-commerce around universities, or the biotechnology clusters
that have been mentioned by the Chancellor in the pre-Budget Statement,
so it is all very supportive of that. And the supply chain initiatives
as well, the small companies working with the bigger ones, we
need to see a lot more of that on the ground. And I think that
sort of infrastructure and that support for smaller businesses
has to be good for urban or rural areas, in actual fact.
Chairman
402. So, the clusters, you would actually want
to create some more towns in the countryside, would you not?
(Ms McHugh) Not necessarily towns, no, but groups
of businesses or related businesses.
Mr Gray
403. Can I come in just briefly on this one.
Surely, the sort of argument you are advancing can always be used
to justify any development of any kind in the countryside, all
you would say is, "We need this for economic development,
and let's have it"?
(Ms McHugh) Not any development; obviously, you have
to look at the environment and social and economic conditions
in that particular area. We have a good planning system in this
country at this present moment in time which does look at those
particular areas. Now we have some concerns about some aspects
of it, which are touched upon in our evidence; but, of course,
no, I disagree, it is not the case of anything is suitable, anywhere,
at any point.
404. But the DTI recent report on Competitiveness
suggests that, the planning system, the cost of the kind you describe
should be outside the planning system, and that, despite the structure
plan not allowing industrial development in a particular rural
area, maybe there will be reasons for allowing it for competitiveness
reasons?
(Ms McHugh) I think that would have to be taken on
a case-by-case point, and looking at the local and regional economies.
405. What do you think about my constituency,
with zero unemployment, currently proposing a huge industrial
business plant, smack bang in the middle of the countryside; do
you think that is a good idea or a bad idea?
(Ms McHugh) I would have to look at the details of
what is going on in your area.
Chairman: Anne McIntosh, you did not get your
answer to the green belt question.
Miss McIntosh
406. Could I ask again, do the Chamber have
a view on protecting green belt land?
(Mr Sharman) The Chamber has not taken a specific
view of protecting green belt land. And I should add, as a slight
point of interest, I originally come from the Thames Valley Chamber,
before I worked for BCC, so green belt issues are an issue fairly
close to me because of the pressures in that particular region.
The view of the Chambers generally has been that green belt is
an important issue; however, we have long supported the idea of
a review of green belt land, because we do not believe that, necessarily,
current green belt designations are appropriate for the nineties,
many of them having been drawn up before the second world war.
(Mr Middleton) Could I just add to that. I also think
that you cannot really have, or should not have, a blanket approach
towards green belt and say all development on green belt bad,
and brownfield good. The aim should be to try to get an overall
gain within the planning system; in other words, some brownfield
sites can be converted to, in a town, or in a market town, good
greenfield sites, it is not just all one way or the other, and,
therefore, a blanket policy which says no is likely to be flawed.
Dr Ladyman
407. I take it you would agree with the position
that a ramshackle barn with a corrugated iron roof, with a cow
in it and knee-deep in muck, is not intrinsically more desirable
than a modernised, equivalent-size building with some form of
industry in it. If you do agree with that position, could you
expand a little more on what sorts of industries you would see
going into converted farm buildings, how you would see farms diversifying,
and perhaps you would also use this as an opportunity to tell
us a little bit about the Bowland Initiative and what you think
of that?
(Mr Sharman) I think the BCC has not taken a definitive
view on the issues surrounding the re-use of farm buildings specifically;
again, I think that is a decision that has to be taken on a case-by-case
basis. The areas in which you present the picture you present
can be very different from one part of the country to another;
but, generally, in terms of the kinds of industries we might want
to see going into a converted farm building, if that were to occur,
there is a whole range of things. If you are talking about a farm
diversification programme such as the Bowland Initiative, I will
ask Kirsty to comment on that in a little more detail in a moment,
but, generally, the issues surrounding high technology industries,
telecommuting and teleworking, are things that the BCC has been
interested in for some time and is actively trying to encourage.
There are obvious benefits to that, in terms of the need perhaps
to have less transport and things, for people to move around less,
but there are some interesting potential social disbenefits, revolving
around the issues of people not interacting socially in the workplace,
and that is an interesting question. The idea of a farm building
that perhaps brings together a group of teleworkers, who live
in the local area and travel a short distance to work there, has
the potential to overcome those social disadvantages, of not being
able to interact with people, even if they do not work for the
same organisation, because it gives that ability to communicate
with others. Kirsty, do you want to comment on Bowland?
(Ms McHugh) Yes. The Bowland Initiative is basically
a farm diversification programme, which is running up in Lancaster;
apparently, there is one other going on in the country, which
is down in Bodmin. And it is an attempt to get a holistic approach
to farm diversification. It is funded by EU money, Objective 5b,
plus there is also money from various national schemes, but I
do not have the details of exactly which ones they are. It is
overseen by MAFF, by Lancashire County Council, by the district
councils in the area, and then other agencies, and also local
farm representatives from within the Lancaster district. Basically,
what happens is that individual farms can apply to the Bowland
Initiative with an idea for a particular sort of scheme, examples
have been, sheep-milking enterprises, transforming redundant farm
buildings into work-space units and renting them out, craft shops,
cafes, joinery workshops, things along those lines. And then each
project team comes in, bringing together the relevant experts
from the council, Business Link, they do a business plan for them;
and they always have to look at the social and environmental implications
and whether this is good for the area. So it is trying to bring
together all the relevant people to put a project team together,
to help this little project get off the ground. It has only been
going for a year, but they love it up there, it is very popular,
very successful, and we would like to see more things like that,
more partnership, working along those lines.
408. Assuming that we went down those lines,
and, coming back to Mr Sharman's answer, if we were to introduce
high technology industries into what is currently agricultural
buildings, there has been some suggestion, and Professor Adams,
in an OECD report, has suggested, that actually that might increase
the amount of travelling people have to do, because home-working
creates a sense of isolation and people have to travel further
for services. Do you have a view on that?
(Mr Sharman) Yes. We have looked at Professor Adams'
OECD report. I will just come back again; when I say high technology
industries, of course, not all the industries need to be high
technology, as long as the communications facilities are, it can
apply to many industries. We have looked at Professor Adams' report,
I think it is a very interesting report, although our opinion
is that it is possibly slightly alarmist in some areas. I think
that an interesting alternative to home-working, and I have home-worked
myself, for some time, and I agree that there can be a sense of
isolation sometimes in doing it, is to provide telecottaging workplaces,
where several people come together. That would reduce the length
of journey that people have to make, if they live close to the
telecottaging area, they are not travelling long distances into
urban areas, and it also helps overcome the feeling of isolation,
and may even develop feelings of community spirit, in addition
to those that are seen already.
409. All of this has implications for transport,
and Mr Middleton mentioned transport-generated problems, but,
surely, any industry which does not use heavy transport, or does
not use the roads any more than farming does, which also has implications
for road use, would be no worse or no better than the situation
we have today?
(Mr Middleton) I am not quite sure of the point you
are trying to make. I am sorry to be obtuse here.
410. What I am trying to get at is that if one
located a manufacturing industry, for example, in farm buildings,
if all they were doing was transporting goods at the same rate
that farmers have to transport goods, it would not have any more
of an impact on the roads than the current situation?
(Mr Middleton) No, it would not; but it might have
a lesser effect, in the sense, for example, it might employ, say,
ten people, there are very few farms these days that employ ten
people, unless they are very large farms, if it employed ten people
who worked locally and did not have to travel further out then
you are reducing that commitment to travel and the use of the
roads, albeit the end product, and indeed some of the raw materials,
may have to go in and out.
Mrs Ellman
411. In your evidence, you seem to be very critical
of local authorities for looking at environment rather than economy,
yet you have just given us the example of the Bowland Initiative
and the work of Lancashire County Council and Lancaster District
Council; are they exceptions?
(Mr Sharman) Kirsty, do you want to come in on that?
You have looked at RDA strategies, and things, so you have probably
got the best information on that.
(Ms McHugh) Yes, indeed. We are not critical of local
authorities across the board at all. A lot of Chambers of Commerce
have incredibly good working relationships with local authorities,
they are partners on lots of regeneration schemes, Coventry is
a great example; so that is not the case at all. In terms of protecting
the environment, I think the point we were trying to get across
is this question of sustainable development, which I know was
picked up in the evidence of English Nature earlier on today,
and getting that balance right between environmental protection
and getting good, local economies up and running. There always
has to be a balance made, we all know that. And it is that sort
of mixed-use development that we are particularly interested in
encouraging, so you do get people living closer to their workplaces,
plus leisure facilities, which all cuts down on the need to travel
that Dr Ladyman has just mentioned.
412. Could I just clarify something. In your
written evidence, paragraph 4.3, there you do appear to be critical
of local authorities in general, or has that been misinterpreted?
In paragraph 4.3, you say: "Many authorities appear to interpret
the term as purely referring to environmental protection."
And you go on to say it should also encourage mixed-use development.
So is that a wrong interpretation, to think that is criticising
local authorities in general?
(Ms McHugh) It is actually what a lot of Chambers
said to us about particular concerns about planning regulations
in their area, and the fact that their growing indigenous businesses
have had to move out of those areas, not enough employment land
has been allocated, or it is in the wrong places, and it has been
the environmental factor that has come up again and again from
the local authorities as being the reason why this has not been
allowed to come along.
413. So that is some local authorities?
(Ms McHugh) Oh, no. I am not saying across the board,
no.
(Mr Sharman) I think the short answer to your question
is, in the specific area of sustainability; for some local authorities,
the answer is, yes, we are critical of local authorities, some
local authorities are seen to move too closely, as we say in our
evidence, as referring to environmental protection. But I would
agree with Kirsty, we would not want to see that as an across-the-board
thing, there are high and low points, and our feedback from individual
Chambers of Commerce illustrates that quite clearly.
(Mr Middleton) If I could just add on that point,
British Chambers are not alone in having this view, and I would
refer you, in fact, to the PIU report, which I have only just
got, I have not read it in detail, but at that point it says,
referring to planning: "Too often the planning seems a battle
between commercial development and the preservation of the countryside."
That is a perception which is actually highlighted in this report
as well. So it is not just us, it is a widely-held perception.
414. But it is not about all local authorities;
you seem to be contradicting yourselves?
(Mr Sharman) No.
415. Could I refer you to another section of
your written evidence, at 6.11, where you talk about "The
preservation of the countryside through stewardship programmes,
to sustain the economy and environment..." and say that "should
be a priority for resources." Could you say a little more
about what you would like to happen there? You are saying it should
be a priority for resources; what sorts of things?
(Mr Middleton) Clearly, there is going to be a massive
change in how the countryside as we know it is going to be managed,
and that is self-evident, and it is going to happen in varying
degrees, and we are not here to defend agriculture, but as agriculture
changes over the years that is going to happen. One way of then
mitigating the possibly very serious effects that this could have
is by encouraging management schemes, the Countryside Stewardship
schemes; this way, the countryside will remain to be managed.
And, if there is to be support, we could argue there is going
to be support for countryside management rather than for headage
support or for outright production support. This is the way forward,
one way forward, of managing the countryside, to try to preserve
what there is, to a degree.
416. And do you think there is any major conflict
between preservation of countryside and economic development,
do you see that as a major issue?
(Mr Middleton) Everything is a matter of degree, but
in the sense that the countryside has to develop, and it has developed,
it is totally man-made, is our countryside, there is no real wilderness
left within England, there is some in Scotland and a little bit
in Wales.
Mr Gray
417. Salisbury Plain?
(Mr Middleton) That has only been made a wilderness
by the Army, I would suggest. But, in the sense of wilderness
as one might understand it, they are certainly man-made. Therefore,
we must remember that development and the preservation of countryside
actually go hand in hand. I do not think we would see any particular
conflict in this at all.
(Ms McHugh) I think, as a general point, we need to
move away from the whole debate of economic development or preservation.
The countryside has got to be a working countryside, it is where
people live, it is where they work, it is not just where people
visit, and, obviously, what this whole exercise is about is getting
all those potentially conflicting points of view together and
trying to get some sort of good balance which suits as many people
as possible.
Chairman: Teresa, very quickly, on this point.
Mrs Gorman
418. You say very quickly on this point, Mr
Chairman, but, I want to ask, is it not true that most small businesses
in this country start either in your backyard or in your spare
barn, or perhaps in a redundant countryside building; for example,
the Loseley yoghurt industry and the Laura Ashley textile industry
all began that way? Would you agree with that, and that the countryside
has a lot of unused barns, whether they have got tin roofs or
not, first of all?
(Mr Sharman) I do not have objective evidence to back
that up, but I will certainly go away and see if I can find some,
to help the Committee on that particular point. I have to say,
the empirical evidence that I have, and talking to businesses
over time, is that certainly a sizeable number of businesses start
in back rooms, backyards, or spare barns or outbuildings or garages,
yes.
Christine Butler
419. What do you think could be done to enable
small cottage industries, or smaller firms, to relocate when they
know that they could expand and intensify and it would be advisable
for them maybe to have a different site; what enabling legislation,
or planning requirements, or help, could we give to both industry
and local authorities in those circumstances?
(Mr Sharman) Where a small industry needs to move
out of the area?
|
