| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12 Oct 2004 : Column 55WH—continued
12 Oct 2004 : Column 56WH
Woodlands (Article 4 Directives)
3.30 pm
Mr. Huw Edwards (Monmouth) (Lab): I was intrigued by the Minister's comment about Welsh people near the end of her speech. I wonder what comments were made against Welsh people during the previous debate.
It is a privilege to raise an issue that affects not only Wales but parts of England: the sale of woodlands and the use of article 4 directives. The matter was drawn to my attention by two constituents, Mr. Bill Butler and Colonel Brian Ruddy, who attended my surgery in Monmouth a few months ago. Their concern was to protect woodlands in their local area—Catbrook in my constituency—but from the diligent research that they have undertaken it is clear that the campaign that they have successfully started has nationwide implications, which is why I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the matter.
In 1999, I secured a debate on a similar subject, concerning the sale of large-scale woodlands in Chepstow Park wood in my constituency. Following that debate, there was a successful resolution of that issue. The main aim of my contribution today is to highlight the environmental impact that the subdivision and sale of woodland can have, particularly in areas of outstanding natural beauty, and the selling practices of companies such as Woodland Investment Ltd.
I would like the subdivision and sale of woodlands to be included in the Government's current consultation on the subdivision and sale of agricultural land, and to ensure that the planning process in England and Wales is responsive to the subdivision and sale of woodlands through the use of article 4 directives and sections 84 and 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which gives special protection to areas of outstanding natural beauty.
I hope that guidance similar to that which has been given to local authorities in England—to the credit of the Minister's Department—will be given by the National Assembly for Wales to local authorities in Wales. One my main aims is to urge the Forestry Commission to consider seriously the disposal of forestry and woodland areas and to ensure that they are not sold to companies such as Woodland Investment Ltd., which are likely to subdivide and to sell them off in small plots.
Mr. Bill Butler and Colonel Brian Ruddy drew my attention to a potential threat to local woodlands in Catbrook, a lovely village in the Wye valley area of outstanding natural beauty. Their concern arose from the siting of signs stating "Woodlands for Sale" in what is known locally as Ninewells wood. These signs are commonly found on roadsides throughout England and Wales. I was intrigued by a similar sign that appeared beside the A40 just north of Monmouth relating to woodland known as Hayes Coppice on the border of my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), with whom I have discussed the matter.
Those "Woodlands for Sale" signs have been erected by Woodland Investment Ltd. It advertises small plots of woodland for sale through the internet. It is believed that potential buyers are urged to own a piece of
12 Oct 2004 : Column 57WH
Britain's beautiful countryside and advised that they can use the wood for a variety of purposes such as holding family reunions or the siting of caravans. In planning terms, those activities would require a change of use from agricultural forestry to recreation. However potential buyers are not informed of that. One of the main purposes of the debate is to highlight the need for a potential change of use, and the directives that local authorities should give in such cases.
The woodlands in Catbrook had been subject to a local dispute. Local residents sought to purchase a 25-acre wood. Unfortunately, they lost out in an auction and the company that bought it subsequently sold it on to Woodland Investment Ltd. The company established a new entrance to the wood and constructed a hard-standing area. The question is whether it needed planning permission to do that. I understand that Monmouthshire county council is deciding whether to take enforcement action. Purple marks on trees were evident and contractors informed local residents that the wood was to be sold off in small plots.I ask the Minister and his advisers to be good enough to look at the website of the company—www.woodlands.co.uk—and to consider whether the advice that it gives requires the Government and the Welsh Assembly to update the planning system, so that it can respond to this new, internet-type sale. We had a public meeting in Catbrook village hall, which was well attended. One of the contributors to that meeting was my predecessor, Mr. Roger Evans, whose expertise in planning law I acknowledge. He had advised us all to ask the local authority, Monmouthshire county council, to apply article 4 directives to save that wood and other woods in my constituency in which similar signs are going up, and which are being advertised for sale on the internet. There are woods in the Cross Ash area and in Hayes Coppice, just north of Monmouth.
On the woodlands.co.uk website, the question is asked,
"What sort of things can I do with my woodland?"
The answer is quite intriguing:
"You can walk, climb, make camp fires, study wildlife or work with wood. You can camp there and have family reunions, christenings and bonfire night parties. With your own wood you can do things that aren't possible in 'public woods'".
I wonder what that is a reference to.
"For many woodland owners there is the satisfaction of owning a small piece of the British countryside and being able to manage it."
I do not think that anybody would question that as an objective. However, it is the non-forestry, non-woodland functions that most concern my constituents.
"Potential buyers are advised that they are not able to build a house on the woodland—but you can build for forestry purposes".
"a steel shipping container as a shed that could be used if you were to engage in forestry work."
"These are very secure and surprisingly cheap (under £1,000 for 1690 sq feet). This has the advantage that they can be installed quickly and moved within the wood . . . should the planners object to the siting, they can be relocated."
My constituents are rather horrified at the idea that local woods could be subdivided into small plots, with shipping containers located willy-nilly throughout them
12 Oct 2004 : Column 58WH
in case people want to engage in woodland work, with the proviso that they had better move on should the planners try to catch up with them. Another question that is asked is,
"Can I park a caravan?"
"The 28 day planning rule means that you can park a caravan in your wood and use it for 28 days in the year. Many people leave a caravan in their woodland for longer but this can only be done if there are no objections from neighbours. A white caravan in a wood does "shout" so it is sensible to paint caravans in dark green or brown."
Again, that idea causes great concern to my constituents. As well as P and O shipping containers, we are to have caravans painted in brown or green dotted around the woodlands of the Wye valley.
A number of issues arise from the marketing and sales practices of Woodland Investment Ltd. Woodland sites are often subdivided and then given new names, so we see advertised on the website woods that have unrecognisable names. They do not appear on the Ordnance Survey map. They are a creation of the marketing of the company.
The price of woodland sold in sub-plots through the internet is often considerably higher than the price that one might pay at auction. Ninewells wood is being advertised for sale at £4,000 per acre, compared with a maximum auction price of about £2,000. There is also a clear effort to minimise the planning limitations and the permitted development rights associated with using small woodland sites for such activities as family reunions, the parking of caravans and steel containers, and the dangerous practice of having bonfire parties.
There have been serious fires in the Wye valley in recent years and the fire service faces major problems in combating forest fires. When we hear of forest fires, we think it inconceivable that the planning system permitted people to buy small woodlands and to have bonfire night parties. It would be an irresponsible policy to condone. Potential purchasers might also have unrealistic expectations of the viability of harvesting the wood from small sub-plots.
My constituents respect the wish of people to own a bit of woodland to engage in small-scale forestry. However, they are seriously concerned about the sale of woodland for non-forestry purposes. That matter has been stressed to me in correspondence from the Woodland Trust, which encourages people to invest in small woodland sites, but does not accept the principle that they should be used for non-forestry work.
There has been a history in England of the subdivision and sale of agricultural land. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) and the hon. Members for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) and for Wealden (Charles Hendry) have raised the matter in the House. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning issued a written statement on 19 April that acknowledged the problems associated with the subdivision and sale of agricultural land, with the erection of caravans and access to roads, and concern about the buyers of small lots being misled into believing that they could do more with the plot than would normally be allowed under the planning system. The same concerns about the subdivision and sale of agricultural land apply to the subdivision and sale of woodland.
12 Oct 2004 : Column 59WH
The consultation that the Government have undertaken should be extended to cover woodlands. In answer to a written parliamentary question, my right hon. Friend stated that no concern had been expressed about the subdivision and sale of woodland. That is why I submitted to him the letters to Monmouthshire county council and to me from constituents expressing concern about the subdivision and sale of woodland.
We believe that we may have been the first to identify the threat to woodlands as a result of that practice. I fully acknowledge those hon. Members who have identified the threat, especially from a company called Gladwish Land Sales, from the subdivision and sale of agricultural land in England.
According to Mr. Brown, one of my constituents who lives by Ninewells wood:
"The local environment is rich with wildlife, flora and fauna, some of which are very rare species. The wood is a breeding site for the nightjar—an internationally endangered species . . . the wood should be harvested and then allowed to return to natural ancient woodlands."
He and his neighbours care deeply about the local wood. They hoped to purchase it in order to protect it, but they lost out.
Mrs. Heidi Broughton, the agent of Woodland Investment Ltd., has been particularly offensive to Mr. Brown and his wife. She said that, if they were to cause any more trouble, the company would bring in the travellers. The company has already established a hard-standing area and a gateway to the woods, which we believe was done without planning permission and is contrary to planning regulations. Such threats are highly irresponsible, and I hope that Woodland Investment Ltd. will apologise to my constituents and withdraw the threat unequivocally.
It is essential to stress that the environment will be threatened if local woods are split up. There is a threat to biodiversity from the siting of caravans and the holding of family reunions and bonfire parties. The planning response in England has been to apply article 4 directives. Those relate to article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, which gives planning authorities the power to override permitted development rights. Wealden district council has applied article 4 directives. Several sites in the Wealden district council area are within an area of outstanding natural beauty. Charnwood district council in Hertfordshire has also applied article 4 directives. My constituents and I have urged Monmouthshire county council to apply article 4 directives to all the potential sites in Monmouthshire in the Wye valley area of outstanding natural beauty.
The advice given by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to local authorities acknowledges the problems, and states that local authorities should act swiftly and pre-emptively. It gives advice on the measures in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to speed up enforcement action following a breach of planning control, and to enable a planning authority to issue a temporary stop notice when a breach of planning control is first identified without having to serve an enforcement notice .
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to talk to his colleagues, the Ministers in the National Assembly for Wales, to ensure that similar guidance is given to local
12 Oct 2004 : Column 60WH
authorities in Wales. Carwyn Jones, the Minister, stated that the position is being monitored in Wales. I hope that one outcome of today's debate is that more pressure will be put on the National Assembly for Wales to recognise the potential threat that those practices pose throughout Wales.
Furthermore, it should be acknowledged that local authorities must be more informed of their duty under sections 84 and 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. I had the privilege of serving on the Committee that dealt with that legislation and participated in the debates. That Act requires positive and effective action to be taken by the Government and local authorities to protect areas of outstanding natural beauty. Section 84 states that local planning authorities have the power to
"take all such action as appears to them expedient for the accomplishment of the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty or so much of it as is included in their area."
Section 85 requires Ministers of the Crown, public bodies, statutory undertakers and any persons holding public office to
"have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty."
In the inventory maintained by the Countryside Council for Wales, Ninewells wood is classified as semi-natural ancient woodland. The purpose of the AONB classification is to protect and to enhance the natural beauty and amenity of the Wye valley, including its physical, ecological and cultural landscape, and to promote the quiet, informal enjoyment of the Wye valley by the general public, but only so far as it is consistent with the first objective. I contend that local authorities, including Monmouthshire county council, need to mindful of the overriding duty to protect AONBs.
The Forestry Commission and I have been in correspondence about the matter. It has recently come to light that the commission is intent on disposing of a number of woodlands that do not deliver a significant public benefit. The sale of woodlands in Wales is expected to raise about £1.8 million. I am concerned that the commission could sell to companies such as Woodland Investment Ltd, which may then subdivide those sites and dispose of them separately. I would not have thought that it was within the raison d'être of the Forestry Commission to allow woodlands to be degraded as the result of inappropriate activities on woodland sites. My hon. Friend the Minister and his ministerial colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Welsh National Assembly should consider the implications.
I urge the Minister to consider the main policy objectives that I identified at the outset. They are to consider the environmental impact of the sale and subdivision of woodland, especially in AONBs; and to include the subdivision and sale of woodlands in the Government's consultation on the subdivision and sale of agricultural land. Although woodlands are fundamentally different, there are similarities, but it would take much longer for woodland to recover should there be any degradation as a result of subdivision and sale. The other objective is to ensure that the planning processes in England and Wales are responsive to
12 Oct 2004 : Column 61WH
subdivision, through the use of article 4 directives and sections 84 and 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act.
Following my Adjournment debate on the proposed sale of Chepstow Park wood in 1999, Forestry Commission policy was changed, and the wood was saved from development as a holiday village complex. I am grateful to those of my constituents who attended the public meeting, who have written to me on the subject and who are in London today. I am especially grateful to Brian Ruddy and Bill Butler for their diligent research in identifying the implications of the subdivision and sale of woodlands. The issue affects not only my constituency, but has implications for the whole country. I will do the best I can, using the facilities that Parliament gives me, to protect the beautiful woodlands of the Wye valley. I hope that, in his response, the Minister will offer some reassurance.
3.49 pm
Paul Clark (Gillingham) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) on securing this debate and on putting so succinctly the issues that have arisen in his constituency. As he rightly said, the future protection of our woodlands is relevant not only to his constituency but to the entire country. He has also drawn attention to the sensitivity of woods and forests. His constituents complained about the possible threats to the amenity of woodland. Those threats include shipping containers used for storage and the penetration of woodland by cars and caravans. I take the point that such actions can damage existing trees and the tree root system, and can be intrusive and unsympathetic to the landscape.
I have read very closely the Ninewells conservation group's report on the area to which my hon. Friend referred. I congratulate the chairman and the secretary of that organisation and others involved on presenting an informative document for consideration by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and for today's debate. We recognise the concerns. We rely on vigilant local communities and amenity groups, as well as on local authority and Government agencies, to defend the safety and continuity of our attractive woodland, wherever it is.
My hon. Friend referred to the statement on agricultural land in April by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, in which he said that farmland was being sub-divided into small plots for sale over the internet and explained why that was bad news for the appearance of the countryside, a matter to which I shall refer later.
My hon. Friend has done a great service in raising the profile of this issue. When my right hon. Friend the Minister made his statement, the significance of splitting sites into plots was particularly relevant to agricultural land. At the moment, agricultural land is of more concern in England than woodland. Although the Secretary of State has considered several requests to approve article 4 directives involving woodland, especially in the south-east and the west midlands, the sub-division of woods does not yet appear to be the large-scale problem that it is for former fields and meadows. Having said that, the issues facing planners are the same, regardless of whether farmland or woodland is being sub-divided—a point that my hon. Friend made.
12 Oct 2004 : Column 62WH
Woodland is a precious rural asset. Its landscape, wildlife and forest products are of benefit to everyone, even where there is no particular public access to a given wooded area. Insensitive and unauthorised activities can lead to an unwelcome change in the appearance of woodland.
Woodland, too, could suffer neglect, especially if plots are bought as a long-term investment in which there is little commercial incentive to maintain the trees properly. The Minister for Housing and Planning spelled that out in his statement when he explained how the appearance of the countryside could change. As with farmland, plot sales of woodland might create fear in those who live nearby that development is inevitable. I certainly picked up on that concern when reading submissions from my hon. Friend's constituents to him and to the county council.
I take this opportunity to outline some of the relevant parts of the law governing the use of forest land and to provide clarification. Hon. Members will be aware that the key concept—the trigger for planning control—is whether something is development. That is the nub of the issue. Some types of activity do not amount to development unless they are so frequent that they have an impact on the local amenity and bring about an unauthorised change of use. The following examples—my hon. Friend referred to some of them—are not usually seen as development: brief events such as a bonfire or an outdoor party, picnics, barbecues, family gatherings, even the parking of a car, do not amount to development. Other activities that are normally deemed to be development and which therefore fall under planning controls include, for example, the erection of buildings, fencing an area and the creation of access roads. However, there is a third category, to which my hon. Friend has alluded. Some development is given a permitted development right—a general planning permission that removes the need to make a planning application.
In the context of woodland, several of those rights could be relevant. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 allows for the stationing of caravans, camping, works necessary for the purposes of forestry, and the staging of events on no more than 28 days—in some cases, 14 days—unless the land is a site of special scientific interest. I note that the area to which my hon. Friend refers adjoins the SSSI site of Cleddon Bog. The fact that, although it is not itself a SSSI, it adjoins one, might be relevant to a planning application, but that is a matter for the local authority.
As for shipping containers, bearing in mind what might happen with regard to planning applications and enforcement action, I do not want to speculate about any particular plot sale advertisement and the suggestions made in it. However, a container could be treated as a building for development control purposes. It is a matter for the local planning authority to assess whether development is going on and whether it is lawful. That might involve taking into account other indicators of what is happening on the site.
There are circumstances when placing a caravan on land may change the principal use of the land. For that reason, use of the land for an occupied caravan generally requires planning permission. However, there are exceptions, one of which, under schedule 2 to the
12 Oct 2004 : Column 63WH
order, covers use of land for one or two nights by a person travelling with a caravan, subject to an annual limit of 28 days on the given land. It is not permitted to spend a full 28-day period, but various periods of one or two nights up to a maximum of 28 days are permitted.
As for gates and fences, those can be permitted development. A planning application is not required for the construction or alteration of a gate, fence, wall, or other means of enclosure, provided that it does not exceed 1 m in height, if it is adjacent to a highway used for vehicular traffic. I just wanted to clarify some of the points raised by my hon. Friend.
Any permitted development right can be withdrawn, if there are strong planning grounds, under article 4 of the order. Such directions may be used if there is a significant, specific and credible threat to an important amenity. My hon. Friend is right that we are consulting about changes to make it easier for article 4 directives to be used. We have been in official discussions with Members of the National Assembly for Wales to ensure that there is understanding about this. In addition, temporary stop notices are a provision of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. We have discussed their implementation with Welsh colleagues.
Time defeats me. There are several other relevant aspects, such as areas of outstanding natural beauty. New provisions on planning statements afford greater cover for ancient woodlands. That approach is relevant and it is worth considering. My hon. Friend has strongly highlighted the environmental impact and the woodland issues. We are seriously considering extending consultation on article 4 to woodland, and I thank my hon. Friend for taking the opportunity in this debate to raise such important issues.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |