Written evidence from the Country Land
& Business Association
INTRODUCTION
The Country Land & Business Association
(CLA) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Committee's inquiry
into the New Local Enterprise Partnerships.
Our interest in the inquiry is, of course, as
the membership body which represents the interests of rural businesses.
We appreciate that, in general, issues concerning
the rural economy come within the remit of Defra and the Environment
Food and Rural Affairs Committee. However we worked closely with
RDAs because of the impact their activities had on the rural economy
and assume we will need to do much the same with LEPs.
The CLA has some 36,000 members in England and
Wales. Our members both live and work within rural areas and they
operate a wide range of businesses including:
(i) land based businesses eg agricultural, horticultural,
forestry/woodland, game shooting;
(ii) other businesses which can only be found
in rural areas eg rural tourism, equestrian, fell walking, minerals,
renewable energy, composting etc; and
(iii) businesses which can be sited anywhere
but choose to be sited in rural areas eg professional services,
car repairs, home working, food processing, manufacturing, etc.
At the last count the CLA represents some 260 different types
of rural businesses. The quality of the countryside is of vital
importance to our members and frequently brings them into contact
with the planning system.
As such, we believe that we have a particular
interest in and standing on any policy which has an impact on
the rural economy, including the subject of the present inquiry.
Our understanding of the aims and purposes of
LEPs is based on the contents of the letter from HM Government
dated 29 June and signed by Vince Cable and Eric Pickles. ("the
Government letter")
THE RURAL
ECONOMY
It may be useful to summarise the nature of
the rural economy, and to explain the ways in which it is different
to the economy as a whole.
The recently published State of the Countryside
2010 report provides a helpful profile of the types of business
operating in rural areas.
At the top level, rural areas are defined as
consisting of settlements with fewer than 10,000 people. That
definition can be broken down further on the basis of population
sparsity and settlement type.
The important point to appreciate, though, is
that contrary to common assumptions, economic activity in rural
areas is about far more than just farming. According to the State
of the Countryside report the most common business types, based
on VAT and PAYE registrations, operating in rural areas are:
Property and business services (151,910)
Agriculture (9, 875)
Construction (62, 395)
Public administration and other services (42,330)
Retail (39, 950)
Although, agriculture may not be the predominant
sector, most rural business still revolve around it. Many will
depend on the landscape as an integral part of the business, such
as those concerned with tourism and recreation, builders and property
consultants who will include farmers wishing to expand or diversify
amongst their clients, many professions will exist to advise farmers
and other rural land mangers on their various concerns.
We appreciate that there is no "structure
for localism" and that the whole ethos of LEPs is that businesses
and councils should come together to in functional economic areas,
but that does not fit comfortably with the disparate nature of
rural businesses, which are not grouped together in a geographical
way but spread out over the whole country.
Nevertheless there are issues which apply to
rural businesses far more than they do urban business, not least
the strength of the connection. This is why the rural economy
is different.
LEP FUNCTIONS
Our particular concern is how LEPs will exercise
their functions so as to promote and protect the economic concerns
of the countryside.
Rural businesses are just as interested in the
areas covered by the LEPs intended functions as are their urban
counterparts.
At the top level rural businesses want to participate
in the strategic leadership in their areas and setting out the
local economic priorities.
The issues highlighted in the Government letter,
planning, housing, transport and infrastructure projects, are
all essential considerations for rural businesses. The deep rooted
inadequacies of the current planning system are, in our view,
probably a bigger concern for small scale rural businesses than
for urban businesses. After all, if an urban business wishes to
expand, it can either build an extension or find larger alternative
premises nearby. In rural areas, because of the planning system,
both of these options can often be pretty much ruled out.
As such it is essential that the voice of rural
business is heard within the new LEP structure. LEPs have the
potential to decide things that have a direct impact on the rural
economy.
Government Office Functions
We are also concerned with the fate of the various
functions exercised by the Government Offices. In particular,
the Government Offices were responsible for delivering a number
of DEFRA functions in the regions and in our experience this worked
well.
It is important that this direct link with Defra
is maintained in the new structure. We would be very concerned
by any suggestion that these central government functions should
be allocated to the LEPs. Firstly there is the danger of losing
any strategic co-ordination, and secondly, if LEPs do not cover
the whole country, of certain areas being left out.
National Parks
We appreciate that LEPs will focus on upper
tier authorities; counties and unitaries, but the position of
National Parks also needs consideration.
According to the recent Foresight Report National
Parks cover just over 9% of the land area of England and nearly
20% of Wales.
As such they cover fairly sizeable areas, and
the economic fortunes of those who live and work in National Parks
must not be forgotten.
The primary functions of a National Park are,
of course, to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife
and cultural heritage of the area and to promote opportunities
for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of
National Parks by the Public.
Nevertheless National Park Authorities are still
under a statutory duty to "seek to foster the economic and
social well being of local communities within the National Parks".
In many cases tourism will be the most obvious economic activity,
but there are also likely to be a number of micro businesses operating.
In our experience to date, not all National
Parks have shown them to be particularly keen to grapple with
this economic role, and it is only because of pressure from the
RDAs that they have done so.
Many National Parks will cover, to use the wording
of the Government letter, "areas that are economically more
vulnerable".
We doubt that any National Park will constitute
a "functional economic area" in its own right. As such
it seems unlikely that a National Park will ever become an LEP
in its own right.
But this does not mean that those engaged in
economic activity should be excluded from participating in setting
the strategic leadership in the area and setting out local economic
priorities. Moreover without a degree of appropriate economic
activity within their areas they are likely to become even more
dependant on public funds.
Accordingly they will presumably either be included
within bigger LEPs or be left out of the LEP network altogether.
We would urge that it is the former. National Parks will need
to included within larger LEPs and appreciate the need to take
account of the full range of commercial activities in their areas.
It is therefore essential that the representation
on the LEP is correct.
Minerals and waste
Regional planning underpins allocation of mineral
planning consents for aggregates, which underpin the wider economy
and deliver jobs and incomes in rural areas. The function and
expertise of Regional Aggregate Working Parties should be retained
in the National Interest.
Waste planning benefits from strategic partnerships
between waste collection authorities and statutory waste planning
functions (as evidenced.by the South Shropshire Waste Partnership)
and LECs should take these examples of best practice on board.
BOUNDARIES
We are concerned that LEP boundaries may be
influenced by green belt boundaries. They should not be.
In England an area of 11% of the country is
designated as Green Belt, a planning policy to prevent urban sprawl
and coalescence of towns and villages. But Green Belt is largely
rural and contains rural businesses, both land based and non-land
based. Rural economic development proposals in Green Belt are
being turned down on the grounds that the longer term viability
of these rural businesses is not considered to be a special circumstance
and that the harm to the openness of the green belt outweighs
the retention and future creation of new jobs. LEPs must not stop
at the green belt boundary—they must wash over green belt
and be seen to be promoting rural economic development proposals
in the green belt, just as they would in any other part of the
country.
REPRESENTATION
Whatever form the new LEP network takes, it
is important that the interests of the rural economy are properly
represented.
For practical purposes, we regard this as the
overriding consideration. If an LEP covers, to any significant
extent, any rural areas, the rural economy must be represented.
The Board of every RDA included at least one
named director who appeared to be there to represent rural concerns
and we see no reason why the situation should be any different
with LEPs.
As will hopefully be apparent from what is already
said, it would be inappropriate for appointees to be exclusively
focused on farming. Whilst farming is an essential part of the
rural economy, its economic output is comparatively small. The
important point is that the individual has a good and practical
understanding of and sympathy with land based and rural business
in the broadest sense of the phrase.
FUNDING ISSUES
The Government letter is unclear on the extent
to which LEPs will have responsibility for delivery and therefore
spending.
Our concern is with the future of the RDPE.
The Rural Development Programme for England
(RDPE) is a six-year (2007-13) funding programme, with a budget
of £3.9 billion that deliver the rural development priorities
or axes of the EU Rural Development Regulation.
To date the RDAs have been responsible for the
two socio economic axes, Axis 1 which is concerned with improving
the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sectors and
Axis 3 which focuses on improving the quality of life in rural
areas and encouraging diversification of the rural economy. The
total; spend in England is £540 million.
RDPE has been incredibly important for many
rural businesses, particularly farmers wanting to diversify into
other activities.
Each region has been free to determine its own
priorities on how the money should be spent; with the details
being set out in a Regional Implementation Plan.
Applications for support are also determined
at the regional level, so ensure a degree of relevance to and
consistency within each region.
The existing RDPE delivery methods have worked
well, and we would want them to continue under the new framework.
However we would be opposed to RDPE responsibilities
being transferred to the LEPs. The risk is that the money will
either get lost amongst the other funding streams for which LEPs
are likely to be responsible or be diverted to a succession of
minor projects which would be unlikely to make any particular
difference to the overall state of the rural economy. It would
make far more sense for the responsibility to be transferred to
Defra, with Defra taking on board the need for priorities to be
set at the regional or local level.
Moreover, the current programme is due to last
until 2013. We suggest it would be extremely unfortunate if there
were to be any substantive changes in the meantime. Accordingly
we would urge that, if at all possible, those responsible for
RDPE in each region could be transferred en masse to Defra until
2013.
TRANSITION
Whilst our comments on the transition to LEPs
are based on anecdote, they result from our experiences across
the country.
The transition is, overwhelmingly, being led
and implemented by local authorities and RDAs. The extent to which
business is involved, or even being consulted, appears negligible.
As the voice of rural business we are keen to be actively involved
with what is happening, but we sense that our involvement is always
at our own initiative. We appreciate this may well be a symptom
of the very short time frames involved.
13 August 2010
| 
