Protection of the Countryside

Speech by David Ford delivered to Assembly, on a DUP motion to allow more 'retirement dwellings' on Tue 3rd Jul 2007

I had grave concerns when I first read the text of motion because it seemed that Mr Shannon was trying to find a way to say that he opposed PPS 14 without actually saying those words. Unless I misheard Mr Shannon, I did not hear him refer to PPS 14 at any stage during his speech. It would perhaps have been more honest had the Assembly been debating a motion rejecting PPS 14, instead of fiddling around and citing specific instances.

Mr Shannon's speech began by asking, "why farmers?". Yet, he answered his own question, because farmers are tied to the land. With the exception of farms, the vast majority of rural businesses are not tied to a piece of land. Although pubs, hotels, nursing homes and small engineering works have been mentioned in the debate, the vast majority of those are not tied to a specific location. As urban businesses do not need anyone living on the premises, neither do their rural equivalents.

If the issue of rural dwellings is to be realistically addressed, and if the specific exemptions for farmers who wish to build retirement dwellings are to be recognised, it is necessary to recognise why those specific exemptions exist. Farming is not the same as other industries, which can be as easily established in urban areas as in rural areas. Mr Shannon therefore answered his own question.

Service providers and a range of small businesses are almost the same in rural areas as they are in urban areas, yet there are no specific requirements that someone in an urban area must live in a certain place, or that someone can sell their home and build another in their back garden. The motion does not recognise the reality of the situation. It seeks instead - for whatever particular local exemptions exist for nursing homes along the Ards Peninsula - to redraft a set of policies, when we should actually consider the wider issue.

Therefore, although I have difficulties with much of it, Mr Dallat's amendment is an improvement on the original motion.

Several Members have made the point that, in the past, unfair and unrealistic tests have been produced regarding farm viability. I remember dealing with the interests of a neighbour whose son, as inevitably happens, wanted to build a house on land belonging to the farm. For some reason, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development said that 1·9 standard labour units did not constitute a requirement for two people to be involved in that business. Fortunately, on that occasion, the planning officer had more wit than the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

There are real issues, and succession planning for farms must be considered. These days, very few farms are viable purely for farming activity for one family, never mind for a potential second family - when the son or daughter comes along. Therefore, farm viability must be considered. That should apply clearly as an incentive to encourage the transfer of a farm to the next generation. Ancillary activity may be required to make a farm viable. However, if a rigid definition is applied, the result will be a countryside that is denuded of farms. Recognising that, however, does not mean that we should assume that every rural business should get an exception.

Mr Dallat, at least, referred to PPS 14 and made clear what the debate is about. However, he did not explain why we are considering PPS 14 in a piecemeal way, rather than as a whole. His arguments for extending eligibility to other established rural businesses were little stronger than those from Mr Shannon. However, if Mr Dallat is seeking merely an assessment of that extension, maybe there should be an assessment of the potential extension of that eligibility to other businesses. Based on the evidence that has been produced in the Chamber today, there is little reason to extend that eligibility.

My colleagues and I will accept Mr Dallat's amend­ment, as it moves matters forward a little. However, that is not to suggest that there is any valid ground for breaching the fundamental principles of PPS 14. It seems to me that there is a danger that, if we do not accept that the basic principle of PPS 14 must stand, we will create bungalow blight by the back door. The issues that must be re-examined are related to rural society and farm viability - Members should be realistic about that.

In that sense, Mr Robinson's amendment suffers from the same problems as Mr Shannon's original motion. He may have got the Department right, but there is no improvement on the basic criteria.

Related Link:

Hansard.