Protection of the Countryside

Speech by David Ford delivered to Assembly, 11 February 2008 on Mon 11th Feb 2008

I thank the Minister for bringing this motion to the Assembly today. I also thank her for supplying an advance copy of her paper, which enabled some of us to do our homework over the weekend. It will come as no surprise to some of my colleagues on the Committee for the Environment that I am speaking only in a personal capacity and on behalf of my party colleagues.

The paper seems to set out a broad outline of some key themes. It may be an old cliché that the devil is in the detail, but, unfortunately, in this case, the detail is not there, and much of the devil is loitering between the paragraphs.

Nonetheless, clear signs are emerging as to where we may be going with this particularly difficult rural planning-policy issue. Nobody in the Assembly wishes to see the destruction of rural communities, but our approach must be clear and realistic. The notion of a rural community does not equate solely to single houses in the countryside. As Peter Weir acknowledged, rural communities are centred around villages and hamlets. In order for a shop or a school to be viable in a rural area, any settlement would have to be significantly larger than the suggested small group of affordable housing units.

I welcome the fact that draft PPS 14 allows groups of up to eight social houses, and the Minister's consideration, following the publication of the Semple Report, would allow perhaps a slight increase on that figure. That is an example of where the devil may be running away with the detail. Where Sir John Semple talked about 12 houses, there is now talk of 14, and already in the Chamber this afternoon, there has been pressure to go beyond that figure. If we are to make meaningful plans to protect the countryside, we must be realistic about what constitutes a small settlement. Similarly, the word "clachan", as I understand it, applies to a very small number of upland farms, where farm buildings have been integrated for use by several families at once. It is not a housing pattern that spreads across the whole of lowland Northern Ireland, and to present it as such is unrealistic.

A key issue that has caused concern is that of personal circumstances and health. That is one area in which there was a need to relax what went forward in draft PPS 14. However, the fact that someone in the family may need to live beside the elderly parents does not mean that everyone needs to live beside them, especially if there are three, four or five children.

I welcome the references in the review to the idea that any such housing must be part of the farm cluster and does not have to occupy the available site at the top of the drumlin. That is a way in which the personal needs of those who genuinely want to live beside their farms can be met. The alternative is that personal circumstances are allowed to become a Trojan Horse that undermines any coherent planning policy.

There are clearly benefits in the suggestions to reuse existing buildings that were not previously dwellings and may be of reasonably sound character, and to have greater relaxation of the rules regarding replacements. However, we also need to be careful that we are not simply creating another measure by which people may build more houses than can be justified in a particular area.

One of the most difficult problems that the Minister and her colleagues must tackle is the issue of farm viability and diversification. There is no doubt that relatively few farms are currently viable purely on the basis of their agricultural activities. Many people run successful businesses -contracting work, for example - that easily complement their farms.

The Minister talked about activities carried out "in conjunction" with farming. If that policy is to proceed, she will need to make it clear exactly what the term "in conjunction" means. Does it refer to something that is entirely unrelated to the main farm business but that happens to be situated there? Does it refer to a business that may or may not employ two or three other people? Involvement in such areas goes beyond maintaining the viability of a farm and is an entirely different enterprise that would need to be treated in some other way. Such issues must also be addressed. However, I welcome some of the points that the Minister made about issues such as updating the design guide, which is clearly totally inadequate for this day and age.

When I was reading the review, I hoped that I would be able to welcome the findings and congratulate the Minister on resisting the demands for the wholesale scrapping of draft PPS 14. After listening to her comments, I am not sure how much of those congratu­lations I want to deliver at this point. However, it is clear that there is greater recognition that we have to stick to something close to draft PPS 14. I welcome that, and I look forward to the publication of her plans, which I hope will ensure that we genuinely protect the countryside in the future.

Related Link:

Hansard.