Debates between Mel Stride and Nick Boles during the 2010-2015 Parliament

Mon 24th Feb 2014
National Parks
Commons Chamber
(Adjournment Debate)

National Parks

Debate between Mel Stride and Nick Boles
Monday 24th February 2014

(10 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Nick Boles Portrait Nick Boles
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That is not directly within my ministerial brief, but it is a serious point. I simply venture to suggest that in relation to keeping old barns as old barns—if they are not currently used in modern agriculture—it would be relatively rare that a new farmer could start up a business from one of those buildings in a way that they could not do elsewhere. My hon. Friend’s concern is absolutely valid, and I would be very happy to talk to Ministers in the responsible Department about how to address that concern, and how to ensure that when we announce a final position, nothing we propose undermines such a possibility for new farmers.

Mel Stride Portrait Mel Stride
- Hansard - -

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Nick Boles Portrait Nick Boles
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I have very little time, but I am happy to give way.

Mel Stride Portrait Mel Stride
- Hansard - -

My hon. Friend is being most generous in giving way. To clarify, is he saying that if permitted development rights were not applied to national parks, the Government would probably come forward with further proposals to change the way in which national parks operate, such that some of the derelict barns that he has described would be brought into more effective use?

Nick Boles Portrait Nick Boles
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful question. As he will know, the Government are considering the planning guidance. It has been out for consultation and many hon. Members have made useful contributions, which we will take seriously. We may look at whether we can give a slightly stronger nudge to national park authorities in that guidance about being positive in their view, while nevertheless retaining the right to decide whether something should receive planning permission.