Lords report on making the most of England's land

Land use in England is changing radically. Rather than a landscape dominated by food production, the new priorities are nature and biodiversity restoration, carbon sequestration, development and infrastructure, energy generation, and public access and well-being.

This is the view of the House of Lords Land Use in England Committee, which was appointed last year and published its report Making the most out of England's land in December.

But the committee notes that, outside the planning system, competing needs for land are not assessed by any framework across England; neither is there any formal advisory or coordinating body besides government departments.

It does not intend that the commission should have any powers of direction. Rather, it would support effective land use on the basis that multiple simultaneous benefits could be achieved with the right approach in the same location.

Importantly, the report calls for this commission to be set up as an independent, statutory arm's-length public body under the Cabinet Office, with commissioners representing all relevant government departments and a budget similar to those of the Scottish Land Commission or the Climate Change Committee.

The committee urges the government to clarify ELMs for the farming community, and to ensure that much-needed habitats are better promoted and managed across England to enable the recovery of biodiversity.

It also calls for government to examine how it can improve environmental management skills among all land managers. It highlights the importance of local nature recovery strategies (LNRSs) in ensuring that appropriate environmental initiatives are encouraged on the right land, with input from local communities throughout England.

Furthermore, the committee states that government must ensure that LNRSs are properly resourced, with the necessary local cooperation and coordination. Strategies must also be given sufficient weight in the planning system to ensure they are effective. The committee thus wants stronger planning rules and accompanying guidance, to ensure that LNRSs are a material consideration in planning decisions.

Before the report was published, however, the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) had confirmed that an enhanced version of the Countryside Stewardship grant scheme will form the second tier of ELMS, replacing the local nature recovery tier.

The report refers to biodiversity net gain (BNG) and states that this must be accompanied by proper monitoring and enforcement. This means that planning authorities should be given adequate resources and powers, both to support BNG and to intervene in cases where its requirements are at risk of not being fulfilled.

It goes on to acknowledge that afforestation is clearly a priority in future land use to help meet climate-related goals. However, targets are being missed and workers in the sector may not have the necessary skills to achieve those targets.

The report further acknowledges that incentives, support and regulation must be reviewed, and there should be more support for and investment in management of existing woodland. It says the government must also ensure that the right species of tree are planted in the right place, and that this initiative complements other land-use targets.

In the recent Woodland Market Review, the chartered forestry surveyors, valuers and agents Tustins cited a worrying reduction in the number of workers with forestry skills available to advise clients, which is affecting the market. The firm says: 'Never has the basic "plant trees, absorb carbon, produce timber, enhance biodiversity" message been more relevant, but this is not reflected in the raft of government departments who all seem to think they can say "No" to nearly all planting.'

The committee does not propose that a land-use framework or the commission replaces or interferes with the current responsibilities of the English planning system; but it feels that it is important to acknowledge the role that system plays in land use, and the challenges and opportunities it generates.

Its view is that a framework should help better identify and define those areas where land should be optimised for priority uses other than housing – for example, prime agricultural land for food production – or land that is essential for carbon sequestration and nature recovery. A framework supported by the commission and based on the available evidence could also advise the government on reforming and strengthening planning policy.

Similarly, the report advises on the views of those who fed into the report that much more could be made of the multifunctional potential of the green belt. This should also be a priority for the framework, it says, integrated with objectives for green infrastructure where relevant. In seeking to integrate the various land-use priorities into a proposed framework, the committee considered evidence on approaches to multifunctionality and debates over land sharing and land sparing.

The 13 coalition members, which include RICS, are organisations with a strong interest in ensuring that the finite and precious land in England is used effectively, and the letter identified the attributes the government framework must contain to ensure land is used to provide better public value, as follows.

The Rural Coalition also outlined that a land-use framework for England could be an essential tool to foster innovation, economic growth and environmental improvements.

Coordinated effectively with plans in the devolved administrations, the framework should take a long-term, strategic, integrating approach, engaging and empowering the leaders who will make it work. The coalition members are ready to help develop the framework, to make it as effective as possible.