TUESDAY 21 JULY 1998

MRS HEATHER HANCOCK and MR CLIVE KIRKBRIDE

  90.  I think it is quarter to one, which is the time we are supposed to be starting, so may I welcome you to our second of the oral sessions into the inquiry of the protection of field boundaries. May I start by placing on record the appreciation of the Select Committee, particularly to the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, for setting up the visit for us yesterday and today. We very much appreciate that. Also, may I put on the record our thanks to everyone who was involved in the early part of yesterday with the visit. We found it very useful. Now, if we can start with the first of the three sessions with the Yorkshire Dales National Park, may I ask you to identify yourselves for the record.
  (Mrs Hancock)  Yes, Chairman. I am the Chief Executive of the National Park Authority. I am accompanied by Clive Kirkbride who heads our Landscape Conservation Section.

Chairman:  Thank you very much. Christine.

  91.  Mr Kirkbride, what are the benefits to the National Park from the existence of traditional field boundaries?
  (Mr Kirkbride)  I think there are three main benefits. We have to look originally at why field boundaries are there, so we are looking at agricultural benefits, shelter, stock control. They are still very fundamental issues today. Landscape: this is a very significant reason in the Yorkshire Dales. There are very distinctive landscape patterns formed particularly by the dry stone walls of which we have, of course, so many in the Dales; the patterns in the field boundaries themselves, formed by the different stone, the different methods of construction. These all add to the texture of the landscape. Thirdly, cultural issues, cultural history. The fact that they help you read the landscape and the change associated with various changes in agricultural practices right up from the first time of settlement in the Dales.[1]

  92.  Is there a particular emphasis you would like to place on any one of those points in that they have been more of a priority than others, whether it is to do with ecology or heritage, biodiversity or farming practice.
  (Mr Kirkbride)  I think it is a balance between all three. Obviously the National Park's statutory purposes put a great emphasis on conserving and enhancing the landscape, and cultural heritage and wildlife of the National Park. Therefore, coming from that perspective, the landscape, wildlife and cultural elements are particularly important, but you cannot ignore the basic agricultural requirements of the landscape.
  (Mrs Hancock)  May I add something to that. The cultural element is maybe easy to understand, but one of the reasons why the landscape is so important for us is because of the interconnection between man and the environment, and it is so clearly defined in the dry stone wall pattern.

  93.  How much of it is in good condition or deteriorating or considered derelict?
  (Mrs Hancock)  It is quite difficult to be specific because we have not done a whole Park study, but from small sectors which we have extrapolated we would say that about 60 to 70 per cent of walls in the National Park are in need of some form of attention—in relatively fine condition but do not need urgent attention—but there is at least 10 per cent which is almost derelict, and the remaining area is in need of more urgent attention.
  (Mr Kirkbride)  We are probably looking at about 30 per cent, about a third of the walls, which are probably in need of urgent attention.

  94.  When you say "in need of urgent attention", is there a direct correlation between that which is derelict or deteriorating rapidly and in need of urgent attention, or are you having a more specific approach towards walling which is deteriorating?
  (Mr Kirkbride)  We would be looking, as a first priority, to identify those boundary walls that are no longer in stock-proof condition, where farmers are having to make do with stitching and tying, and neglecting those walls for that purpose.

  95.  How much does it cost to maintain these boundaries in the past year, averaged over 20 years?
  (Mr Kirkbride)  We can provide some information to you today. We would need to provide some information following the inquiry. Relating to the National Park area the Barns and Walls Scheme, which you have heard about which the Department runs, is obviously an important source of finance. I have not got detailed figures of those to hand, I am afraid. Looking at the other major schemes operating within the Park, we are probably looking at the Pennine Dales Environmentally Sensitive Area and Countryside Stewardship as being sources of advice and grant aid, I will just check with a colleague.

  96.  While that is happening, perhaps I could ask Mrs Hancock about the portion of the Park's annual budget spent on maintaining or assisting the maintenance of these boundaries of hedges and walling.
  (Mrs Hancock)  We do not have any direct grants for hedging for the majority of the Park. It is coming from a couple of areas in the Authority's Farm Conservation Scheme. The percentage which goes into walling from the Park's own budget is minuscule. It would be about 2 per cent of our budget. We do, however, bring in external funding which helps support walling schemes. That has happened in the north part of the National Park in Swaledale and part of Wensleydale, where we have brought in some hundreds of thousands of pounds. At the moment, the funds have not been allocated between field barns and walls, but walls are only likely to take a small proportion of that because field barns are more pressing. We have also brought in up to £10 million through our sister charity, the Yorkshire Dales Millennium Trust. Again, there are grants available from there for walling. However, again it is a small proportion of that because field barns are presumed to be the more important landscape feature.

  97.  I know that the ram is a sort of symbol, but you could almost say that for a National Park walls are one of the most significant. If you have to protect one thing it might be your walls. Really, the expenditure on walls is a very small proportion.
  (Mrs Hancock)  If I can come back on that. Our expenditure on most things is relatively small. We do not have the kind of budget we would like to have to tackle the problem. Our expenditure on it is not always a reflection on how important we think it is. Perhaps in the past it has been a reflection of what we could have spent on walling, but what we have spent on walling has been such a drop in the ocean in the scale of the problem there is to tackle.
  (Mr Kirkbride)  Last year, just to go back to your question, I could give you an estimate of about £250,000 spent in 1997/1998 on wall repair and restoration in the National Park. That would be split approximately £50,000 by the Park Authority through its Farm Conservation Scheme. There is a Barns and Walls Scheme to add into that, of which we will supply details. The Pennine Dales Environmentally Sensitive Area: about £160,000. The Countryside Stewardship: we only have a very rough estimate which we are getting checked but we think probably up to £50,000.

  98.  How many kilometres of wall did that actually pay for?
  (Mrs Hancock)  It was paying for 80[2] kilometres.

  99.  Do you want to give us a note on that?
  (Mrs Hancock)  Yes, we can do.
  (Mr Kirkbride)  Very quickly, through the Farm Conservation Scheme last year (1997/98) about 3,000 metres of wall has been repaired. This is basically stitching and tying, gap maintenance work. Just over 1,000 metres have been restored with more substantial repair and rebuilding work.

2   Witness correction: About 20 kilometres. Back