Breadcrumbs
South Downs National Park: Proposals for Local Authority Consultation (AP02/11)
FOR DECISION
|
Relevance to Strategy
and Corporate Plan:
|
Staff and financial
implications:
|
Main issues to
concern the Board:
|
Introduction and context
1. The Countryside Agency has a statutory duty under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to designate national parks and to advise on how they should be administered and managed. We began the designation process for the South Downs in April 2000 (AP00/15) and have now completed a public consultation on a draft boundary and options for administration arrangements, as agreed by the Board in September 2001 (AP01/31).This paper reports the outcomes of that consultation and recommends a number of refinements to our drafts. The next step in the designation process is to carry out a formal consultation on the boundary with the local authorities affected which is a statutory requirement of the 1949 Act.
Summary of the public consultation
2. The consultation revealed an overwhelming level of public interest in the designation: over 7000 people attended events and a similar number of responses were received. The majority were very detailed with high quality arguments put forward and strongly held views. The consultation is summarised at Annex 1.
3. The consultation was designed to seek evidence and opinion on how a national park should be established and administered, not on the whether there should be a Park at all. Some respondents did however comment on this.
4. Less than 5% of respondees are opposed to designation. However these include seven local authorities: a further six have expressed concerns. Brighton and Hove and Lewes have stated support. The main concerns expressed ( Annex 1) are not material to designation criteria.
Proposed boundary
5. All amendments put forward during the consultation on the draft boundary have been considered carefully and assessed according to the statutory criteria. Where appropriate we have sought further advice from our landscape consultants and technical advisory group.
6. The consultation confirms that the draft boundary identified is robust. Many responses have focused on local detail; most have sought additions of land, not deletions. The outcomes, both on wider issues and local detail, are summarised in Annex 2 and Annex 2 (Table).
7. Having applied the statutory criteria for designation and the Agency's agreed policies, officers recommend the following changes:
- addition of land between Chawton and Four Marks (section C)
- addition at Steyning and land in the Adur valley (section K)
- removal around Brighton south of A27 (section P)
8. There is though no evidence to support changes sought by some respondents for:
- removal of non chalk landscapes
- removal of towns including Petersfield and Lewes:
- addition of land at Falmer (section P)
- removal of land at Arundel (section R)
- addition of Woolmer Forest(section E)
9. The changes recommended are set out in Annex 3 and result in the boundary shown in the map at Annex 4 I recommend this as the proposed boundary.
De-designation of East Hampshire and South Downs AONBs
10. The very large majority of the two AONBs are included within the proposed National Park boundary. (Those small areas which are not have been excluded because they do not meet designation criteria: eg they have been become degraded, despite AONB designation). It is not appropriate to have the two designations applying to the same area. I recommend that should National Park designation go ahead, the AONB designations are revoked in their entirety.
11. The statutory procedures for revoking AONB designation ordersrequire us to consult local authorities affected now, and then publish the draft revocation orders to allow for objections in advance of making a designation order. The orders would then be submitted to the Secretary of State simultaneously, with a recommendation that she confirms the AONB revocations only if she confirms the National Park.
Proposed Administrative Arrangements
12. Responses have been assessed in relation to the delivery of national park purposes and the particular characteristics of the Downs. We also sought further technical advice from our technical and topic based advisory groups. Annex 5 summarises the responses to each issue and also gives officers' recommendations on the approach we should take.
13. Most responses support our preferred options: these are broadly in line with the approach in other parks; some are also being considered in the context of DEFRA's National Park policy review. Few substantive new issues have arisen: this is not surprising given the extensive consultation, public debate and technical discussion over the eighteen months since the designation process began.
14. National Park Authority (NPA) There are no strong arguments for variation from the provisions for national park authorities in Environment Act 1995. The consultation responses do however point to a need for a particular approach in the way the Authority is established, and how it and the local authorities carry out their duties. In particular: ( Annex 5 contains the details) :
- Parish Members
- Land Management
- Traffic and transport
15. Planning and development control. The consultation responses have confirmed that this will be a particularly controversial area. Many local authorities do not wish to relinquish any of their current powers: some believe only locally elected bodies should take such decisions; others recognise the need for the NPA to have a role. Others (including many local people) believe that it should be the sole responsibility of the NPA as only it can put conservation needs first. This has resulted in a number of alternatives being proposed: we have considered carefully to look for an approach which gives the NPA sufficient influence whilst being efficient and responsive
16. Despite a case made by most local authorities for transfer of plan making and/or development control powers, there are no strong arguments related to achieving national park purposes: the reason given is largely that an appointed body should not make planning decisions. But this approach is against the tide of legislation and experience in other Parks. The South Downs' planning needs are not so different from other Parks that this radical step is justified.
17. Consultation responses have made a case for strategic planning which addresses cross boundary issues and local planning which gives a consistent park wide approach. The detail given in responses have also helped us to refine our initial ideas. Officers' therefore recommend (see annex 5 for details)
3 joint structure plansprepared by the NPA with the 3 county structure planning authorities with ministerial advice to ensure consistency and contemporality, which will be achieved by the NPAs role in plan preparation
- 3 joint minerals and waste plans
- a park wide local plan prepared by the NPA , with advice from surrounding local plan authorities, and structured to allow local variations in detailed proposals and to conform with the 3 structure plans.
18. The Planning Green Paper which was published during the consultation period proposes a number of changes to this system. Whilst its proposals are not yet adopted we have considered its implications and have sought advice from DTLR and our technical advisory group. The system outlined presents no obstacles to effective planning by a South Downs NPA here. We will need to consider this further once Government's intentions are clear and if necessary amend our advice accordingly. For example if we applying the principles which lead to the above solutions we might advise on:
- a Regional Spatial Strategy ( and any sub regional strategy for the area around the park) to address cross boundary strategic issues
- a single park wide Local Development Framework prepared by the NPA ( and perhaps local action plans prepared jointly with relevant partners).
- 19. For development control the consultation has brought forward a weight of argument in favour of the NPA as the responsible authority, but with devolution of administration and handling of local issues to local authorities. Most local authorities however seek transfer, perhaps with the NPA given call in powers. This though would be cumbersome, disproportionate (allowing 3rd party intervention) and would separate plan making from planning decisions. Others (notably ANPA) advocate the NPA taking all decisions. However the South Downs characteristics mean very many cases (e.g. urban based or householder) which have little or no impact on national park purposes which can be most efficiently handled through existing structures. We should propose therefore that the NPA retains full responsibility, but with ministerial advice to work with LAs to devise most effective means (e.g. by delegation) of handling and determining case work, with particular regard to the new targets proposed in the planning green paper.
20. Conclusion The consultation responses show that there are no issues in South Downs which require an alternative administration to that provided for by 1995 Act. Whilst the Downs are different from existing parks in many ways, the issues the NPA will need to address are the same: differences are in scale ( e.g. number of planning applications) or setting ( e.g. proximity of towns). There is therefore no need for legislative changes. The differences though do point to the need for variations in how responsibilities, especially planning, are delivered by the NPA and local authorities and a need for close partnership. I recommend that the Agency should advise that the Secretary of State establishes a NPA by Order under 1995 Actand issues guidance to the NPA and local authorities on how to work together to best address the particular needs of the Downs, as outlined above.
Consultation with local authorities
21. The next step is to carry out a statutory consultation on the designation with local authorities affected. This must make clear that the proposed boundary line is that which the Agency is minded to designate as a national park, but that we will not take a final decision on the designation order until we have considered responses. We need also consult on revocation of AONB designations (as para 11).
22 There are no statutory provisions for consultation on administration, but it would be helpful to invite any further views from the local authorities who will by affected by our proposed advice. The consultation period will also allow discussion about any new issues: in particular we expect policy statements following the planning green paper and the national park review this summer. I recommend therefore that we consult the local authorities simultaneously on each of these three topics. Our proposed consultation is outlined in annex 6.
Financial and Manpower Consequences
23. None: the next steps are fully provided for in the corporate plans.
Risks and Mitigation measures
24. The risks and mitigation measures identified in AP01/31 remain pertinent. The main risks continue to be:
- judicial review - we continue to act in accordance with the Acts and accepted good practice for public sector bodies. We have briefed Treasury Solicitors in respect of one potential challenge so far.
- public inquiry - a number of bodies are likely to challenge our professional judgement. We continue to base our decisions on the best technical information and by careful application of the guidance and statute. We will if necessary mount a significant "defence" of our recommendations at the enquiry.
- Next steps
25. Annex 7 sets out the next steps in the process. We will report the outcome of local authority consultation to the Board this autumn with officers' final recommendations. We remain on target to make a Designation Order by autumn 2002.
Annex 1
Public consultation process and outcomes
1. The Agency undertook a public consultation on both a draft boundary and the possible administrative arrangements. The purpose was to enable a range of interests and the general public to put forward information and local knowledge to help us to identify the best boundary for the national park and the best possible administrative arrangements.
Process
2. The consultation was open from 27 November until 28 February. Prior to the consultation we issued a newsletter to explain how people could get involved and where they could get the information and invited them to request copies of consultation documents. We also issued 4 press releases during the consultation to encourage responses.
3. We prepared a public consultation booklet which contained the options for administration and the draft boundary, and included a pro forma to enable people to give us their views. This was mailed direct to all who had contacted us since the designation began and all registered farm holdings, and also sent to a number of bodies with an interest in a national park for distribution to their members,. In addition there was a more detailed technical report, sent direct to all local authorities, including parish councils and stakeholder groups. Both documents were available through parish councils, local authority offices, libraries, information points etc. as well as on the Agency's web site. Almost 30,000 copies were distributed.
4. National park designation team staff made presentations at almost forty meetings, including all the local authorities, farming communities, the county associations of town and parish councils, amenity societies, statutory bodies, user groups etc. In addition to this we held 23 road shows at different locations along and adjacent to the area affected by the proposals which advertised locally and open to everybody . We also offered material and displays for events hosted by others (i.e. 10 additional local road shows were held by Lewes DC), and offered facilitators to help organise parish meetings : seven were held.
5. Over 7,100 people attended our roadshow events and we received 6,500 written responses. Many used the pro forma provided, but many also submitted significant quantities of very high quality information to back up the points they were making. Many individuals and organisations had clearly gone to considerable effort and expense to submit their views. The people we met at the roadshows and the people who have responded, clearly care passionately about the South Downs. The overall impression was that the majority supported a national park , sometimes with reservations on specific issues, or with suggestions or information which will allow us to refine our proposals. A small minority were opposed to a national park proposals.
Responses
6. Number/Type. The total number of responses received during the three month consultation period was about 6,500. Many responses came from individuals, while others came from representative bodies or societies, and local authorities. However the basis for analysis has been the quality of the arguments presented in relation to national park purposes, not the number of people who make them or the importance of the respondent. Independent consultants recorded and analysed each response and helped prepare this report.
7. The level of detail in responses varied from what can only be described as a massive outpouring of community effort, to a signature on a letter drafted by someone else. The remarkable enthusiasm and effort put into the consultation process by so many people and organisations demonstrates the esteem in which people hold the South Downs and their local environments within it. The consultation process generated considerable thought and in some cases expenditure, for example on:
• co-ordinated local campaigns on boundary issues (discussed below);
• responses on which many individuals had clearly spent many hours;
• research and assembly of evidence to support the case made in some responses.
8. Mode of submission. All submissions received in writing by the close of the consultation period were considered. Submissions were accepted on the consultation pro forma, as letters or documents (sent by post or facsimile), as electronic mail and via the Agency website.
9. Theme (administration/boundary) The vast majority of respondents submitted comments on the boundary. Over 2,250 responses were received on administration.
General issues and themes
Support for and opposition to a national park in principle
10. The nature of consultation reflects the fact that the Countryside Agency has decided in principle that there should be a national park in the South Downs, and that issues on which views are now required are the practicalities. Thus the consultation did not ask a direct question asked on whether respondents favoured a national park. The Countryside Agency has a statutory duty to designate national parks and must use the statutory criteria which are laid out in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The desire for a national park by the public is not one of the criteria and so there is no basis for the Agency to consult on whether or not there should be a park. However the Agency has chosen to involve local people and organisations in the designation process.
11. The consultation was not therefore a referendum into whether there should be a national park, but an opportunity for people to give views and advice on both the boundary and administrative issues. If people remain opposed to a national park at the end of the designation process they can object to the designation order. They will also then have a chance to air their views at any public inquiry.
12. Many people did however chose to indicate thus in their consultation response. Many opponents also included in their objection the argument that they had not previously been consulted on the principle.
13. Support. No formal count was made of respondents supporting a national park in principle, though some contributed this point. Any record of support would have been difficult to place in context. and analysis would have been difficult as some registering their support for a national park did not feel the need to give reasons, probably believing the case already to have been made.
14. However responses to polls carried out by others: e.g. by some local authorities show that the majority of people (60-80%) wish to see a national park in the South Downs. This level of support is also borne out by an informal assessment of comments made by those coming to our road shows.
15. Opposition Analysis of opposition must similarly be treated cautiously However, comments in opposition were counted and assessed, mainly to ensure responses were properly recorded, particularly when few other comments were being made. Opposition also had some bearing on the analysis of full responses, as some were clearly answering questions in a way which set out to minimise the role of any national park authority, rather than make the best of it if it happened.
16. Overall, just under 250 respondents opposed the establishment of a national park in principle. This is less than 4% of those who responded to the consultation or 9% of those responding only on administration. Significantly though seven local authorities in the area challenge a national park in principle, two support it and the remaining six have concerns over the details. Although objections were not always explicit in the local authority response, the National Park Local Authorities Members and Officers Group (NPLAMOG) prepared a report with the figures we have used here.
17. Detailed records were not collated of arguments put for or against a national park, but opposition (or concern about) a national park was principally expressed on the following grounds (especially the first two):
• 'democratic deficit', arising from a proportion of the authority's members being appointed by the Secretary of State rather than locally elected, tied to the presumption that these people would have insufficient understanding of local interests;
• 'remoteness' or lack of local accountability, arising from national park authority members from a wider area than a typical district council taking decisions affecting individual localities, again suggesting that 'outsiders' would have an undue influence on local issues;
• there would be an inevitable increase in the number of visitors to the Downs, which were felt to be poorly equipped to cope with the influx, with a consequent pressure to meet the demands of visitors rather than local priorities;
• lack of evidence that the existing institutions were failing, or that they could not do at least as good a job if the money available for a national park authority was allocated to them instead;
• a new authority would duplicate many existing local functions and would therefore necessarily be a waste money.
18. Conclusion There are some deep divisions in local opinion about the merit of a national park. A small number opposed a national park in principle, and more made their support conditional on the delegation of certain functions. The local authorities views are especially notable. However this should be seen in the context of the support of between 60-80% of those who responded to the question of support for the creation of a national park, when it has been raised by others.
19. Also, all respondents appear concerned about the future of the Downs and most mention the need for their protection and that their concerns are about how and by whom this should be carried out. Very few questioned whether the area met the criteria for designation. Some acknowledge that designation would reconfirm the national importance of the area. Most of the concerns are to do with the mechanics of the administration of the authority a national park would require and are not in themselves reasons not to designate a national park, but should be addressed by the way in which a national park authority is established.
Legislation and delay
20. An important issue which emerged is whether the designation/establishment of a national park authority should make the best of the choices available under the existing legislation, or whether new legislation specific to the South Downs should be sought. New legislation would clearly take time to pass and so delay the setting up of a national park. This issue was considered fully by the Agency, advised by its technical working groups, whilst preparing for the consultation and even in the detailed working groups and no unique issues arose which suggested that the current arrangements could not be adapted in such a way as to reflect the needs of the area. Nevertheless the consultation report included options which would require legislation. Some responses favoured these, in particular to allow variations to the planning regime.
21. There is a possibility that those opposed to a national park in principle deliberately proposed options requiring legislation, and they occasionally made no reference as to what they wanted to achieve through the new legislation, simply asking for a "tailor-made" park. Equally those supporting a national park in principle and wanting it introduced quickly supported the use of existing powers. Unusually some, eg East Sussex County Council, whilst opposing a national park who nevertheless specifically noted that, if one was established, administrative solutions could be found within the powers of existing legislation.
22. There was also a lobby of support for action now using existing legislation, with strong opposition to any delay. Over 650 respondents indicated that they did not wish there to be any delay before establishing a national park, which they broadly hoped to see in place by 2003.
Conflicting perspectives inside and outside a national park
23. There is considerable interest in the effects which a national park could be expected to have both inside and outside the designated area, and who would gain or lose as a result.
24. Effects on build development Individuals and bodies with an environmental interest often submitted that designating a national park with appropriate powers would bring to a halt both the erosion of the Downs by built development and the 'creeping suburbanisation' from a multitude of small changes. Economic interests, on the other hand, argue that for the coastal towns particularly, sandwiched between the sea and the Downs, there needs to be space for organic growth as the needs of the population necessitate, so there should be a cautious approach to designation. On the same principle, some local authorities outside the designated area fear knock-on consequences for the reallocation of development if a national park is created. Rother DC fears unwelcome development pressure coming its way, for example, whilst Crawley BC fears that "If the proposed boundaries for the national park are the ones used, it could seriously prejudice the potential for growth and change in the A23 corridor identified by the Regional Planning Guidance and in the draft West Sussex Structure Plan". Given however that much of the area is already designated as an AONB these fears are unfounded.
24. Whilst all of these interests seem agreed that development is happening in the Downs and is likely (and perhaps even ought) to continue, many believe that historic rates of intrusion into the Downs has now been curtailed, certainly on any scale, by the AONB designation and that the local authorities have done a good job in this respect. On that basis, as Elsted and Treyford Parish Council put it, designation as a national park would serve no purpose in reducing the pressure for housing on areas inside a national park as the AONB designation is already sufficient. Given that it has equivalent planning protection ( in law at least, if not always in practice) this is not the primary reason for designation.
25. Effects on economic and social issues and the impact of visitors There is enormous interest in the effect of a national park boundary on areas outside in such terms as who gets the extra money, the tourist impacts outside the area, and the socio-economic splits the boundary could create. Many respondents felt that cross-boundary tensions could best be addressed by keeping decisions with existing local authorities so that they could take both interests into account (though often it was clear from comments that this effectively was expected to mean that the non-park areas would continue to dominate the selection of best interests). Others felt that empowering a national park authority was the best way to tackle whatever issues arose but that arrangements for cross-boundary working should be built into the procedures.
26. Local and national perspectives The arguments recorded above are essentially about the weight to be given to local interests. Most opponents of a national park are worried fundamentally that 'they' will override 'local' interests within the new national park. Rother DC goes further, arguing that even areas outside the designated area will be overruled too: the combined voting ability of a new national park with Brighton & Hove UA exceed that of the rest of the East Sussex County Council members on a joint structure plan, to the detriment of Rother DC. Those with a national perspective individuals and organisations who argued in their submissions that the South Downs is a national treasure which deserves the money and influence which national patronage can supply are often just as concerned about local influence: they consider that it is precisely the vested local interests whose decisions continue to erode the national interest in the Downs and which need to be held in check. This tension is at the root of the divergence of views on designation.
27. Managing the tension between local and national interests Large numbers of respondents to the consultation contributed views on this issue in one way or another (mainly on membership and planning powers). The large majority appreciated that there was something special about the Downs which ought to be reflected in decisions, and many felt that having these powers exercised mainly by existing authorities within a framework set by a new national park authority was a reasonable way forward (e.g. with joint forward planning arrangements and the delegation to existing authorities of most development control decisions). This view was strongly assaulted by a modest number of other contributors. The Association of National Park Authorities highlighted the risks of an approach which did not sufficiently empower a national park to fulfil its role. It considered there was considerable benefit in having a body with national park interests at its heart shaping national park decisions. One respondent commented "responsibility without authority and control is the worst of all senior management nightmare scenarios".
Funding a national park authority
28. Long term funding is one of the expectations of a national park authority and a welcome solution to the less reliable arrangements for funding AONBs. However comments on this issue were scarce. Rather, the focus of interest was on whether a national park authority would offer 'added value' (rather than duplication) and in turn what scale of budget could be guaranteed. Hampshire County Council and various district and parish councils felt strongly about this. Many respondents on financial issues considered that the money likely to be available, which the Sussex Downs Conservation Board have estimated using the national park funding formula at around £6 million annually, would be woefully inadequate for reaching the goals sought. No respondent however suggested what budget might be necessary.
Cover of issues
29. No significant new issues were raised during the consultation period or within the responses. Although there were variations suggested to some of the administrative options and amendments put forward for the boundary, they all reflected issues which had already been considered in the work leading up to the consultation. This is a reflection of the rigours of the work that went into first of all preparing and consulting on a mission statement for designation of a South Downs National Park, and then to inform the detailed proposals for consultation - involving many in topic groups, technical advisory groups and the local authorities and others, and not a restriction of the consultation.
Annex 2
Summary of Consultation Responses on Boundary
1. In general there has been an extremely well informed and committed response on the draft boundary, by both organisations and individuals. Enormous effort has been put into the provision of evidence and much of this has been of high quality.
2. The majority of respondents feel that the boundary is about right. On the whole, where people believe there should be amendments they call for additions not deletions. Some responses have been in great detail and many (although by no means all) use the statutory criteria and The Agency's approach to boundary setting as the basis for their submission. Where responses have not been based on the criteria, (for example are based solely on development control grounds), they have been dealt with only briefly. However, where the responses have used the criteria and provided relevant evidence, they have been considered in detail with further research and fieldwork being undertaken where necessary. The numbers or category of respondents have not been significant in decision making.
3. There have been some co-ordinated responses, such as from the South Downs Campaign and Brighton and Hove Football Club supporters. All local authorities and the majority of parish and town councils within or close to the draft boundary have made detailed responses. Local amenity groups, voluntary organisations, landowners and individuals have also commented. Most national groups have not commented in detail, but some have outlined general principles.
Recommended Revisions
4. The arguments and evidence provided for each of the 23 sections and officer's recommended responses are summarised in the table below. A total of 51 revisions to the draft boundary are recommended, mostly minor changes.
Generic Issues
5. A number of issues raised apply to more than one section. These are summarised below.
Chalk-Only Boundary
6. A minority of respondents call for the boundary to be restricted to the chalk escarpment only, including Chichester District and West Sussex County Councils, the Sussex Downs Conservation Board, a number of parish councils and the CLA.
7. The arguments given are that the wealden landscapes north of the chalk, especially in West Sussex, are a different character and not associated with people's perception of the "South Downs". The Weald is not unified to the chalk and does not possess qualities of "wildness" associated with a national park. They are, in effect, "normal countryside" and it is questioned whether they meet both the natural beauty and especially the recreation criteria. A proportion of those arguing for a chalk-only boundary also object to the principle of a national park. However a number of local authorities (e.g. East Hampshire DC) who previously have been arguing for the chalk-only boundary, now agree that non-chalk areas within their districts should be included.
8. A number of other respondents have however provided both strategic and detailed evidence for inclusion of these areas.
9. The Agency's approach to defining national park boundaries states that " Areas to be included may be of differing landscape character: quality will be the key determinant rather than uniformity" The Board therefore agreed, when identifying the area of search and the draft boundary that the wealden landscapes north of the chalk should be included where they meet the statutory criteria and have unifying links with the chalk.
10. Analysis of these areas and new evidence provided from the public consultation confirms that the wealden areas meet the statutory criteria. In particular:
11. The natural beauty is high. The wealden landscapes contain numerous national and European designations that reflect the importance and rarity of the wealden heaths, woodlands and water meadows. There are also over thirty Conservation Areas and eight historic parks and gardens. The topography of the area forms a series of Greensand ridges and clay valleys, which contribute to the small-scale mosaic of the wealden landscape and add to its scenic quality. The tranquillity found in much of the Weald is largely due to the absence of development and major transport routes. Overall, the highly distinctive landscape of the Weald has a strong sense of place and, in the areas included in the draft boundary, a strong geological and visual link to the chalk downs.
12. The recreation value is high, offering a wider range of landscapes and facilities than the chalk alone and so a greater range of recreational opportunities. The wealden areas provide a markedly superior recreational experience that compliments that found on the more exposed chalk. These include rural sports (e.g. fishing), a good network of rights of way and long distance routes, quiet rural lanes and a range of visitor attractions such as historic parks and gardens and museums. The area also offers visitor services. Since the draft boundary was agreed in September 2001, new evidence in the form of the draft maps of access land for Sussex indicate the extent of existing potential open access, within the boundary , at least as much as on the chalk areas. The Weald also has the capacity to absorb managed recreation, with screening land form, heath and woodland in a better way than the more vulnerable and exposed chalk.
13. The strongest unifying factor between the Weald and the chalk is geological. Chalk, Clays and Greensand always occur in sequence: thus the chalk ridge is not geologically isolated from the Weald; rather they are inextricably linked. There is also a strong visual link; the Weald landscapes form the foreground to the famous elevated views from the chalk ridge, whilst the chalk escarpment dominates views southwards from the Weald. Historical connections are also still apparent, such as the north-south roads and parish boundaries at the eastern end of the escarpment.
14. Part of the concern over the inclusion of the Weald stems from the perception that the South Downs is solely a chalk landscape. However, landscape assessment of the two AONBs show that this is not the case and indeed the Sussex Downs and the East Hampshire AONBs were originally designated for the outstanding quality and character of both their Weald and chalk landscapes.
15. The Board previously agreed that inclusion of the wealden areas is especially desirable because
- it will allow for a boundary that can meet our vision for a South Downs National Park
- the area includes a variety of landscape types that will offer a diversity of experiences in line with modern recreational needs;
- the variety of landscape characters will result in an assemblage of classic lowland English landscapes with strong unifying factors.
16. No new evidence has been brought to light from the consultation to change that decision.
Major Towns and Settlements
17. A minority (including SDCB, Sussex Enterprise and the National Trust) argue against the inclusion of large towns such as Lewes and Petersfield (and to a lesser extent Arundel, Midhurst and Petworth). They believe that national parks should not be concerned with urban matters, as this is a distraction from their statutory duties. They argue that including such large towns will "dilute" from the overall quality of the national park. Furthermore, concerns are raised of the implications for these towns of being managed by a national park authority, with views expressed that a national park authority would not be sympathetic to economic growth. .
18. Many district and town councils however support the inclusion of Lewes, Petersfield, Arundel and Midhurst, as do the South Downs Campaign, East Hampshire AONB and Association of National Park Authorities. They make the point that it is desirable to include towns which meet the criteria to enhance their role as gateways and to avoid the creation of artificial barriers between town and country. It is generally agreed that both Lewes and Petersfield should be included on their own merits due to their strong historical cores, links to the Downs and high quality surrounding landscapes.
19. The Agency's approach is to "include land and settlements which contribute to the rural economy and community life within the park and to the park's special qualities and purposes" and that inclusion or exclusion should normally depend on their contribution as a whole to the character and purposes of the park". None of the arguments put forward suggest that the towns included within the boundary should be exceptions from this.
20. There have also been many responses arguing for inclusion of other towns and settlements, particularly from the town or parish council concerned. Only a small minority of responses have called for the exclusion of a settlement. Each has been assessed according to our agreed approach: see table below for outcomes.
21. There are also a number of places where the boundary, (usually where based on the AONB boundary), splits the settlement. : e.g. Lower Upham, Strettington, Greatham, Cooksbridge and Hamsey. In some cases it is questionable if a settlement is split e.g. Slindon and Slindon Common and Blendworth. The settlement envelope shown in the Local Plan have been taken as the definitive definition. For each, a judgement has been made whether to include or exclude the settlement in its entirety, by applying the agreed approach.
22. Many parishes also call for the whole of their parish to be either included or excluded as there are fears that otherwise the boundary will split communities and result in development pressures and restrictions being different within their local area. West Sussex County Council have suggested that whole parishes should be included and none should be split by the boundary. However the Agency approach is that local government boundaries will usually, although not always, be unsuitable as boundaries because "they follow no defined physical feature, may be subject to alteration and seldom conform to the limits of landscape quality or recreational value".
Development Plans & Allocated Developments
23. The Agency's approach is that "land allocated in adopted development plans as to be worked for the quarrying and mining of important deposits on the margins of a national park should normally be excluded from the park unless the land will be restored to a land use and quality which contributes to park purposes. This approach will also apply to major industrial and commercial developments for which land is allocated in adopted development plans at the time of designation".
The consultation has identified areas where allocated developments have been included or some areas where respondents have questioned the allocation itself and therefore the resulting exclusion of that land. Some have argued that an area of land should be included to stop development. Such areas include:
- proposed community stadium development at Falmer;
- proposed by-pass at Arundel;
- allocated development at West Durrington and the impact on Titnore Wood;
- proposed park and ride development at Bar End, Winchester;
- proposed developments at Beeches Avenue and Lyons Farm, Worthing;
27. There are also a number of existing and relict landfill/mineral sites on the edge of the draft boundary which have caused comments, especially south of Storrington, east of Chichester and in the Kingsley/Oakhanger area of Hampshire.
28. We have therefore reviewed again adopted development plan allocations and mineral and waste sites and their restoration plans
Marine Areas
29. There have been a number of arguments for a marine area being included within the boundary. Organisations including the South Downs Campaign, East Sussex County Council, all East Sussex District Councils and English Nature have all argued for the Agency to consider the inclusion of a marine area beyond the mean low water mark at Seven Sisters. The natural beauty of the foreshore's pristine environment and its value for wildlife and archaeology is noted. There is also evidence on how it meets the recreation criteria (access, diving, etc). Arguments for the desirability of including a marine area include protection from damaging offshore development and from intrusive recreational impacts.
30. Most submissions recognise that it is not legally possible to include areas beyond the mean low water mark under the provisions of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. However, some then call for the Agency to press government for
new legislation that would enable the inclusion of a marine area. Others call for the Agency to support a private members bill which is currently going through the House that would, if it became law, enable the designation of a marine reserve from the mean low water mark to the territorial water boundary.
31. We have undertaken further research to consider this, looking at:
- the statutory and non-statutory designations that can apply to marine areas and the key players in marine areas;
- coastal boundaries in other English and Welsh national parks
- the work existing NPA's do in their coastal and marine areas
32. It is clear that there is no legal method of including a marine area within a South Downs National Park designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and that for the purposes of the Designation Order the boundary should be the mean low water mark. Our interpretation of the Randall private members bill is that it would not allow for the inclusion of a marine area within a national park boundary, but would allow for a marine reserve to be designated alongside the national park. However, the government have stated that they are unlikely to support the Bill in its present form.
33. However, research has shown that there are a number of ways in which a national park authority could play a future role in protecting marine areas adjacent to its boundaries: as happens in many existing national parks. For example through Integrated Coastal Zone Management partnerships which are at the forefront of EU action to improve the management and protection of marine areas. A park could also play a role as a partner in the existing Voluntary Marine Conservation Area at Seven Sisters.
34. More work will be done throughout the summer, with a view to including within our advice the role a South Downs National Park Authority could play in influencing action beyond its seaward boundary
Annex 3: Recommended Revisions from Draft to Proposed Boundary (Refer to Map in Annex 3)
| No | Section | Map | Draft Boundary | Recommended Revision |
| 1 | A | 2 | Follows built edge and includes Winchester Water Meadows | Minor deletion to exclude formal playing fields which are more urban than rural in character and do not meet criteria. |
| 2 | A | 2 | Follows M3 and includes slip road to east | Minor deletion of land along M3 slip road :no longer meets criteria. |
| 3 | B | 2/3/4 | Follows southern edge of railway line | Boundary redrawn along northern edge of railway line as is a more suitable boundary on the ground. |
| 4 | C | 5 | Follows AONB boundary and includes land northeast of Wolfhanger Farm. | AONB boundary does not follow any identifable feature on the ground so proposed boundary follows track to south of AONB. |
| 5 | C | 6 | Follows AONB boundary and includes land west of Dogford Wood. | AONB boundary does not follow any identifable feature on the ground so proposed boundary redrawn to edge of woodland |
| 6 | C | 6/7 | Follows A32 and excludes Lower Farringdon. | Major addition The boundary follows Headmore Lane as far as the A31 and then east to the A32. Land to the west between Chawton and Four Marks meets the natural beauty criteria (strong landform, typical chalk landscape, intact and strong sense of place) and recreation criteria (footpaths along disused railway, good network of bridleways). It results in Lower Farringdon being included (considered part of same settlement as Upper Farringdon by many). It also resolves lack a clearly definable boundary on the ground east of Headmore Lane. |
| 7 | E | 10 | Follows edge of Greatham excluding northern part of village but including church to south. | Minor deletion to exclude the whole of Greatham village (split by AONB boundary). Boundary follows the edge of development. Greatham village does not meet the criteria: although it contains an attractive church and ruins to the south. |
| 8 | E | 11 | Follows Portsmouth Road and railway line. | Minor addition to include all of Wheatsheaf Common, a small area of attractive heathland with SNCI designation. Area is accessible from B2070 and via two bridges under railway. |
| 9 | F | 12 | Follows Chase Lane and edge of woodland north of Chase Farm. | Minor exclusion of Chase Farm which is within Surrey County. Boundary follows field edges to south. |
| 10 | H | 15 | Follows Pallingham Lane and Wey-South Path. | Addition to include Pallingham Manor and Toat Hill and surrounding land (Toat Wood SNCI) which defines the eastern valley sides of the River Arun. This area meets both the natural beauty and recreation criteria and forms an impressive setting to the Arun valley. |
| 11 | J | 16 | Follows AONB boundary north of Greston Farm. | AONB boundary does not follow any identifable feature on the ground so proposed boundary follows field boundaries instead. |
| 12 | K | 18 | Follows built edge to south of Steyning, Bramber and Upper Beeding excluding these settlements | Major addition to include Steyning and Bramber settlements. Significant new data has come forward on the historical links, cultural events and importance of Steyning and Bramber. On balance these factors are considered to outweigh the issues of peripheral 'ordinary' development. Steyning and Bramber therefore meet criteria and our approach for inclusion of towns. |
| 13 | K | 18/19 | Follows built edge to south of Steyning, Bramber and Upper Beeding and excludes the Upper Adur Valley | Major addition to include Adur valley as far north as Stretham Manor. The inclusion of Steyning and Bramber allows for the inclusion of the Adur Valley which meets both the natural beauty and recreation criteria and provides unique opportunities to view the chalk escarpment. The boundary line has been drawn to include areas which meet the criteria and which are closely associated with the escarpment. |
| 14 | K | 19 | Follows edge of woodland and A203. | Minor deletion of area which does not meet the natural beauty criteria. Boundary follows back edge of development excluding houses and Horton Farm. |
| 15 | K | 21 | Follows AONB boundary north of Blackdog Hill | AONB does not follow clearly identifable feature on the ground, so proposed boundary follows track to north. |
| 16 | L | 22 | Follows AONB boundary through village of Cooksbridge | Minor deletion to exclude whole of Cooksbridge and farm as they do not meet the criteria. Boundary follows the built edge and excludes associated recreation ground to the west. |
| 17 | L | 22 | Follows lane through hamlet of Hamsey | Minor addition to follow property boundaries to the north of the lane, including Hamsey Manor, so to include whole of settlement. |
| 18 | M | 23 | Southeast Ringmer follows stream and field boundaries between B2192 and Neaves Lane | Minor addition to take in a small area of land to the north which meets criteria and ensures that the boundary follows a clearly definable line on the ground. |
| 19 | M | 23/24 | Follows AONB boundary across bridge at Glynde and through Balcombe Pit. | Small section of Balcombe Pit is excluded as it is not regarded as meeting the criteria and is allocated for development in the Local Plan. Minor addition of to the east of Glynde bridge as far as Willow Shaw which meets the criteria. Boundary follows hedgerows and the railway and then the road adjacent to Balcombe Pit. |
| 20 | M | 24 | Follows AONB boundary along lanes north and south of A27 around Gibraltar and Newhouse Farm | Inclusion of land south of A27 at Gibralter. Exclusion of land north of A27 at Newhouse Farm to use A27 to form a more logical boundary. |
| 21 | N | 25/26 | Follows built edge north of Wannock Copse | Minor addition to boundary to include more woodland at Wannock Copse, which meets criteria: is the same quality as nearby land already included. |
| 22 | N | 26 | Follows footpath south of built edge at Willmington Cemetery | Minor addition to boundary to include downland field and land which meets criteria up to the built edge. |
| 23 | N | 26/27 | Follows woodland edge at Babylon Downs, Downside School and top of cliffs at Holywell. | Three minor additions to the boundary up to the built edge. All three of these small areas of unspoilt downland/woodland which lie adjacent to the urban edge meet the criteria and merit inclusion. |
| 24 | P | 28 | Follows AONB boundary along edge of Seaford Golf Course | Minor addition to include land adjacent to urban edge that meets criteria. Boundary extends as far as esplanade. |
| 25 | P | 29 | Follows edge of woodland and field boundaries set back from the urban edge at Denton | Minor addition to include woodland and paddocks adjacent to urban edge which meet criteria and is consistent with approach used elsewhere. Although some landscape degradation in paddocks, this impact is localised and the landscape reads as a sweep of land up to the urban edge. |
| 26 | P | 30 | Follows track at Bullock Down | Minor deletion to exclude area of development which no longer meets criteria. |
| 27 | P | 30 | Follows AONB boundary south of A259 | Minor deletion to exclude land to south of A259 which is separated from the downs by the road and does not meet criteria. |
| 28 | P | 30/31 | Follows built edge at Looes Barn, Saltdean | Minor deletion to exclude land which does not meet the natural beauty criteria (includes derelict buildings) and associated playing fields and sports pitch are urban in character. Area also includes a small allocation in the Brighton Borough Local Plan (1995). |
| 29 | P | 31 | Follows A259 between St Dunstans and Rottingdean | Minor addition of land to north of miniature golf course and St Dunstans Hospital which meets the recreation and natural beauty criteria and reads as part of the wider downs landscape with spectacular views inland as well as out to sea. Boundary follows northern edge of golf course and boundary of St Dunstans. |
| 30 | P | 31 | Follows A259 south of Roedean School | Minor deletion of Rodean School: although a significant landmark it has no public access and exclusion is consistent with approach elsewhere. The boundary follows the northern edge of school. The boundary follows the northern edge of school. |
| 31 | P | 31/32 | Follows edge of former landfill site at Sheepcote Valley | Boundary follows footpath to east to allow for an identifiable boundary on the ground. |
| 32 | P | 32 | Follows AONB boundary along Drove Road | Minor addition to include land which meets criteria up to urban edge. |
| 33 | P | 32 | Follows Village Way | Minor addition to boundary. Land allocated for development in the Brighton Borough Local Plan (Adopted 1995) remains excluded. However land north of Village Way within Lewes District which is not allocated for development is included because it meets the criteria and reads as part of the wider sweep of land down to the A27. As a result the boundary follows the administrative boundary. |
| 34 | P | 32 | Follows northern edge of University of Sussex site | Minor deletion from boundary. Land allocated for development north of university site is excluded in accordance with our guidelines. This allocation (Brighton Local Plan, 1995) was missed at the draft boundary stage. |
| 35 | P | 32/33 | Follows built edge of Coldean and includes Coldean Wood and Varley Halls of Residence. | Minor deletion to exclude Varley Halls and Coldean Wood.. Area is cut off by the A27 from the parkland north and lacks a visual connection with the wider Downs. Coldean Wood is an important site for local use and does have historical connections with the designed landscape of Stanmer Park, but is small in size and isolated. On balance it is excluded. Boundary follows north side of A27. |
| 36 | P | 33 | Follows built edge. | Minor deletion to exclude two schools and associated grounds on southern edge. Area of woodland also excluded to enable the boundary to follow clearly definable line. Also minor deletion of land west of road which does not meet the criteria. |
| 37 | P | 33 | Follows line of A27 | Minor deletion to exclude road embankment of A27 which does not meet criteria. |
| 38 | P | 33 | Follows A23 and line across Coney Hill and then edge of built form to junction at Red Hill. | Minor deletion to exclude Coney Hill, Green Ridge and Patcham Place. Boundary follows north side of A27. These sites are important for local amenity and form the local setting of the downs as the landscape sweeps into the urban edge. Due to their wooded nature they have not been as impacted by the A27 as much as some of the more open areas, but they are severed by the road and do not have strong visual connections nor physical access to the wider downs. They are relatively small in size and fragmented from their wider landscape. They do not therefore meet the criteria for inclusion. |
| 39 | P | 33 | Boundary follows built edge south of A27 | Major deletion to exclude Toads Hole Valley.Boundary follows north side of A27. Toads Hole Valley does not meet the natural beauty criteria (open rough ground) nor recreation criteria (not open to public). It is severed from the downs and has no physical connections with the wider landscape. The A27 is dominant within views as is the urban edge which impacts on its quality and association with the wider landscape. It is not accessible for public access and there are no access crossings over the A27. It is a relatively large area of land that forms part of the sweep of landscape into the urban edge and could serve local amenity needs. However, on balance this area does not meet the criteria and it would be inconsistent to include it. |
| 40 | P | 34 | Follows AONB boundary along built edge and cuts across golf course to A293. | Minor deletion to exclude Benfield Valley. Boundary follows north side of A27 (excluding cuttings). Benfield Valley does not meet the natural beauty and recreation criteria, although it is has some attractive areas of landscape which are well used by the local population. The area is long and narrow, boarded by built development and has a more urban than downland character. The golf course to the north has a stronger connection and visual and physical links. However the proximity of the A27 and views westwards significantly increase the adverse impact of the road on the quality of this area. |
| 41 | P | 34 | Follows the built edge and then Foredown Road north of Portslade Village | Minor addition and deletion. Boundary follows Foredown Road and extends as far as the access road north of Portslade Village to include Foredown Hill and Foredown Tower. This land meets the natural beauty criteria offering outstanding views to the wider downs and providing a good connection between the urban edge and the rest of the National Park. This area is at a higher elevation than other areas south of the A27 and so the visual impact of the road is minimised as it is in deep cutting. The area also meets the recreation criteria: it has a good physical connection (footbridge) and Foredown Tower (an education centre, viewpoint and camera obscura) acts as an exceptional gateway to the wider Downs. However land to the east is excluded as it does not meet the quality criteria: it is orientated eastwards and as a result is significantly adversely affected by the presence of the A27. It is also allocated for development in the adopted local plan. |
| 42 | P | 34 | Follows built edge south of A27 at Mile Oak. | Minor deletion. Boundary follows the A27 to exclude the reservoir and associated development. Area does not meet natural beauty and recreation criteria. It is used as paddocks and has no public access. |
| 43 | P | 35 | Follows footpath from Lancing Ring Nature Reserve to Hoe Court Farm | Minor addition to include two fields on edge of Lancing which meet the criteria for inclusion. Properties are not part of Lancing settlement but within Lancing College estate. |
| 44 | P | 35 | Follows built development north of Lancing. | Minor deletion to exclude rear garden to property on edge of Lancing where private land use has been allowed to encroach into the AONB, has been fenced off and is no longer accessible. |
| 45 | P | 36 | Follows AONB boundary and cuts across area known as the Gallops. | Minor addition to include Gallops area which meet recreation and natural beauty criteria and extends downland landscape character into the urban area. Boundary follows built edge. |
| 46 | S | 39 | Slindon Common: Boundary runs along A29 north of Slindon Common | Minor deletion to exclude area of development and addition to boundary to include woodland of Slindon Common. The woodland south of the A27 meets the criteria and is very similar in character and quality to that within the rest of the estate. Access by one right of way across the A29 and it is well used for recreation. Slindon and Slindon Common are separate settlements: Slindon Common does not meet the criteria and so the whole built area is excluded. |
| 47 | S | 39 | Follows AONB boundary at Dukes Road | Minor deletion to exclude development that does not meet the criteria. |
| 48 | S | 40 | Follows Lavant Straight | Minor deletion to exclude settlement of Strettington (split by AONB) which does not meet criteria |
| 49 | T | 40 | Follows hedges across River Lavant | Minor addition to boundary to include all of Lavant Valley between Chichester and Mid Lavant Village, which meets the criteria and is of equal quality to land already included. |
| 50 | U | 43 | Follows lanes and hedgerows north of Blendworth Farm | Minor addition to include whole of settlement (split by AONB) and small area of land to the south. |
| 51 | W | 48/49 | Follows B2177 | Minor addition to include all of settlement and land to the south (SNCI) which is regarded as meeting natural beauty criteria. Minor deletion from boundary to exclude land within Eastleigh District. |
Annex 5
Summary of responses on administration and
recommended approach
Introduction
1. Of the 6500 respondents just over 2,250 made comments on the administrative arrangements. In all cases the quality of the argument has been important: not just the numbers supporting a particular option.
2. The lower number of respondents probably reflects the complexity of the issues involved and the more theoretical nature of the questions being asked. Whilst people were able to see a boundary on a map and comment accordingly using the criteria a they were perhaps less sure of some of the implications of choosing particular administrative options. However, the responses received were of a high quality and often very detailed.
3. Many people commented on issues which are matters of policy for a future national park authority: these can be passed on to the authority, if and when it is established. They also helped us in focusing on the administrative arrangements necessary to achieve the outcomes that people desired. For example, the many comments on the belief that there were already too many cars in the Downs helped in shaping our recommendations for a national park authorities role in transport.
Issue 1. Membership of a South Downs National Park Authority
Membership framework
4. The Agency's preferred option for a national park authority based on the Environment Act 1995 model was supported over the alternatives by over 60% of respondents. The need to maintain the proportions of local authority/parish/national members was seen as important. Many local authorities in particular emphasised the need for local authorities to have a majority on the authority; but many others also supported the need for parish members and the expertise that national members could bring.
5. Those that did not favour this option were in the main concerned that national appointees would mean that a national park authority is run remotely (some even suggested from London) or would not be locally accountable/undemocratic. Some thought that the Countryside Agency would be the national park authority.
6. The submissions showed that there were broadly three alternative perspectives on what kind of national park authority members respondents are looking for:
- Some respondents were keen that members should be 'elected' (either directly, or as a representative of a local authority).
- Other respondents wanted members to be 'local', often with a clear distinction between 'elected locally' and 'local'. There were various comments suggesting a conflict of interest of local authority members, and a hope to see new faces.
- A third segment of respondents emphasised 'expertise' as the critical criterion and suggested a variety of ways of finding it. Broadly, that group hoped for members to be found from people with specialised interests and a range of different backgrounds.
7. Comments on size were limited and mostly supportive of a smaller sized authority. It appears that although the majority agree with a large authority of 46 members because of the need to involve all local authorities, this is without much enthusiasm. Preference for a smaller authority was based on a feeling that 46 members was too unwieldy. Local authorities though all believe they need full representation as the 1995 model allows. Individuals suggested a wide range of alternative sizes and compositions for a smaller national park authority. There was also some support for an independent chairman.
8. Response: The weight of evidence is in support of the Countryside Agency's preferred option for a 46-member South Downs National Park Authority based on the standard model. This will provide the balance of elected/local/expertise sought, and address any concerns of remoteness. Concerns about lack of direct accountability are outweighed by the need for a balance of local and national interest, which the 1995 Act provides. There are no South Downs specific issues or administrative structures which require an alternative.
9. However, there is a substantial minority with justified concern about this size of an authority. The conclusion from the consultation must be that establishing practical arrangements which enable decisions to be taken by much smaller groups will be important: for example by establishing a cabinet or other executive decision making body. The overall size could also be reduced if local authorities chose to reduce their own representation: e.g. by smaller authorities "sharing" a seat, or counties not taking up their full membership.
10. The Countryside Agency is recommended therefore to advise that the Secretary of State establishes a South Downs National Park Authority under the 1995 Act. When deciding upon the number of seats per local authority to be shown in an establishment order he should discuss with local authorities ways of reducing their overall numbers, and also advise a national park authority to put in place efficient decision making structures in line with the modernising local government agenda.
Parish members
11. The consultation asked how parish members should be selected for a national park authority, and indicated the Agency's preference for 'a locally agreed democratic process'. This question generated a substantial response and a wide range of suggestions. Over two thirds of respondents supported selection mechanisms which fall within the scope of a local democratic process, and most of the range of ideas fell within this bracket. Only a handful of other options were offered from having no parish members to advertising for them, to local preservation societies choosing them. A few (largely parish councils) also expressed concern that not all parishes would have a seat.
12. Many also emphasised the need for a geographic spread of appointees to ensure that a wide mix of community interests are brought forward: especially as this national park will be so extensive. Others stressed the need for parish members to have some skills/expertise to offer to an authority, not simply to act as a representative.
13. Within the democratic processes, the two most preferred options were for the parish councils to make their own choices (some refining this by reference to district or county associations of parish and town councils doing this), and for direct elections. Variations emerged on the desirability of commitment, merit and expertise amongst candidates having a bearing on the choice, with a few suggesting the benefit of interviews. Unusual but interesting ideas emerged, such as a poll in local newspapers.
14. Response: Parish members on a national park authority should be selected by a locally agreed democratic process, for which there is wide support. Parish members are appointed by the Secretary of State: but he/she may invite names to be brought forward for consideration (as happens in other parks). Parish members are appointed to represent all communities, not individual parishes, so it is appropriate to have a selection separate from parish council elections: and to look for a geographic spread of members. They should also be able to bring expertise to an authority and contribute to its purposes.
15. The Countryside Agency is recommended therefore to advise that: in inviting names, the Secretary of State should therefore define the characteristics sought, and work with local parishes to agree an open and democratic process for selection. The option most widely supported is for the county associations to be asked to hold county level elections. It may be appropriate to use a variety of selection mechanisms.
Creating a skilled administration
16. The consultation asked people about the best way to make sure that a South Downs National Park Authority had the right expertise: eg by changing the proportions of members, by giving more guidance in the selection of members and by ensuring that members received training and signed a code of conduct.
17. There was widespread support for the Agency's approach to ensuring suitable expertise on a national park authority, and little opposition to it, although approaches which involved varying the proportion of members were not favoured by the majority (see above).
18. The consultation also asked if the Countryside Agency's suggested range of knowledge and expertise to be represented amongst the membership covered what was required. Half of respondents thought it did, under 10% thought not, and the rest did not comment. The most popular suggestion for additional requirements was for 'sustainable development', with most respondents making this point. The other most frequently suggested areas were expertise in public transport and transport management. Farmers also sought a substantial representation.
19. The responses emphasised the merit attached to a skilled administration by proposing that all members should receive training and sign a code of conduct. Only 10% of respondents did not respond on this issue. The vast majority supported the proposal for a code of conduct and training and there were few other comments.
20. Response: Perhaps because this is a new national park and the majority of people were not familiar with how a national park authority might work the code of conduct and the need for training were seen as particularly important. This is not unique to the Downs: it has also been raised as an issue for DEFRA's National Parks Review. The recommendations of the review will need to be taken into account before the Agency prepares its final advice.
21. The range of skills needed by a South Downs National Park Authority reflect many of the pressures that the Downs are facing and also reflect the recognition of the important role played by landowners and farmers in shaping the future of the Downs.
22. The Countryside Agency is therefore recommended to advise that: all those appointing members should look collectively for people with the following skills/expertise:
Arable and livestock farming, environmental pollution, soil and water management, cultural landscapes, biodiversity, forestry and farm diversification.
recreation, tourism, education, communication, social exclusion, transport and sustainable development.
All members should sign a code of conduct and take part in ongoing training.
Issue 2 A role in forward planning and development control
Introduction
23. Ministers have asked the Agency to look particularly at this issue. The public consultation responses show that it continues to be one of, if not the most, controversial of issues with diverse view expressed. We have looked at this issue during the designation process in a number of ways involving experts with experience of the planning system currently in the Downs as well as some who operate in other national parks. There is no simple solution and whatever system is finally put in place will require close working between the national park and the existing authorities.
24. Principles Our nationally agreed objectives for administration of the planning system in the new national parks is that as a whole it should be designed and operated in a way that:
- Is at an effective scale,
- Has an effective and efficient operation
- Has plans which integrate well and are in conformity;
- Is clear, accessible and accountable to the local user;
- Provides best value and does not place an undue burden on the public purse.
- It should not adversely effect the efficient planning of the surrounding areas.
25. Work we undertook locally led us to conclude that planning administration for a South Downs National Park should above all be capable of helping in the achievement of the purposes and the duty of a national park authority. The principles necessary to achieve the above objectives are as follows:
- The process helps deliver national park purposes.
- The process achieves consistent decision-making across the national park and looks at the conformity through policy, process, decision-making and standards of service.
- The process helps integrate decision-making on strategic land use and other policy matters across the national park boundary and includes monitoring.
- The process is accessible and clearly understood by the users.
- The system is efficient, cost effective and minimises duplication.
- The system is accountable
26. These principles hold true for whatever system of planning is in place: and so as well as being relevant under the current planning regime would also apply if the changes such as those proposed in the Planning Green Paper are adopted.
27. Current legislation makes a national park authority the sole planning authority for its area. Nevertheless, there is a wide range of options for the exercise of the powers involved, particularly for forward planning, as there are, for example options for transfer, delegation, or joint working. There is a choice between a two tier or single tier system of plans, and various options for who prepare these . The two tier system would involve one or more strategic 'structure' plans, plus one or more 'minerals & waste' local plans, plus one or more 'local' plans. The national park would be covered entirely by each of these three types of plan in a two tier system. In a single tier structure, all three functions (strategic, local and minerals & waste) would be combined into a single 'unitary' plan. Whilst a unitary development plan (UDP) would cover the whole park and only the park, plans under the two tier system could cover either just the park or both the park and areas outside too. The options are thus quite complex in outline and become a whole lot more complex in detail!
28. The consultation has served to show how difficult it is for those unfamiliar with the complexities of the forward planning system to make a helpful contribution. This has been most noticeable in the responses which have opted for both a two tier and a single tier option. For statistical purposes in the analysis below, we have treated responses which clearly favoured the unitary development plan option as 'other' in counting responses to structure, minerals & waste and local plans.
29. In addition, a number of respondents have pointed out that, since the start of the consultation period, the government has announced far-reaching proposals in a Green Paper for fundamental review of the planning system. However on the basis that these are only proposals and have not yet been concluded nor implemented we have carried on the analysis of the consultation on the basis of the current system. The Green Paper proposals are considered later in the report.
Forward planning
30. General comments A number of respondents noted the oddity in the Countryside Agency's preferred arrangements for forward planning that there should be three strategic plans covering the South Downs but just one local plan. Normally the proportions would be the other way round. The issue highlights the central difficulty in trying to achieve both cross-boundary cohesion with existing authorities and also a distinctive park-wide planning framework. Some respondents were concerned that a national park authority's powers should not be diluted or the focus lost by emphasising integration with perspectives from outside the national park. On the other hand, there was a section of respondents who wanted forward planning measures which kept control of planning 'local'. They tended to favour closer integration of policy or even the transfer of powers to existing local authorities.
31. There is clearly a body of opinion in favour of park-wide planning by means of either a local plan or a unitary development plan, with over 80% of respondents favouring one or other (or both!) of these options. There were objections to either a UDP or a park-wide local plan on grounds including the size of the area, the range of issues to be covered and the enormity of the preparation, adoption time and process (e.g. Tarmac, Winchester City Council) but this was a minority view.
32. There is no dispute that the scale and nature of planning in the South Downs is different from other national parks, but there is a debate on whether this means that it needs a unique solution. Most local authorities argued for arrangements which involved the least adjustment from the status quo in terms of forward planning and development control powers, even if this was significantly different from practice/legislation for other national parks. Others argued all national parks are unique but have benefited from a common solution. Establishing a stable unitary planning authority for a national park would have the advantage of removing external political considerations from decisions. This sector considered that the interests of stability, efficiency and quality of planning argued for a unitary approach, and that voluntary arrangements should be avoided.
33. Some concern was expressed that a national park authority would have to devote enormous resources to planning, and that there would be some duplication of activity between a national park authority and existing authorities. Winchester City Council argued that there could be adverse impacts on adjacent planning authorities, who might be unable to sustain a full range of planning services, especially specialist ones, if a large part of their planning responsibilities were transferred to a national park authority.
34. Many people felt that the boundary selected for the national park could not be divorced from the impact on planning especially if substantial towns were including inside the park. Their concerns included that:
• the transfer of responsibilities and their possible effects, noted above, would become more pronounced;
• pursuing national park purposes in towns could be in conflict with other government policies, such as focusing development in the main settlements; and
• development control in urban areas would be a burden on a national park authority and not a priority.
35. Conclusions are difficult to draw from this range of submissions, though there are clear desires both for integration between the South Downs and its hinterland and for park-wide planning. The complexity of forward planning issues have not always led to clear outcomes, though many issues have been raised.
36. Structure plan About 55% of respondents agreed with the Agency's preferred option for the preparation of three joint structure plans (one with each of the three existing county areas). This was about twice as many as wanted all the other options put together. There was general agreement with the arguments advanced by the Agency, and comments on the problems with the preferred option and advantages of other options were limited. There was some concern that national park interests might lose out in the event of disagreement between the authorities preparing joint structure plans, and in parallel with that view modest support for a national park authority to prepare a single structure plan of its own. Very few (eg exceptionally amongst local authorities, West Sussex) sought a whole scale transfer of structure plans to the existing counties.
37. Response: There is a strong case for strategic planning which is capable of dealing with cross boundary issues, particularly given the geography of the national park of this area. This model will give a NPA sufficient influence as it remains the responsible authority.
38. The Countryside Agency is recommended to advise that: Three joint structure plans are prepared, although there is a need to ensure consistency in content and timing, which would come through a national park authority role in plan preparation. This is possible under the 1995 Environment Act but three 3 plans for the one area will require special provision through secondary legislation (an Establishment Order).
39. Minerals and waste local plan About half the respondents favoured the Agency's preferred option that, like structure plans, three minerals and waste local plans should be prepared jointly with each of the existing county areas. There was little support for the other two specific options on how to handle minerals and waste local plans. Comment on the issue was limited, although others, eg CNP favoured a single park wide plan prepared as part of the local plan as the more efficient option.
39. Response: Waste and minerals planning in the area is strategic, particularly the link of waste planning and waste management for the south coast settlements. The main issue is impact of waste which arises outside the boundary which impacts upon the park, and minerals extraction just outside which affects views from the park. Whilst a more complex arrangement, on balance therefore a cross boundary approach of joint plans is favoured. Furthermore, as mineral planning is not a major issue within the boundary. It would be most efficient for an NPA to draw on expertise of specialist staff in existing authorities.
40. The Countryside Agency is recommended to advise that: Three joint minerals and waste local plans should be prepared.
41. Local plan Over 60% of respondents favoured the Agency's preferred option of a park-wide local plan prepared by a national park authority (i.e. a greater level of support than for the Agency's preferred options for structure plan arrangements and minerals & waste local planning). This option was notably supported by a number of district and county councils. Many though qualified their support by suggesting that such a plan should have 3 chapters to tie in with the three joint structure plan areas to assist with conformity.
42. There was little support for other local plan options, although a small core of opinion seeks to maximise the role of existing authorities in order to keep control 'local'. In particular a minority of district and some parish councils favoured continuing with the existing local plan arrangements. Few though explained how national park interests could be assured in this approach, although some mentioned a consultative role for a national park authority. The suggestion that each local plan thus produced should include a chapter on the national park was also mentioned a number of times.
43. There was also some support for joint local plan arrangements. Some supported an idea of three joint local plans (although did not always specify with which districts) prepared to reflect the county split and the structure plan position.
44. Response: The need for consistency in approach and standards across the national park has been largely supported- there has been no evidence that this would not be provided by a park wide local plan nor have there been any alternatives put forward that are more likely to achieve this. There are no problems with conformity of such a plan with three structure plans. The desire to ensure such a plan can be locally relevant and relates to structure plans can be readily achieved : eg the plan structure and policies could be presented in a way ( eg three chapters) which reflects the local vernacular across the park area while maintaining consistency in approach and standards for operation of the planning system. Presentation of the plan will be a decision for a national park authority to make, advised by neighbouring authorities.
45. The Countryside Agency is recommended to advise that: There should be one park-wide local plan prepared by a national park Authority. It should draw on advise from surrounding local authorities: eg through a joint advisory committee.
46. Unitary development plan Over 50% of respondents considered that a UDP should be prepared for the South Downs, though nearly a quarter of respondents specifically opposed this. However these results in support of a UDP are clearly incompatible with those from the other types of forward plan. If respondents were committed to a two tier system there should have been far more 'no' responses to a UDP. Likewise, supporters of UDPs should have resisted two tier arrangements. The response is therefore difficult to analyse as there has clearly been some confusion on these alternatives. Some made in their comments that they support a park wide approach by a NPA however achieved.
47. There was very little other comment. However, the Association of National Park Authorities presented the evidence that unitary planning is working well in Welsh national parks and should be used in the South Downs.
48. Response. Although a UDP does have some merit on efficiency grounds this is largely outweighed by the need for cross-boundary working on strategic issues, which was clearly supported by responses to structure and mineral plan options.
49. The Countryside Agency is recommended to advise that: A UDP is not a suitable solution for the production of development plans in the South Downs.
Development control
50. Nearly half the respondents supported the Agency's preferred option for a national park authority to retain responsibility for development control but to delegate some of the work to existing local authorities. A minority of under 10% of respondents wanted no delegation, and at the other extreme, a very small number wanted legislation to transfer development control powers to local authorities.
51. Those favouring transfer based their arguments almost solely on an opinion that local authorities, because of local accountability, should take such decisions. There was little comment on how this would ensure that national purposes could be achieved, although East Hampshire DC suggested that a national park authority should be given powers to call in any decisions taken by the district council that were contrary to national park purposes. Nor was much comment on how such a transfer, which would split plan making from planning decisions, would retain the integrity of the plan led system.
52. The degree of delegation of powers to local authorities attracted very substantial interest. A view held by many was that a national park authority should itself make the final decision on the degree of delegation, rather than be guided by a Secretary of State decision or other guidance in advance of a national park's designation. The other frequently made comment was that the casework to be delegated should be confined to small scale routine applications consistent with policy. Similarly, a range of comments was offered on the types of more substantial development proposal on which respondents considered a national park authority itself should take decisions.
53. Comments on this issue indicated a range of different starting points amongst respondents. One segment of submissions saw delegation as likely to create problems as much as solve them and to risk undermining the purpose of giving planning powers to a national park authority. This perspective considered that local authorities had other interests to pursue which they would inevitably consider more important, to the detriment of a national park. The Association of National Park Authorities argued that the experience of delegation of development control powers elsewhere (The Broads) had not been satisfactory and argued against delegation. One individual argued that it was "important that a national park authority does not lose control of 'small' and 'local' decisions, since the great mass of these can easily erode the powers and actions of a national park authority as easily as a few poor decisions of greater import".
54. The alternate view on delegation centred on the merit of 'local' decisions which were not so 'remote' from residents. There was some perception that, without delegation, decisions might otherwise be taken (at worst) by unelected committees covering for absentee members. Few comments were offered on which types or locations of decisions might most appropriately be delegated to local authorities, though decisions in urban areas were mentioned by one candidate (as the Agency too, had contemplated). Full transfer of powers would avoid duplicating administrative functions between a national park authority and local authorities.
55. Other views were also expressed on ways of trying to have the benefits of both a delegated and non-delegated system, with safeguards such as a power for a national park authority to 'call-in' a decision delegated to the local authority, or for a local authority to have a 'right to be heard' by a national park authority on a decision not delegated.
56. Concern was expressed that, whatever delegation arrangements were chosen, they might be unclear and lead to disagreements between a national park authority and local authorities (and there were in any event calls for clarity on who performed which function). It would not be simple to define what is 'major' or 'contentious', for example. The East Hampshire Joint Advisory Committee asked "what would happen if the local authority members went against an officer recommendation at committee and granted permission that would be contrary to national park purposes?" The view was also expressed that restricting delegation would help a national park authority to build up its expertise in planning matters, (i.e. the reverse of the argument advanced in the consultation that delegating decisions would mean that a national park authority avoided the need to acquire so much expertise).
57. There was little comment on the relative efficiencies of a delegated or non delegated system, although some mentioned that cases should be handled in local offices
58. Response: There is strong support for a national park authority to retain the responsibility for development control. Arguments for transfer do not add up against our principle of achieving national park purposes and would result in an undesirable split between plan making and planning decisions. The NPA should though look to carry out this function in the most effective manner to achieve the objectives stated above: delegation will go some way to achieving our principles of efficiency, consistency and accessibility.
59. The Agency agrees that the details and extent of delegation should ultimately be a decision for the NPA and that details to address the concerns expressed are to be worked out between a NPA and the local authorities concerned. However the Secretary of State can advise a park authority and local authorities.
60. The Countryside Agency is recommended to advise that: A South Downs National Park Authority should be responsible for development control as provided for by the 1995 Act. However ministerial advice ought to encourage a national park authority to work with the existing local authorities to determine the most effective means of handling and determining the casework.
The Planning Green Paper and its implications
61. The Planning Green Paper was published in December last year during the consultation period and some therefore made comments on this. The recommendations we would make for planning in a a South Downs National Park Authority may therefore need to be reconsidered in light of a changed planning system. It is premature to decide what this should be as it is not yet clear what such changes may be: although we anticipate a government policy statement during summer 2002. Even so, it will not then be certain what the changes are until any necessary legislation has been set in place.
62. However, in light of comments we have considered what the current proposals might mean. We have discussed this with officers from DTLR, DEFRA and the South Downs Planning Technical Advisory Group. We believe that the proposals in the green paper will be able to deliver effective planning for a South Downs National Park and that they could be administered in such a way as to achieve our objectives and follow the principles agreed.
63. By applying these principles, it would for example be possible to apply the Green Paper proposals in the following way :
- Cross boundary strategic issues could be addressed by a Regional Spatial Strategy, in which national park authority were partners. Sub regional strategies might also be used to address such issues.
- A local development framework for a national park prepared by a national park authority ( as envisaged by the Green Paper for existing national parks) would ensure the consistency of standard and approach across a park.
- Local action plans could be prepared by a national park authority or in certain circumstances jointly were appropriate.
64. The link between a national park management plan and local development framework is clear in the Green Paper. However, greater clarity on the relationship between the management plan and the community strategy (which would continue to be prepared by local authorities) would be needed ( as is the case for the existing national parks) . Development control standards: eg the proposals for increased pre-application discussion etc. could be achieved through our approach above: and the targets relating to the delegation of decisions to officers in a higher proportion of cases would be compatible with the direction the consultation suggests.
65. The Countryside Agency is therefore recommended to consider again its advice on planning once Government's intentions on changes to the planning system are clear. Further comments from local authorities and others might be sought.
Issue 3. A role in land management
66. We asked people what they thought the role of a national park authority should be in relation to farming and forestry, nature conservation and cultural heritage. We also asked whether they thought that downland restoration should be a priority.
Farming and forestry
67. The consultation asked for comments on:: "What are your views on the proposed role for a South Downs National Park Authority in relation to farming and forestry, nature conservation and cultural heritage? Do you agree that restoration of downland should be a particular priority?" Plenty of respondents to this wrote "yes" or "agreed" in the space provided, and we have assumed this represents support not only for downland restoration but also for a role in each of the three subjects mentioned.
68. Comments on the Agency's proposals for the role of a national park authority in farming and forestry prompted considerable comment, divided between those who wanted less interference in farming activities (but who usually expanded little upon this principle) and those who wanted more controls over the impacts of farming. A wide range of suggestions was put forward for more environmentally sensitive farming. These were led by requests for control over ploughing on chalklands (for reasons including archaeological protection, flood minimisation and soil retention). There were also requests for greater 'specialist' farming of various kinds on smaller holdings.
69. Many respondents thought that a national park should play an important role in land management and that this should be the focus of its activities. English Nature, for example, suggested the national park should be a test bed for a new sustainable future for agriculture and the rural economy.
70. Concerns from farming and landowning organisations, estates and individual farmers/landowners fell largely into the following categories:
- Concern that the name national park will conjure up a misleading image for visitors, given that land is privately owned. Privacy and security were mentioned by a number of private landowners and estates.
- The need to recognise and appreciate the fact that the Downs are a working landscape. This included concerns about planning and other perceived restrictions on farming activities.
- concern that farming interests might be sidelined due to appointments to a national park authority being made by either cental government or local government: the wishes of the public and conservation would therefore come first and farmers would suffer as a result. The NFU suggested that at least 6 out of the 46 members of a national park authority should be farmers.
- Concern about a NPA having compulsory purchase powers
71. Many of the comments linked concerns about public access with comments about visitor management (a countryside management service, education and interpretation: see below.) An active land management forum and a first stop shop for farming and conservation advice were however supported by a number of individuals and organisations, including farmers.
72. There were a number of comments on forestry in particular. The Woodland Trust called for the creation of buffer zones and the extension of existing areas of semi-natural habitats to increase their core area and their ecological resilience They welcomed the fact that a national park authority would be able to take an overview of the whole area. The Forestry Commission confirmed their willingness to work as partners with a national park authority to develop a unified approach to forestry policy and practice and warmly welcomed the concept of a first-stop-shop.
73. There were many also many detailed comments which would inform the policies of a new national park .
74. Response: There was support for the Agency's suggestions and an overall co-ordinating role for a national park authority was welcomed. Many of the concerns expressed by farmers have also been apparent in other national parks but have largely proved unfounded. Local authorities and others currently have compulsory purchase powers but very seldom choose to use them: there is no evidence that a national park would use powers widely, if at all.
75. The Countryside Agency is therefore recommended to advise that: A South Downs National Park Authority should provide a first-stop-shop for farmers and landowners, working with DEFRA and the Forestry Commission and voluntary organisations eg FWAG, to target existing agri-environmental schemes and offer a specialist advisory service. It should provide a mechanism for discussing and acting upon local farming and forestry issues.
Downland restoration
76. This attracted plenty of comment. 60% of respondents supported the priority of downland restoration and 10% opposed it (though a few of these agreed with the idea but did not wish to see it as a special priority above others). Over 10% of respondents considered that it was important for the Government to make funds available to pursue this aim. A number of respondents argued that downland restoration only made sense if the traditional farming activity which would take place on it was itself economic.
77. Amongst the detractors, there was some resistance to a national park authority telling farmers what to do with their land. The National Farmers Union " welcomes the funding of downland restoration measures provided that these are financially acceptable to the farmers concerned - in both the short and the long term, and that they are not prejudicial to other forms of commercial farming on the Downs."
78. There was some support for increased woodland planting too, and for the re-creation of other habitats in the national park, notably heathland, as a priority as well as chalk downland. The Environment Agency would wish to see the restoration of natural river processes within river valleys.
79. Response There is broad and considered support for funding the restoration of downland to a better environmental condition than it is in at present, but respondents are seeking greater clarity on the practicalities. Some of the opposition might dissolve if there were more demonstrable benefits of the idea to the farming community. As the consultation document stressed if chalk grassland is to be restored then sheep or other livestock would be needed to graze the areas and keeping of livestock would have to be economic. Any such scheme would be voluntary. The details will be a matter for a national park authority to resolve, building on pilot work currently underway.
80. The Countryside Agency is therefore recommended to advise that: Government recognises the special priority that a national park authority in the South Downs must give to enhancement of the countryside, and that resources are made available to a South Downs National Park Authority to enable it to pursue restoration of chalk downland and other habitats, through an integrated rural development initiative, in partnership with those who own and manage them.
Nature conservation
81. There was relatively little comment on nature conservation issues other than the reference to restoring heathland noted above. There was some mention of the importance of contributing to biodiversity targets, some reference to a "State of the Park" report and references to the importance of the riverine, coastal and marine environments. English Nature commented on the need to maintain good links between the different functions of a national park authority and others commented on the need for a national park authority to play a co-ordinating role.
82. The few comments received probably reflect the fact that most respondents accept, and support, that a national park authority will have a leading role in nature conservation. There is no need for any special measures for a South Downs National Park Authority which are not allowed for by the 1995 Act, and are already common practice in other national parks.
83. Response Conservation is central to national park purposes and no special measures are required in the South Downs: the Agency's original proposals still stand.
84. The Countryside Agency is therefore recommended to advise that: A South Downs National Park Authority should seek play a lead role in the implementation of the relevant biodiversity action plans and provide a mechanism for addressing nature conservation issues.
Cultural heritage
85. The role of a national park authority in supporting the cultural heritage attracted numerous responses. There were particular requests for more attention to be paid to archaeology and also to recognise better the value of villages, vernacular architecture and the built environment generally within a national park. English Heritage believe that it is important to recognise the man-made features of the Downs which reflect the long occupation of the area, including listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments, conservation areas and registered parks and gardens. They also pointed out the importance of the rural industrial heritage of the area, including activities such as salt making and metal smelting.
86. There were a number of comments about a national park authority needing to have archaeological expertise and many other comments relating to the inclusion of historical/archaeological sites within the boundary. As with nature conservation some of the issues overlapped with the land management section and many saw downland restoration as helping to protect the cultural heritage, although it was also pointed out that cleared barrows made tempting jumps for mountain bikers!
87. Response: The comments received reflect the importance of human influence on the South Downs and concerns that this is under threat from development and land use. The 1995 Act provides a NPA with a duty to act and no special administrative arrangements are needed. The NPA should work closely with the local authorities and the archaeological societies. It will also need an active relationship with English Heritage: there may be for example some scope for delegation of responsibilities, eg for SAM management,, as happens in other national parks.
88. The Countryside Agency is therefore recommended to advise that: A South Downs National Park Authority should play an active role in conservation of cultural heritage.
Other land management issues
89. The open-ended question 3B on other land management matters on which the South Downs NPA would require expertise prompted a long list of ideas. Some of these noted the subject areas necessary for tackling matters raised elsewhere in the consultation, such as access, landscape appreciation and recreation management, and we have tried to reflect these concerns at those points. Others proposed new subjects of which the most frequently mentioned was 'marine management' – if the scope of a national park authority's powers was to extend offshore. Th