Main Issues to Concern the Board:
· The land at
Arundel meets the statutory criteria for inclusion in a national
park but it was excluded on the pragmatic grounds that a new
by-pass would be built through it shortly; · There are
likely to be strong objections to this from the relevant local
authorities and the Highways Agency; · A variation
order is the most transparent mechanism for varying the boundary,
it is more likely to allow objections to be heard at the current
inquiry and is the option preferred by Defra. It will
add to the cost of the current inquiry, but will reduce the chances
of a second inquiry in 2005. |
land at Arundel
1. The land south of Arundel and Tortington Common
(refer to Map A for location in the South Downs and Map B for area
recommended for inclusion) were included within both the draft and
proposed national park boundaries on the basis that they met the
statutory criteria for inclusion.
[1] However, the preferred (pink/blue) route
for the proposed Arundel bypass went through both areas and a
number of objections were made during the Agency’s consultations
arguing for the exclusion of this land. The arguments
given included that the bypass had been through consultation, that
a preferred route had been determined, that the route was protected
from development (although not allocated for development) in the
adopted local plan and that both areas of land did not meet the
statutory criteria for inclusion. All three tiers of local
government, West Sussex County Council’s Downland Area Panel, the
Highways Agency, Howard Flight MP (Arundel & South Downs) and
some individuals made objections to the inclusion of the
land. 2. When considering the boundary at the draft and
proposed stages, there was not sufficient certainty about the
bypass going ahead and the land had not been allocated for the
development of a bypass in the development plan. The
Board twice agreed that the area met the statutory criteria and
there were therefore no grounds on which to exclude it. In
addition, it was felt that designation, as a national park would
not necessarily preclude the development of a bypass in the
future. 3. The South Coast Multi-Modal Study (SoCoMMS)
recommended in October 2002 that the Arundel bypass should go ahead
on the preferred pink/blue route, which was endorsed by the
regional assembly (SEERA). On this basis the boundary
was adjusted to exclude the route of the bypass at the Board
Meeting in November 2002 (AP 02/33). In making this decision, the
Board noted: “Should the status of the road change again (for example if
Ministers did not accept the findings of the multi-modal study) a
further report would be brought to the Board. This would allow them
to consider whether to ask the Secretary of State to vary the
boundary here before confirmation of
the order” The status of the bypass 4. In July 2003 the Secretary of State for Transport
announced that he did not support the SoCoMMS recommendation for
the Arundel bypass, stating that it “would have negative impacts on
heritage and landscape as well as the water
environment”. The Secretary of State has asked the
Highways Agency to work with local authorities and Statutory
Environmental Bodies (including the Countryside Agency) to
“identify less damaging options, including management measures,
which reduce the need for major road construction”, and to report
back to him. The Highways Agency has begun this work
and expects to report in spring 2004 with recommendations for the
Secretary of State to consider in making a final
decision. The Board now needs to consider, following
the statement by the Secretary of State for Transport, whether or
not to vary the boundary to include the land at Arundel. 5. Inclusion of this land is likely to be strongly
opposed by the relevant local authorities including West Sussex
County Council who are also objecting to the principle of a South
Downs national park.
[2] Members should also note that the
Highways Agency have expressed concerns at including the land in
the national park before they report back to the Secretary of State
in spring 2004. They note that the Secretary of State
“recognizes the importance of finding solutions which are capable
of delivering planned housing and economic growth” and so has not
made a final decision on the bypass. They would prefer
that no changes be made until the Secretary of State has made a
final decision, which is likely to be from mid-2004
onwards. Finally, the local authorities and the
Highways Agency also do not agree that the land in question meets
the statutory criteria for inclusion in a national park and would
be likely to argue this at any inquiry. 6. However, the Board has already agreed that the
area in question meets the statutory criteria and on that basis it
was included in the draft and proposed boundaries. In
November 2002 the Board still stated that the land met the
statutory criteria and only excluded the pink/blue route on the
basis of the multi-modal recommendations. The pink/blue
bypass route is now in as much (and arguably more) doubt as it was
when those previous decisions were made, so it would arguably be
inconsistent for the area to remain excluded. Exclusion
of the area in question could have negative implications for the
Agency’s defence of the designation order at the forthcoming
inquiry, as we will have to demonstrate that we have applied the
statutory criteria in a consistent manner. We are
already facing objections arguing that we have not applied the
statutory criteria correctly or consistently, so should be wary of
making decisions that could then be used to undermine our position
at the inquiry. To delay making a variation until after
a final decision from the Secretary of State for Transport would
make it unlikely that objections to the variation could be heard at
the designation inquiry and so would trigger a further inquiry,
probably in 2005. This would add time and cost to the
designation process. It should also be noted that the
Secretary of State’s decision was based on more than landscape
grounds, but also on the potential impact of the pink/blue route on
the sensitive Arun valley water meadows. Therefore, it
is likely that there would be objections from other statutory
bodies if the pink/blue route were to be accepted.
Finally, inclusion of the pink/blue route in the national park does
not mean that the development could not necessarily take place in
the future if the Secretary of State agreed that such a development
is in the overriding public interest. 7. Officers recommend that the Agency should propose
to include the land at Arundel on the basis that it meets the
statutory criteria and that the decision by the Secretary of State
for Transport means that the future of the bypass is now in more
doubt than it was in November 2002. However,
before making a final decision the Agency should consult with all
local authorities and seek comments from other statutory bodies
(including the Highways Agency) on the proposed
variation. The Board may also wish to consider further
the timing of a variation, should it choose to make one. Process 8. If the Board decides to begin the process of
including this area, there are two methods available to vary the
boundary shown in South Downs designation order, before it has been
confirmed: · to make a
variation order, or to · make a
statement to the Inspector at the beginning of the designation
inquiry. The latter approach is the most transparent mechanism for
varying the boundary and will be the most efficient and
cost-effective in the long term. It will cost the
Agency in the order of £80k and may extend the designation inquiry
slightly if (as we expect) objections are taken there – but this
approach would be more certain in a legal sense and certainly more
cost effective than if a second hearing/inquiry were needed. 9. After consultation the Chairman will be invited
to confirm the way forward. | 
