Natural England

New Forest National Park: Designation order and advice on special arrangements (AP01/50)

FOR DECISION

to agree the boundary for a New Forest National Park; to agree the Agency's advice to the Government on the need for special arrangements for a New Forest National Park Authority; if content, to make a New Forest National Park Designation Order; to de-designate the South Hampshire Coast AONB as this area is included in the new National Park boundary.

Relevance to Strategy and Corporate Plan: Designation of the New Forest National Park is a strategic priority and is fully provided for in the Corporate Plan.

Staff and financial implications: Staff and other resources are provided for in the corporate plan including likely costs associated with a public inquiry.

Main issues to concern the Board: Are the areas proposed for inclusion in the National Park Designation Order consistent with the Agency's approach to setting national park boundaries and meet legislative requirements? Are the Board content that the special needs of the New Forest can be met within the existing legislation governing the establishment of new National Parks?  This paper recommends a number of special measures to secure particular needs in the New Forest but there is no certainty that the Government will accept our advice. Are the Board content that National Park purposes in the New Forest can be adequately secured without the certainty that the special measures will be adopted?

Background

1. In October 1999 the Countryside Agency Board agreed to begin the process of designating the New Forest as a National Park, recognising that further work was needed to find administrative solutions to meet the particular needs of the New Forest (AP99/32). This paper reports the outcome of the final stages of this work. 

2. The Agency now needs to take final decisions on whether to designate a New Forest National Park and, if so, what the boundary should be and what advice to give to Government on establishing a National Park Authority.

National Park Boundary

3. Responses to the statutory consultation have been assessed against the statutory criteria (and the Agency's policies) and further research and field work was undertaken in any area where we believed there was need for further analysis. A fact finding tour for Board members to key sections of the proposed boundary took place in October.  Annex 1 (92kb word) summarises the responses and gives an assessment, by boundary sections, of the key issues raised and recommendations on changes necessary. 

4. There is general support for the proposed boundary, although there are calls for change by some consultees: 

a. Statutory consultees: Hampshire County Council has supported the proposed boundary in full. New Forest District Council, Test Valley Borough Council, Salisbury District Council and Wiltshire County Council have proposed some minor amendments. Dorset County Council, Christchurch Borough Council and East Dorset District Council are opposed to any part of that county (broadly, the southern part of the Avon Valley) being included in the National Park.

b. Parish and town councils:  Of the 15 respondents to the statutory consultation (out of 41 consulted), 4 supported the proposed boundary in full, most of the rest proposed amendments similar to those put forward by the statutory consultees. 

c. Other local authorities: Southampton City Council has opposed the inclusion of Dibden Bay; Poole Borough Council and Bournemouth Borough Council opposed inclusion of any area within Dorset.

5. We recommend a boundary as shown on the map at Annex 2, with changes to the proposed boundary as summarised below, because of new evidence now put forward. Annex 1 gives more detail for each: 

• Section 13, include farmland around Burton 
• Section 16, include Moor Lane
• Sections 16, include Cowesfield Green and Melchet Park to Plaitford Green
• Sections 6, 13 and 16, four very minor changes to remove  developed land and a small area which is a preferred area for mineral working   

6. There are also areas where we do not recommend changes, despite the views of statutory consultees (detail in Annex 1): 

• section 1, Lower Test Valley
• section 1, land north of Totton
• sections 11 and 12, Milford-on Sea parish
• section 12, Everton/Hordle
• section 13, Avon Valley below Ringwood
• section 14, Somerley Park/Harbridge   

No changes are recommended to areas which have previously attracted controversy, notably Ringwood, Dibden Bay and Frost Lane, which are supported by statutory consultees.

7. We do not agree  that we should remove all areas in Dorset. We have considered carefully the views of the Dorset authorities as statutory consultees but can find no evidence to support removal (apart from a small area around Burton). The areas in question meet the statutory criteria and do not warrant exclusion on administrative grounds. They are integral to the park as a whole. Removal would mean splitting the upper and lower Avon Valley, and would divide the lower Avon in two along the river. Furthermore, many other  consultees at informal and statutory stages have supported inclusion. 

De-designation of South Hampshire Coast AONB 

8. The local authorities affected have also been consulted on the de-designation of the South Hampshire Coast AONB, should the New Forest National Park Designation be confirmed: neither has opposed this. Therefore, as required by the legislation, during November the draft Revocation Order was placed on deposit (see Annex 3). Any objections or representations received will be reported verbally at the meeting. We recommend the AONB is de-designated as it is wholly within the proposed boundary and it is not appropriate for an area to hold both designations at once.

Advice on special arrangements for a New Forest National Park Authority 

9. Annex 4 summarises the views put forward in response to our consultation. In short, the key issues identified by the Agency are the major ones to be addressed in setting up a New Forest National Park Authority and, whilst there is general support for our proposals, some parties continue to believe that tailor made legislation is necessary in the New Forest.

10. There is broad support for our preferred approach and we will incorporate constructive ideas and suggestions from consultees into our advice in the following areas: 

• land management (e.g. on joint working between a NPA and the Forestry Commission);
• visitor management (e.g. on joint transport planning);
• involving local expertise; and 
• partnership working.   

We recommend  that our advice to government on these issues is based on our preferred option, taking into account the points above. 

11. Planning: There is general support for our approach. Some concerns have been raised (e.g. that joint planning with Hampshire and New Forest District will not address the need for joint strategic planning in Dorset; that the NPA should be solely responsible for minerals planning) but we believe that these can be addressed through refinements to our preferred options. We recommend a system of  a joint structure plan (and minerals and waste plans) for the National Park Authority with the Hampshire structure plan authorities, with an advisory role for Dorset and Wiltshire CC; a joint local plan for the National Park Authority with New Forest DC, with an advisory role for other districts; development control would be the NPA's responsibility, but we recommend an appropriate scheme of delegation is agreed between the NPA and local authorities.

12. Other issues are more contentious. Major stakeholders (e.g. Hampshire CC, New Forest DC, New Forest Committee) believe that tailor made legislation is the only way to address fully the special circumstances of the New Forest. They remain convinced that administrative solutions (e.g. government guidance) would give insufficient certainty, could be changed or ignored in certain circumstances. 

13. Others have also called for new legislation. Some respondees have found it difficult to articulate quite what they want this to achieve, others have called less specifically for a "tailor made approach". Some are seeking to address issues beyond the scope of a National Park Authority e.g. the New Forest Commoners Defence Association argue that amendments to the New Forest Act are needed (or that a National Park is created without an Authority to manage the area). In essence, the calls for legislation that are within the remit of a NPA's purposes can be categorised by the three main areas (set out below). In addition, a specific proposal from the Verderers is given in paragraph 20. 

14. A specific purpose for commoning We recommend this approach.

15. Appropriate membership of the NPA

16. It is essential that the Authority's membership reflects the particular needs of the Forest. But we believe this can be covered through a membership selection process. We do not agree that special legislation (to give a provision to specify interests to be covered, as for new National Parks in Scotland) is necessary. We recommend special measures for selection of appointees (as set out in the documents listed in footnote 3).

17. We do not agree that particular bodies and/or groups should have guaranteed representation on the Authority, which is what some are seeking (although significantly neither the Forestry Commission or English Nature support this). We believe this would not be in keeping with the spirit of a NPA and its purposes, and a number of respondees have cautioned against allowing single interests undue influence. Nor is it an appropriate tool to tackle the underlying issue i.e. that the NPA is able to work effectively with the Verderers and the Forestry Commission in exercising their statutory duties. This is not, however, best tackled by representation, but by measures to secure close working as discussed below.

18.  Overlap of statutory functions (the NPA, Verderers and Forestry Commission ):  Some respondents believe that new legislation is needed to allow those bodies with overlapping powers to work together or at the very least to direct them on how to do so. Others have called for the new Authority to take on the management of Crown Land from the FC. 

19. We agree it is important that where duties overlap the relevant authorities must liaise closely to ensure responsibilities are discharged effectively and efficiently in line with National Park purposes, and that the Crown Land must be managed accordingly, but it is hard to see how amending legislation would help with this. We believe the issue can satisfactorily be addressed through administrative solutions, backed by the statutory provisions of the 1995 Act which require such bodies to have regard to national park purposes. We recommend that the Government issues guidance to ensure this. Specifically, the relevant parts of the national park management plan could be jointly prepared by the NPA and the FC (akin to a joint development plan) to help ensure that Crown land is managed in accordance with national park purposes and the purposes and directions given to the Forestry Commission. To address the issue discussed under membership above, the NPA, Verderers and FC could form a joint committee (under local government legislation) to formalise an effective three way relationship, rather then seeking a place on the NPA for these bodies.

20. Verderers powers:  The Verderers are concerned that they will be bypassed by the NPA, despite assurances from Ministers that their powers will remain unchanged. They therefore propose new legislation that would require the NPA to seek the Verderers' consent for any recreational activity on common lands. We do not believe that this is necessary or appropriate and recommend that the Agency does not propose or support such legislation. The Verderers may pursue such legislation themselves.

21. Conclusion: Officers understand and share some of the concerns which have prompted calls for new legislation. The key question is whether new legislation is necessary to address such concerns. Having carried out the analysis summarised above we do not believe that it is. Officers recommend that the Agency advises the Secretary of State that special administrative measures are needed to address the particular circumstances of the New Forest, to help the new Authority establish and maintain good working relations with local bodies (including the statutory bodies), and maximise its effectiveness in securing National Park purposes. 

Making a Designation Order and advising on administrative arrangements

22. We have identified a boundary which meets the statutory designation criteria and an approach to establishing a national park authority able to deliver its statutory purposes and to respond to the special circumstances of the New Forest. We therefore recommend that the Agency proceeds to make a New Forest National Park Designation Order, and simultaneously, a Revocation Order for the South Hampshire Coast AONB, and submits these to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for confirmation. At the same time, we should submit our advice on special administrative measures.

Next steps

23. The New Forest National Park Designation Order and the South Hampshire Coast AONB Revocation Order would be signed simultaneously in January 2002 by the Chairman and Chief Executive. During February 2002, as the legislation requires, the Designation Order will be placed on deposit for a period of 28 days and advertised in the London Gazette, national and local press and on the Agency's web site (see draft at Annex 5). The Orders will then be submitted to the Secretary of State. 

24. Objections or representations are sent direct to the Secretary of State, who may call a public inquiry before deciding whether to confirm the Orders. If so, the Agency will appear at the public inquiry to defend the boundary. 

25. A report setting out the Agency's advice on establishing a NPA will be prepared, based on the recommendations in this paper. This will be submitted to government with the Designation Order in February 2002. 

26. As a means of reporting the final outcome, a leaflet summarising the advice, together with a map of the area included in the Designation Order will be distributed during February 2002 to all respondents and to key national and local bodies. We will also hold an event locally to mark the submission of the Order. 

Risks and mitigation measures

27. This is a high risk activity .

• Objections to the Designation Order and a public inquiry
• Judicial review over statutory procedures:  we have sought legal advice at key stages. 
• Will government agree with and act upon our advice? DEFRA officials have been kept in close touch with our work throughout.
• Will partners accept our approach as a way forward and form effective working relationships with a New Forest NPA ? (essential for its effective working) Our approach recognises the concerns raised and the measures we propose can address them. We need to press the SoS for an early indication that she is minded to accept our advice, and to work with partners to put in place the necessary measures whilst the NPA is established.   

Annex 3 

South Hampshire Coast AONB Revocation Order

DRAFT

COUNTRYSIDE AND RIGHTS OF WAY ACT 2000

S O U T H H A M P S H I R E C O A S T 

A R E A O F O U T S T A N D I N G N A T U R A L B E A U T Y

(R E V O C A T I O N) O R D E R 2 0 0 2

IN pursuance of Sections 82 and 83(7) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and all other powers enabling them in that behalf, the Countryside Agency hereby revoke the South Hampshire Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Designation) Order 1967.

This Order may be cited as the South Hampshire Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Revocation) Order 2002.

G I V E N under the Common Seal of the Countryside Agency this xxxth day of xxx, two thousand and two.

Chairman of the Countryside Agency

Chief Executive of the Countryside Agency

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

COUNTRYSIDE AND RIGHTS OF WAY ACT 2000

DRAFT SOUTH HAMPSHIRE COAST AREA OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY (REVOCATION) ORDER

Notice is hereby given that under its powers contained in sections 82 and 83(7) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the Countryside Agency intend to make an Order revoking the South Hampshire Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Designation) Order 1967.

The Order would revoke the designation of an area of approximately 77 square kilometres in the County of Hampshire as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The area was designated by the National Parks Commission by Order dated 30 May 1967 and confirmed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government on 18 December 1967. The area would fall wholly within the proposed New Forest National Park, if designated, and it is not appropriate that both designations should apply to it. Revoking the AONB Order is therefore a procedural necessity, should a New Forest National Park Designation Order be made and confirmed. The Countryside Agency will only make this Revocation Order if it decides to make a Designation Order for a New Forest National Park. The Agency will only then apply to the Secretary of State to confirm this Order if she intends to confirm the Designation Order for the New Forest National Park. The Revocation Order and Designation Order would be confirmed simultaneously, so there would no time when the area was not designated. The procedure requires that the draft AONB Revocation Order be advertised first.

Copies of the draft Revocation Order may be inspected, free of charge, at the following locations:

The Countryside Agency, John Dower House, Crescent Place, Cheltenham, GL50 3RA between the hours of 09.00 and 17.00, Mondays to Fridays

Hampshire County Council, Planning Department (Reception), Ashburton Court West, The Castle, Winchester, Hampshire, SO23 8UJ, between the hours of 09.00 and 16.30, Mondays to Fridays

New Forest District Council, Planning Reception, Appletree Court, Lyndhurst, Hampshire, SO43 7PA, between the hours of 08.45 and 17.15, Mondays to Thursdays and 8:45 to 16:45 on Fridays.

Any person who wishes to make an objection or representation concerning the draft Order should write to Sarah Lloyd, The Countryside Agency, Dacre House, 19 Dacre Street, London, SW1H 0DH, stating the grounds of their objection or representation. Such objections or representations. Such objections or representations should arrive no later than 10 December 2001.

For enquiries relating to this notice, please telephone 020 7340 2991.

8 November 2001

Richard Wakeford, Chief Executive, The Countryside Agency

Annex 4

A New Forest National Park Authority: consultant's report on the consultation upon proposed special arrangements.

The report

1. This is the report of the Agency's independent consultant contracted to analyse and advise upon the response to this consultation. The advice, suggested responses and recommendations are those of the consultant whose role has been to look objectively at the material that has been received. Responses to particular issues raised are shown in italics.

Background

2. The purpose of this consultation exercise was to invite views on the advice that the Agency should give to government on how a New Forest National Park Authority should be set up to take account of the special characteristics of the area. The Agency produced a consultation document and leaflet which identified nine key issues and a number of options for addressing them. The Agency's preferred approach at that stage was indicated. 

3. The method of consulting the public, organisations and local authorities embraced:

• the distribution of the consultation leaflet and other explanatory documentation to households within and in the vicinity of the proposed national park;
• the distribution of the consultation document to local authorities, including parish councils, and to libraries and information centres for public reference;
• holding a series of community meetings with groups of parish councils and members of the public, all of which were run by an independent facilitator;
• road shows, attendance at the New Forest Show and numerous other meetings between Agency staff and local authorities and organisations;
• posting information and reply facilities on the Agency's web site;
• consultation with key national bodies.   

The response 4. The response has been smaller than that achieved for the draft boundary consultation during October 2000 to January 2001. The numbers are: Public 899 Organisations 34 Local authorities 33 Total 966 5. There are several possible reasons for this. The issues are more complex than was the case with the boundary consultation. Some people who replied explicitly stated that they did not feel qualified to express an opinion on some or any of the issues; others may not have responded for the same reason. It may be that most people are less concerned with the administrative arrangements than where the boundary should lie. 6. There was a detectable element of "consultation fatigue" reflected in comments to the effect that the Agency are the experts and should get on with it, comments upon the cost of the exercise or that yet another swathe of papers about the New Forest had been delivered. 7. This should not be over emphasised. It is one possible contributory factor in a relatively low response. Many people did express their gratitude for the opportunity to state their views and were complementary about the documentation, particularly the full consultation document. 8. Many of the points that were raised, though perfectly valid, actually relate to the activities and issues that the new authority should address when it is established. The statistics 9. General information, but little emphasis, has been placed in this report upon the numerical weight of opinion supporting an option or promoting an idea on the basis that it is the value of an idea that should be taken into account rather than the extent to which it is supported. 10. The report does not show a statistical analysis of responses because replies were received in a range of different formats, some using the consultation leaflet, others replying by reference to the consultation document and others more generally by letter. The context 11. The responses need to be considered in the knowledge that strongly and widely held beliefs about the nature and consequences of national park designation, though they are at odds with the experience of other national parks, will have played a significant part in the comments and choices that have been made in the consultation replies. This is more, but not exclusively, apparent in the public response. The perceptions of some respondents about national parks are indicated below. It is also important to appreciate the key themes that have emerged. Perceptions 12. National parks that have been in existence for nearly half a century continue to work hard to promote an understanding of the purposes of designation and the objectives of a national park authority. It is not, therefore, surprising that perceptions inconsistent with the long experience of national park management in this country should play a part in the consultation process in relation to the designation of a new park. 13. The road shows, the presence of Agency staff at the New Forest Show and at many other meetings and the questions and answers leaflet have gone some way towards explaining these issues. Nevertheless, the consultation replies show how pervasive and strongly held these perceptions are. 14. Some of those most commonly expressed are that: 

• the proposed national park authority will be run by the Countryside Agency, the Minister, someone from London or, at any rate, people from outside who have no understanding of the New Forest. This is probably the most commonly expressed concern. It is important because those who hold this view will, for the most part, select options most likely to protect local interests against this perceived threat from the outside;
• designation as a national park will lead to overwhelming numbers of visitors coming to the area, the national park authority will actively encourage this and focus upon the needs of visitors and tourism rather than those of local people;
• designation will impose an additional financial burden on local people through increased rates, parking fees and other costs;
• creating a national park authority will lead to a duplication of local authority activities and functions, and;
• that the national park authority will have substantial powers to interfere with the exercise of common rights, the ability of local people to walk their dogs and other similar restrictions. The provisions of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act and measures taken in relation to the foot and mouth epidemic have become inextricably linked in people's mind to national park designation.   

15. This problem of perception is exacerbated because the expression "the New Forest" has distinct, and distinctly different meanings ; the perambulation, the Heritage Area or a wider tract of land embracing certain special characteristics or historical associations. 16. The designation of this new national park would be unusual in that the area has within it a legally defined, well recognised and mapped core; the perambulation, which accounts for about 50% of the area proposed for designation. It was apparent during the boundary road shows that some people were unaware of (and in some cases did not believe) the extent of the New Forest Heritage Area boundary which has been in existence for some five years. This is important in understanding some of the responses to this consultation process. If the creation of a national park authority is seen solely from the perspective of the perambulation and the commoning activity within it, it is not surprising that it is viewed in some quarters as an unnecessary bureaucratic imposition. 17. It must be stressed, however, that this is a minority view. The great majority of people who responded are acutely aware of the changes affecting the area that have taken place in the last few decades, are concerned for the future of the New Forest and welcome national park status as a more effective means of tackling the pressures that the area faces. 18. Moreover, whilst it is necessary to point to these difficulties of perception, many helpful and constructive suggestions were made which have contributed positively to the process of defining the most appropriate administrative arrangements. Key themes 19. The main themes to emerge are: 

• a lack of sufficient faith in central government to feel confident that undertakings, the terms of circulars or other guidance will be adhered to in the future as politicians and their priorities change. This is the main motivating force behind the call for specific legislation;
• that having a majority of local authority members on a New Forest National Park Authority will not deliver local democracy because councillors have their own political agendas and that local democracy on the Authority needs to be achieved by other means such as the direct election of "ordinary people";
• that a New Forest National Park Authority will erode commoning and the traditional life of the New Forest by increasing urban pressures because it will place the interests of visitors above those of local people and that district and county councillors, having little understanding of Forest life, will be driven by their urban interests; 
• concerns about the appropriateness of the Forestry Commission, partly upon the basis of its perceived record, partly because it is seen to be a commercial organisation, either having a place on the Authority or continuing to have responsibilities in relation to Crown land.   

The local perspective 20. The local perspective has emerged starkly as the most significant issue to be tackled in establishing appropriate administrative arrangements for the national park authority. 21. Though it may be more influential than representative, this staunchly local perspective may not easily be reconciled with administrative arrangements that properly reflect the recognition, through designation, of the national importance of the area. 22. Designation as a national park is a recognition that a tract of land is a national asset that requires special measures to be taken for its conservation in the long term as an outstanding landscape. The management of a national park towards the achievement of its statutory objectives requires national park authorities not only to tackle the immediate problems or to consider policies and strategies for the duration of a statutory plan, but to look much further into the future. They need to be able to see their way through difficult and sensitive issues and to envisage the national park in the context of the wider countryside. This will become, for all national park authorities, increasingly difficult as the rate of change in the countryside continues to accelerate. 23. Perhaps to a greater extent than in the other existing national parks, both because of its remarkable history and the particular pressures that bear upon it, a New Forest National Park Authority will need to look forward, to be innovative, to recognise and anticipate change. One of the striking features of the response to the boundary consultation was the widely expressed opinion that designation is overdue and vital to the long term well-being of the New Forest. 24. A New Forest National Park Authority will need to: 

• perceive a New Forest National Park as a national asset, the management of which requires a broad perspective;
• recognise that the primary responsibility of members of the new authority will be the achievement of the statutory objectives of the national park as opposed to the representation of the interests of the organisations by which they are nominated;
• analyse the forces for change objectively and develop policies to influence those changes to the furtherance of their statutory objectives.   

25. The constitution of the authority must be able to adapt to meet its purposes in the context of such challenges as the future might bring. Fixing the position to reflect prevailing interests at a point in time by legislation may be a constraint for the future. Issue 1: special guidance for a New Forest National Park Authority26. Support for the preferred option accounted for some three-quarters of the views expressed.. 27. Comments upon Option A focused upon concerns about local authority members having an overall majority, that local authorities from outside the area should not have a say and that parishes and local people should have more representation, so that no one group could out vote the other. 28. Supporters of Option B were concerned to have legislation to safeguard against future change and to secure greater representation of commoners, Verderers and other local people. 29. Option C embraced a wide range of views and ideas; that guidance from Government was not needed, that the area should be left alone, that the national park authority should have specific duty to control commoning, that tourism is more important than commoning and that this should be reflected in legislation and that the national park authority should have more power than appears to be the case. Tailor made legislation 30. Though the majority opinion amongst the public, organisations and the local authorities supports the preferred option, there is a widely held view that special legislation would be the most appropriate way forward. A number of organisations and local authorities support the Agency's preferred option only upon the basis that specific legislation may not be a realistic aspiration. 31. A number of arguments are cited in support of tailor made legislation. 1. Circulars and Ministerial advice or guidance could be changed as individual Ministers or political parties come and go, whilst specific legislation will give clarity and certainty to the administrative arrangements for the new park. A New Forest National Park Authority could, in the absence of legislation, be able to ignore such advice and guidance by virtue of S65 of the Environment Act 1995 which gives national park authorities the power to do anything in furtherance of their statutory objectives. Another expression of the same issue is that special legislation could commit, not just empower, a New Forest National Park Authority to the protection of commoning. Response 32. Ministerial advice and guidance could, in theory, be changed. Planning guidance is, and has to be, reviewed from time to time to reflect changing social and economic circumstances. However, it is difficult to envisage how such a situation might arise in practice in relation to a provision contained within existing legislation. The guidance in circular 12/96, addresses issues such as national park objectives and the membership of boards are established in the Act itself. No subsequent change in the terms of this circular will alter this or change the wording, meaning or force of the Act. 2. New legislation could establish in law the right of certain organisations or individuals to a seat on the board of a New Forest National Park Authority. Response 33. Legislation would, indeed, be necessary to achieve this. The Secretary of State could not bind himself to include amongst his appointees, for example, the person serving as the Official Verderer, or specify that a particular organisation must, as of right, have a members on the board. This question is discussed more fully under issue 2. 3. Because of the New Forest Acts and the statutory role of the Forestry Commission in relation to Crown lands, the use of existing legislation to establish a New Forest National Park will necessarily lead to conflict between the national park authority, the Verderers and the Forestry Commission. Response 34. This is not a widely held view; nor is it persuasive. There is no inherent incompatibility between the provisions of the New Forest Acts and the designation of the New Forest as a national park and establishment of a national park authority. The general power given under S65 of the Environment Act does not set aside the provisions of the New Forest Acts. 4. The provisions of the Environment Act, specifically the statutory objectives of national park authorities, will not be sufficient to protect the special features of the New Forest; commoning in particular. Response 35. The purposes of national park authorities are broadly framed. These objectives are used by the existing national park authorities to conserve and enhance a great variety of landscape, cultural features and traditional aspects of rural life pertinent to their areas. Initiatives undertaken by the national park authorities to tackle issues of affordable housing, to promote local products and markets, and to foster local skills, to take just three examples, have all been accomplished under the terms of the purposes set out above. The Act would amply empower a New Forest National Park Authority to conserve the special qualities of the New Forest, including commoning. Other matters to be included in guidance 36. Suggestions put forward by consultees as to other issues to be included in the guidance include: 

1. the need to integrate the management of the Crown land with its surroundings;
2. the particular importance of transport and socio-economic issues due to the location of the park in one of the most suburban and rapidly growing areas of Europe;
3. the need to build upon the culture of co-operation that has developed through existing mechanisms;
4. the need to reflect upon the issues of coastal management and recreation;
5. reference to the inclusion of the New Forest as a cultural landscape as evidenced by the fact that it is included in the UK Tentative List of candidate World Heritage sites;
6. guidance should not make specific reference to the Forestry Commission but to the "Managers of the Crown Land" to allow for any changes in the remit of the Forestry Commission.   

Response 37. These are helpful and, save for the last, uncontentious suggestions that could be reflected in the Countryside Agency's advice to government. The expression "managers of Crown land" is open to interpretation and a circular must address the situation as it is. 

1. The Agency advises Government on the basis of Option A referring to points i-v above.   

Issue 2: Membership  38. There is overwhelming support for the principle that the interests and expertise of the Verderers should be represented. 39. One particularly important point raised was that membership of the national park authority is not the best way of combining leadership with openness to special interests who should be co-opted onto special working groups. 40. The main point of concern under option A is that the Secretary of State must, rather than may, seek the views of the Official Verderer. In practice, this is not a significant distinction as there is nothing to prevent the Official Verderer submitting to the Secretary of State nominations for appointment to the Authority of his own volition. 41. Option C, as discussed more fully below, is seen as offering a mechanism that will secure the appointment of a Verderer which would not be guaranteed under option A. Some feel that more than one Verderer should be appointed. The point referred to above about balancing local authority representation by increasing appointed members is repeated. Another view is that the expertise of Verderers is important but that they should not be appointed to the authority. 42. The main point to emerge from the other options is that Verderers and parishes should elect their own representatives, rather than these appointments being made by the Secretary of State. Response 43. The election of representatives would require legislation. As in all existing national parks, the parish councils would be free to establish a mechanism for nominating parish representatives to the Secretary of State. The purpose of membership: representation or operational need?

44. There is a fundamental issue about membership which is hardly addressed in the consultation replies. Local authority membership is seen in terms of local accountability: the appointment of members as "one of representation and responsibility." 

45. Membership has not been considered from the perspective of the operational needs of the new authority. How, for example, the demands of local accountability can be reconciled with operational need; or precisely why an organisation should be a member of the Authority as opposed to one that makes a substantial contribution to its work through an executive or advisory committee or group. 

46. National park authorities are complex organisations. And yet, the legislative provisions relating to their constitution take no account of their operating needs. The Environment Act is concerned with numbers and the relative proportion of one kind of member to another, balancing local accountability with the national perspective. 

47. The application of the provisions of the Act have little to do with operational need either. Local authorities usually determine their representation according to the percentage of the park within their boundaries, their relative populations or some other criteria. 

48. Membership of a national park authority should not be to do with representation and responsibility. If it were, English Nature, the Countryside Agency, English Heritage, the Southern Tourist Board, the Highways Agency, the Ramblers Association, transport operators, organisations of hoteliers and so on would have as good a claim as the Forestry Commission to membership since they may, in their different ways have at least as much impact upon the national park. Hopefully, the responsible exercise of the functions of these organisations is not dependent upon membership of the national park authority. 

49. A different slant on this issue to have emerged is the concern that acceding to the demands of the more vociferous groups may result in the expertise in matters which are very important to the public at large such as quiet recreation, and promoting public understanding and enjoyment being insufficiently represented amongst national park authority members.

1. The Agency may wish to consider advising Government that, consistent with the principles contained in "Modernising the Local Government Agenda," the operational needs of the new authority should be taken into account in achieving such a balance of membership that will properly reflect the national and the local interest, provide the requisite expertise and knowledge and meet the need to be efficient and effective.  

New Forest National Park Authority membership and public perception 50. A theme that runs through the replies from the public is a scepticism of local organisations and representatives. It is that elected councillors are only interested in pursuing their political ambitions, that vocal minority interest groups are motivated only by their own "selfish interests", that there is cronyism/an "old boys" network and that organisations that are anachronistic, backward looking and not primarily interested in the well-being of the New Forest or the area as a whole. 51. It is a theme that, perhaps, accounts for the frequent call for ordinary people to be directly elected to the national park authority as the only means of securing a voice for the public. To what extent these feelings are justifiable is difficult to tell. But what they do suggest is that there is a desire on the part of the public to see a national park authority that is, and is seen to be, impartial. Response 52. This is a factor that will need to be taken into account in determining the constitution of the new national park authority. There is a risk that if the authority itself is perceived as a gathering of vested interests, it will, from the outset, lose credibility with the wider community of the national park.  53. One non-governmental organisation has drawn attention to the need for organisations invited to make nominations to national park authorities to be given sufficient time to identify, approve and make nominations.  The Agency should advise Government as to the need to encourage a wide range of groups to seek nominations for membership and to give them as much time as possible to identify and nominate suitable candidates.

1. Other ways of harnessing expertise 54. The proliferation of suggestions that specific organisations must be represented on the national park authority may indicate some lack of understanding as to the range of options available by which their expertise may influence the work of the authority. 55. The choice is not between membership of the authority on the one hand and exclusion from its thinking, policies and work on the other. There are other mechanisms for ensuring that the authority takes full advantage of the wide range of expertise available; co-option to committees or sub-committees, advisory groups, working groups etc. The Verderers56. There is, as can be seen from the public response, overwhelming support for the preferred options. These figures must, however, be read with caution. 57. Whilst some respondents have not selected the preferred option because it may result in a Verderer not being appointed to a new authority, it is equally clear that others have interpreted the preferred option to mean that a Verderer would be appointed to a new authority but that this would occur through a non-statutory mechanism. 58. The option is not expressed in that way. It is that the Minister would indicate an intention "to ensure that Verderer's interests and expertise are included amongst the members" appointed. 59. There is, of course, a range of views; that more than one Verderer should sit, that it should be the Official Verderer or a person appointed by him, that the Verderers should not be represented or that not only the Verderers but the Forestry Commission, English Nature, the Countryside Agency, the Environment Agency and the commoners should be guaranteed membership through legislation. 60. The new authority would need to work closely with the Verderers. But the issue of permanent representation on the national park authority raises different issues. Principles of appointment by the Secretary of State 61. Appointees of the Minister are selected "for their personal qualities and experience and not as representatives of specific groups or organisations" and are expected to "bring to the Authorities' deliberations the wider national viewpoint." (Circular 12/96) 62. The appointment, as of right, of a Verderer to ensure that the interests of the Verderers are represented would not be consistent with that policy because the person would be appointed precisely because of their membership of that organisation and for the purpose of representing its interests. In those circumstances, it is not reasonable to expect the person appointed to act as a member of the new authority as opposed to a representative of the Verderers. 63. Moreover, members of a newly formed New Forest National Park Authority will face an exceptionally challenging task. It will be critically important that every possible step is taken to ensure that the members of the new authority are able to serve the national park authority. That is not consistent with the distribution of seats to organisations as of right. 64. The appointment of one or more Verderers as of right to the new authority may give rise to conflicts of interest if, for example, the Verderers wished to seek funding from a New Forest National Park Authority. In such a case, clearly, a Verderer serving on the new authority might need to declare an interest. However, that does not quite define the limits of the issue. If a New Forest National Park Authority is to gain widespread respect it will be imperative that it is seen to be impartial and objective. This is a recurring theme in the public response to this consultation. It will be more difficult for the new authority to achieve this if it is perceived to embrace the Verderers as members of the new authority rather than as partners with whom that authority has a productive, "arm's length" relationship. 65. The Verderers may actually be able to put their points of view more forcefully from outside than would be possible as members. Competing claims to membership 66. One of the most salient issues highlighted by the foot and mouth epidemic is the question of the relative importance of land management as compared with tourism and other service industries in terms of the economic fabric of the countryside. Commoning is important to the way that the New Forest is managed, but the national park authority will also be occupied with issues relating to visitor management, traffic and recreation management, access and transport strategies because these are the issues that have the greatest capacity to have a detrimental effect upon the fabric of the New Forest. Looked at in that light, the case for Verderers having a seat on the national park authority may be less strong than that which a representative of a tourist or recreational interest could put forward. The Verderers and the New Forest Acts 67. It is argued by one organisation that the Official Verderer should have a guaranteed seat on a New Forest National Park Authority because of the responsibilities of the Verderers that accrue from the New Forest Acts and to avoid consequent conflict with the national park authority. 68. It would seem more logical that the reverse is true; that because the powers and duties of the Verderers are set out in the New Forest Acts, they do not need to be members of the national park authority. S65 of the Environment Act does not permit the national park authority to act unlawfully or give it the power to usurp the statutory functions of the Verderers. Though the position of the Verderers and, indeed the Forestry Commission, by virtue of the Forest Acts is a special one, it is commonplace for national park authorities to work with other organisations that have statutory functions to perform within their areas. Other issues 69. Whilst many people have written complementing the Verderers on the work that they have done over the years, this is by no means unqualified even amongst those who ticked the Yes box. There were adverse comments relating to alleged overgrazing, conservation issues, the effectiveness of the Verderers and other concerns relating to the nature of the organisation. 70 Some consultees have written in strong terms about animal welfare issues, in particular the state of animals left on the common during the winter. These comments may be misplaced, unfounded or the blame for the matters complained of may be wrongly directed but it is clear that they are contentious issues. Response 71. Nothing written above is intended to denigrate the contribution that the Verderers can make. These are important issues that have to be right first time and so it is imperative to address them squarely. 72. The Verderers can potentially make a vitally important contribution to the work of a New Forest National Park Authority. The question is how they will be best placed to make it in the interests of the national park. The conclusion from the above is that the allocation of membership to a New Forest National Park Authority to the Verderers as of right may not serve the best interests of the national park or the Verderers. 73. Though this will not satisfy those who are looking for a guaranteed representation on the national park authority, any person or organisation can put forward nominations. The Minister may appoint a Verderer. That person will have been selected upon the basis set out above as a person capable of bringing a wider dimension to a new authority and of working to achieve national park objectives.    

The Agency advises Government on the basis of the preferred option.

The Forestry Commission

74. Though this section did not attract the highest number of responses in percentage terms, forestry is one of the issues that the public wrote most about. The preferred option was, again, well supported.

75. There is clearly a strong feeling that forestry management as it is currently practised is at least separated, if not divorced, from the spirit of the New Forest. As one person put it, the Forest looked more like a forest in the 1950s. Now it is perceived by some as a commercially exploited monoculture with too many signs and fences. There is a desire to see the forest put back into the New Forest.

76. The wording of the preferred option is that the Secretary of State should take advice "with regard to national park appointments requiring expertise in forestry, woodland and land management and the implementation of the New Forest Acts." 

77. The Forestry Commission gives strong support to the preferred option and does not itself seek membership of a New Forest National Park Authority.

78. The argument that the Forestry Commission should have membership on a New Forest National Park Authority is based upon its position in relation to the Crown land and its experience and expertise in an area of work that is seen to be central to the management of the area as a whole.

Response

79. The fact that the Forestry Commission has responsibilities under the New Forest Acts does not assist the argument that it should have a seat on the Authority by right, nor is the Commission asking for one. The role of the Forestry Commission as the manager of the Crown lands, however, means there must be a mechanism to secure a productive working relationship between a New Forest National Park Authority, the Forestry Commission and, indeed, the Verderers. That relationship is likely to be reflected at a number of different levels; meetings of chairmen and chief executives, membership of working groups, technical working parties and so forth. 

The Agency advises Government on the basis of the preferred option.

Land Management Interests

80. The first part of this section relating to commoning, farming etc., was not contentious, indeed the preferred option was almost unanimously supported, though there was a call for tourism and recreational interests to be included. 

81. One point made in relation to option A was the need for people appointed with particular expertise to be independent of local groups.

82. The questions relating to other expertise produced by far the greatest volume of comment, a huge range of different interests and organisations being put forward. It will not be helpful to recite them in this report. Most are the sort of organisations that national parks routinely work with. 

83. Some themes were common; that there should be fair representation of user groups, that too many experts can impede progress, that the national park authority should avoid becoming a "talking shop", that anyone should be able to contribute information. 

Response

84. These ideas of fairness, openness to people other than interest groups, the representation of ordinary people and the desire to see the Authority being effective are recurrent. They may not greatly affect the advice that the Agency gives to Government at this stage but the new authority may find these views and the more detailed comments to arise from the consultation useful in developing their ideas, strategies and policies.

85 English Heritage consider that the national and international significance of the New Forest as a cultural landscape should be emphasised more, stressing the number and type of cultural designations. Improved knowledge and research should be an integral part of management. Archaeological advice should be available to the New Forest National Park Authority.

1. The Agency should advise on the basis of the preferred option but should also ensure that the tenor of the public comments are made available to a new authority.  

Local authority representation86. Issue 2 does not specifically raise questions about local authority membership but it is a matter that has given rise to considerable comment. 87. As previously stated, a view consistently voiced in the public response was that the appointment of local councillors to a new national park authority does not secure local democracy. Justifiably or not, the responses reflect a perception that county and district councillors have political agendas to follow and do not represent the views of ordinary people. 88. Various proposals have been made to overcome this such as the direct election of ordinary people to the Authority or increasing the number of appointed members to ensure that local authority members do not have an overall majority. 89. One response to this criticism of local authority members is that it is an issue between the members and the electorate. However, it is not quite that simple because what is being expressed here is a desire to see the national park run in an apolitical fashion which, according to those who raise the point, cannot be achieved by the normal democratic process. That is a concern to the extent that it is likely to colour the relationship that the new national park authority will be able to forge with its local communities. Response 90. Local accountability is an inescapable feature of an organisation that has planning functions and whose finance comes through (though not ultimately from) local authorities. The issue of whether there should be direct elections to a New Forest National Park Authority is one of public policy beyond the parameters of this consultation, not least because it would effect all other national park authorities. 91. There is a widely held view that councillors should represent wards within the proposed national park. That is consistent with the advice in Circular 12/96. In practice, the situation is not so clear cut. Members with wards outside the park are often able to take a more objective view particularly in relation to development control issues because they are not subject to the local pressures Applied too rigidly, this policy might deprive the national park authority of a member who is committed to the national park or who, through his or her position on his local authority, may be able to provide invaluable support to a National Park Authority, though having a ward outside its boundary. 92. The public response generally supported the idea that elected representatives should be from wards within the national park substantially upon the grounds that such councillors are more likely to have a knowledge of the Forest than those from more urban areas. Whilst this is understandable, it does overlook the fact that national parks, and this would apply particularly to the New Forest, are not isolated pockets of rural countryside. They have to be envisaged and managed in the context of the wider landscape. Links to urban areas from which a great proportion of visitors come will be very important to maintain. 93. A specific proposal in relation to parish councils is that the park should be divided into five wards or groups of parishes, each of which would select a member to serve on the authority. Response 94. The parishes could adopt such a scheme to identify candidates for nomination to the Secretary of State: direct election is not therefore necessary. 95. The concern of the Dorset authorities is that their representation will inevitably be small and that there is an attendant risk that their views will have little sway with the majority of members from Hampshire. Response 96. A number of local authorities are geographically peripheral to the existing national parks; indeed some smaller authorities may share a representative on a rotational basis or decide not to take up their place on the national park authority. In practice, this is a matter that is dealt with by good and sensitive communications. Even if a council is not represented, there is no bar to the council and/or the local member being consulted, invited to contribute to a meeting or working group.  97. An important issue that relates to membership generally is the capacity of local authority members to exercise a different and new responsibility. Though national park policies in relation to planning have been adopted in the New Forest Heritage Area, the achievement of national park objectives across the full range of activities is a more complex matter. Response 98. Training for members of the new authority will be an issue to be addressed at a later time. 99. Unlike members selected for appointment to a national park authority by the Secretary of State, local authority members appointed to a national park authority by their councils may not be subject to the same criteria for appointment referred to earlier in this report. Circular 12/96 only advises that they should have relevant experience and close links to the park and that local authorities should have regard to the desirability of appointing members who represent divisions or wards situated wholly or partly within the park. Whether a local authority member has an interest in the national park or a commitment to national park objectives is left much more to chance. National parks have a smaller number of local authority members than do county and district council and are likely to benefit or suffer more from the impact of a committed or less committed member. This is particularly important for the New Forest National Park Authority not only because it will be new but also because it will be a particularly challenging national park to administer. 100. The suggestion has been made that the circular advice from Government should point out that the statutory duty under S62 Environment Act 1995 upon local authorities to have regard to national park purposes in their decision making should extend to decisions as to the appointment of members to the Authority. 

1. The Agency should advise Government that guidance should stress the need for local authorities to have regard to national park purposes in their appointments to a new authority.    

Issue 3: The New Forest National Park Authority, the Verderers and the Forestry Commission

101. The public response to this issue was not so much directed at encouraging closer working as at the powers or authority that the three organisations should have, regardless of which option was selected. 

102. Most comment related to the Verderers. Some people feel that the Verderers should have more power or a right of veto against decisions of the national park authority, that they understand the Forest best, that, with the New Forest District Council, they should have sole authority over the Forest and that their powers should be increased. Others say they are not objective, are outmoded, do not control commoning effectively and that their role should be reviewed.

103. There is a significant body of opinion that the powers of the Verderers should be increased, that they should have more funding, possibly through the national park authority and become financially independent of the Forestry Commission.

104. The point has also been made that whereas the land within the proposed national park remains largely in private ownership, the attention that the Agency is paying to commoners in relation to landowners is disproportionate.

105. The Verderers are proposing special legislation, possibly a clause in a future Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which would require the national park authority to seek their consent for any recreational activity on commonable land . This stems from a perception that a new authority would inevitably, and early in its administration, seek to circumvent the powers of the Verderers by acquiring the land from the Forestry Commission and compulsorily purchasing the rights of common, an action in respect of which the Verderers would have no veto. A New Forest National Park Authority would then be free to develop recreational facilities or other initiatives and activities damaging to the commonable land without being restrained by the Verderers.

Response

106. The Verderers have already received assurances from the Minister on this proposition. No further response by the Agency is suggested.

107. Opinion as to the appropriateness of legislation to extend the powers of the Verderers is divided amongst the Verderers themselves. Some see it as imperative to ensure that their position is better secured in relation to a New Forest National Park Authority. The opposing view is that seeking an extension of power through legislation could be prejudicial to the Verderers' Court. 

1. The Agency should advise Government in accordance with the preferred option, that there should be no new legislation for the Verderers or to deal with a perceived overlap between the New Forest Acts and the Environment Act and that the three statutory bodies, a New Forest National Park Authority, the Forestry Commission and the Verderers should develop mechanisms to promote constructive working relationships.   

Issue 4: Development Plans108. Again, a substantial majority of responses favoured the preferred option. The key theme was that such an approach would help to ensure the protection of the landscape on its fringes. A view expressed in both options A and B was that a New Forest National Park Authority should retain primacy over plans to ensure that the appropriate degree of sensitivity would be applied. There was some concern that under option A the national park authority could be overruled. 109. The preferred option has attracted very substantial support from Hampshire and Wiltshire County, Southampton City, Portsmouth City, New Forest District, Test Valley Borough Council. Salisbury District Council regard the preferred option as acceptable and in the best interests of the national park but suggests that the role of the adjoining authorities whose land falls within the proposed national park should be clarified by the Agency as should the input into the decision making process by the various committees of a local authority. Response 110. The local authorities will be represented on the New Forest National Park Authority and there will be scope for advisory committees and technical working groups to be developed. Good practice would, in any event, call for liaison and collaboration on strategic issues. It may be more appropriate to proceed on the basis that there is an entirely reasonable expectation that this will transpire than to be too prescriptive as to how the details are worked up.  111. The main issues of contention arise with the Dorset councils. Their concerns are that the influence of Dorset members will be heavily outweighed by their Hampshire counterparts. They feel that the current arrangements, a joint committee, provide an effective mechanism and that the strategic planning authorities of Dorset should retain their responsibility. 112. The Dorset authorities also fear that the preferred option for waste and mineral local plans will cause difficulties in their strategic approach to minerals and waste in their county. Response 113. The preferred option should not, of itself, create strategic difficulties in Dorset. If part of Dorset were to be designated as a national park and responsibility for waste and minerals planning were to be transferred to Dorset County Council, that authority would be required to have due regard to national park purposes in formulating its strategic policies. The preferred option does not alter the strategic implications of designation. It is designed to ensure that sufficient attention is given to national park purposes. 114. Christchurch Borough Council points out that 50% of its rural area will fall within the national park boundary and that it needs to retain the power to produce the local plans in order to maintain the linkages between the built up and the urban areas. 115. There is some concern that working with the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Authorities may result in conflicts of interest and that collaboration with Hampshire County Council on a key policy issue for the New Forest could jeopardise the integrity of the landscape. They suggest that a New Forest National Park Authority to have right of veto or to explore the possibility of including waste and mineral policies within the Local Plan, or prepares its own Minerals and Waste Local Plan in consultation with neighbouring local authorities. This plan could be incorporated into a new National Park Authority's Local Plan. 

Response

116. A New Forest National Park Authority would not need a right of veto because it would retain ultimate responsibility. The weakness of the suggestion that waste and minerals policies should be included in the Local Plan is that it would not make the best use of the available expertise and would result in National Park and Hampshire County waste and management sections in the Local Plan. 

117. Upon designation, the county council will have to comply with Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) and other government guidance. The work of a New Forest National Park Authority in the joint plan preparation will ensure that PPGs and national park purposes are complied with.

118. The Joint Local Plan must ensure that the statutory purposes of national parks are fully recognised in its policies. The plan should cover the areas outside the area of the New Forest District Council but inside the national park.

Response

119. This is precisely what the preferred option will offer: a joint plan covering the whole of the area of the national park, whichever district it falls in, plus those areas of the New Forest District Council outside the park. A New Forest National Park Authority would ensure that national park purposes underpin the whole plan.

120. Concern was also expressed that there is no mention of arrangements to be put in place with regard to the future preparation of Regional Planning Guidance, to facilitate the review of the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan or the Christchurch Local Plan. Instead, reference to the preparation of development plans in the preferred option (A) is reserved exclusively to those local authorities within the South East region. 

Response

121. A New Forest National Park Authority should have a strong voice on the regional fora. As the great majority of the national park falls within the South East Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) area, it will, as per RPG guidance, take the lead on policy for the New Forest; South West RPG will be expected to follow suit.

The Agency advises upon the basis of the preferred option and that circular advice should point to the advantage of a joint advisory committee to deal with development plans. 

Issue 5: Development Control

122. Although the public response favoured the preferred option, it was a preference expressed with strong provisos; that a New Forest National Park Authority should have control over design issues, major and contentious applications or those out of line with policy, and have the right to call in and veto applications.

123. Those choosing option B gave as reasons that delegation would lead to inefficiency, political influence in decision making or perpetuate a perceived problem of inconsistency.

124. Option C was supported upon the basis that the local authorities would consult a New Forest National Park Authority.

125. Amongst the other options, it was suggested that a New Forest National Park Authority should deal with all rural applications and that delegation should be made to one or more district councils on an agency basis.

126. The overwhelming call is for the arrangements, whatever they may be, to be clear and for decisions to be consistent across the park.

Response

127. The preferred option will allow a New Forest National Park Authority to negotiate a delegation agreement with the local authorities. The statutory responsibility for development control will continue to vest in the new national park authority. Should it prove necessary, a New Forest National Park Authority could renegotiate or, ultimately, withdraw from such an agreement. 

128. An important objective is to devise a system that is not only effective in terms of the implementation of planning policy but avoids unnecessary duplication and complication. A division between rural and urban parts of the park has some advantages but would be complex to administer and difficult for users to understand particularly at the settlement edges.

129. The preferred option will also allow a New Forest National Park Authority to promote common standards (through design guidance etc.,), to monitor decisions as part of the local plan cycle and to ensure that members of a New Forest National Park Authority are well informed and able to consider contentious applications in an informed manner.

130. The responses of the local authorities to this issue are summarised below.

New Forest District CouncilTest Valley Borough Council:  agrees with the preferred option.Christchurch Borough CouncilSalisbury District CouncilHampshire County CouncilWiltshire County Council:  supports the preferred option provided there is clear agreement on the degree of delegation and that a New Forest National Park Authority retains the power to make decisions on major or contentious decisions.Dorset County Council:  agrees that a New Forest National Park Authority should not deal with all aspects of development control but is concerned that the separation of responsibilities for development control and development planning will produce dislocation of implementation from local plan policy. 

131. An issue that flows from the call for a clear scheme of delegation is how the powers retained by a New Forest National Park Authority should be defined. It has been pointed out that creeping sub-urbanisation through minor proposals can be as damaging as major proposals. 

Response

132. It is not for the Countryside Agency to do more than mark up the need for a clear scheme of delegation. 

133. Many respondents have tended to look at this issue solely in terms of the differences in regulation as between national parks and land that is not so designated. That is not the whole picture. Development control within a designated area is not simply a matter of exercising stricter constraints. It is also to do with having an empathy for the special characteristics and qualities of the area and trying to achieve a result that best reflects them through negotiation and persuasion. 

The Government is advised upon the basis of the preferred option, with emphasis on the need for clarity in any arrangements from the perspective both of the authorities concerned and the public.

Issue 6: the National Park Authority's role in land management

134. There was solid support for the preferred option.

135. Much of the public comment relates to specific land management issues rather than the role of a New Forest National Park Authority, such as the need for stricter control of cattle numbers, an alleged abuse of common rights and the importance of neglected species. There were comments to the effect that the national park authority must encourage joint working and set standards.

136. Those not agreeing to the suggested ways of working expressed critical remarks relating to the Forestry Commission, leading to a view that the role of the Forestry Commission in the management of Crown lands should be reviewed. One implication that might be drawn from this is that there is an expectation that a New Forest National Park Authority will work to resolve perceived problems in relation to the management of forestry and the Crown lands. 

137. It is important to remember that the area within the proposed boundary of the national park includes not only the Crown land but also land owned and managed by private landowners and organisations such as the National Trust. The Country Landowners and Business Association have stressed that land in private ownership is already well managed.

138. There is an extensive coastal boundary and the need to include management of coastal recreation has been emphasised. The Lymington Harbour Commissioners raised concerns over possible duplication of functions however, the national park authority would not take over or have the authority to change any of their statutory functions. 

139. The principle of a New Forest National Park Authority acting in a co-ordinating role seems to be widely accepted and that the New Forest Management Plan, accords and memoranda of understanding between the various bodies will have a part to play in this process. 

140. The New Forest District Council suggested that there should be a New Forest Management Plan prepared jointly by a New Forest National Park Authority and the Forestry Commission to ensure the integration of land management and land use policies.

141. English Heritage wish to see the role of a New Forest National Park Authority in the management of the cultural heritage strengthened.

142. The Dorset local authorities feel that the need for land management is limited either because the land in their area is not of a quality that requires management to any significant degree or because it is well managed by private owners.

Response

143. It is envisaged that a new authority would work closely with the Forestry Commission to ensure that the management of the Crown Land, and in particular recreational aspects, tie in with national park policies and are well integrated with the adjoining land. This could involve a joint management plan although the remit of a New Forest National Park Authority is much wider than that of the Forestry Commission. 

Advise Government on the basis of the preferred option.

Issue 7 Visitor Management

144. The comments of those amongst the substantial majority agreeing the proposed approach focus on relatively detailed matters and upon the competing needs of visitors, recreational users and commoners. The thrust of the responses is very supportive of the approach set out in the document and most of the particular comments are matters that will need to be addressed by the new authority. 

145. Those disagreeing point in particular to the concerns that a New Forest National Park Authority will promote the New Forest as a tourist attraction, to problems of access for cyclists, dogs or to the possibility that the new Authority will open the New Forest to the implementation of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. There were suggestions that rights of way should be the responsibility of the highway authority and that visitor management should be contracted out to the private sector. A New Forest National Park Authority should develop a sustainable transport policy. 

146. The concern that the designation of the area as a national park will bring in a greatly increased number of visitors with which it could not cope is expressed by some local authorities. 

147. Inevitably, views upon tourism are mixed. Some public respondents are very much opposed to the effects of tourism; others point to the fact that, as the recent foot and mouth episode has highlighted, tourism is the driving force in the economy of the area. A new authority should work with the tourism industry through the existing channels. A New Forest National Park Authority will be best placed to fulfil a co-ordinating, facilitating role.

148. A specific proposal is that a New Forest National Park Authority should develop a process for the joint planning of transport matters and a Local Transport Plan for the national park.

149. The Council for National Parks strongly supports rights of way responsibilities being delegated to a New Forest National Park Authority which would be best placed to devise a sustainable approach to access from settlements surrounding the national park area.

Response

150. The Agency should maintain its position that a New Forest National Park Authority should be concerned with rights of way at the strategic level, leaving their management with highway authorities. This is consistent with the strategic, co-ordinating and cohesive role of the new authority. 

1. The Agency should advise Government on the basis of the preferred option, and on the need for a joint transport plan.   

Issue 8: Local expertise

151. Many of the points applicable to both Issues 8 and 9 have been discussed in previous sections of this report and are not repeated here.

152. Few members of the public commented on this section. Those that did stressed the need to involve local expertise, to listen to the views of local residents and for any consultation to be genuinely motivated by the desire to obtain and take notice of local views. There is also a concern that the needs of local residents should be weighed in the balance with those of farmers, tourists and conservationists. A New Forest National Park Authority should work with schools and youth organisations.

153. More direct input from residents, echoing the scepticism about local politicians referred to earlier in this report, was cited by those voting against the preferred option. Some felt that only local experts should be used; others that local expertise had not proved that it was best for the forest and that wider expertise is required.

154. Government advice requires the preparation of World Heritage Management Plans for all UK World Heritage sites. The National Park Management Plan could fulfil this purpose.

155. A review of existing arrangements should be undertaken before new ones are put in place to avoid duplication. 

Response

156. The key issue arising in this section is the relationship that a New Forest National Park Authority can forge with the public at large. It reflects the feeling outlined earlier in this report that focusing upon the concerns of interest groups may leave the broader public constituency feeling that it is not engaged with the new authority. This is an issue that the new authority should be made aware of rather than one that needs to be the subject of advice to Government at this stage.

1. The Agency should advise Government on the basis of the preferred option.   

Issue 9: Partnership

157. Whilst this is not a contentious issue, it is a particularly interesting one. 

158. There is overwhelming agreement that the new authority should seek to work in partnership with others. But there is also a frequently repeated proviso to this: that the authority should not become bogged down in endless discussions with working groups, consultative bodies and "talking shops". The new national park authority must listen but it must act, is the message. The potential of striving to work in partnership to frustrate positive action is well recognised and it seems that it will be the latter that the national park authority will be judged upon. 

159. One of the parish councils expressed concern that the documentation relating to this consultation did not place sufficient stress upon the need for a New Forest National Park Authority to forge a dynamic relationship with parish councils. 

Response

160. All national park authorities work to develop good relationships with their parish and community councils. Some employ community liaison officers, have parish council fora and develop local initiatives through the rangers. The involvement of parish councillors on national park authorities which is catered for the Environment Act should assist in this respect.

161. Traffic management and transport will be a major issue for the new authority given the accessibility of the park not just from the immediately surrounding urban areas but London and the South East, the Midlands and further afield.

162. These are strategic issues with which the new authority will have to deal. This section is, however, concerned with the principle of working in partnership rather than the matters which such partnerships might address. 

1. The Agency should advise Government on the basis of the preferred option.   

Annex 5 

Draft New Forest National Park Designation Order 

1740761.01  NATIONAL PARKS AND ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1949

N E W F O R E S T N A T I O N A L P A R K

(D E S I G N A T I O N) O R D E R 2 0 0 2

IN pursuance of Sections 5 and 7 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, and all other powers enabling them in that behalf, the Countryside Agency hereby designate as a National Park all that area of land comprising approximately xxx square kilometres situated in the Counties of Hampshire, Wiltshire and Dorset, and shown bounded by a xxx line on the map annexed hereto and further described in the Schedule to this order. 

This order may be cited as the New Forest National Park (Designation) Order 2002 and shall come into force on xxx 2002.

G I V E N under the Common Seal of the Countryside Agency this xxxth day of xxx, two thousand and two.

Chairman of the Countryside Agency

Chief Executive of the Countryside Agency

National Parks

NATIONAL PARKS AND ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1949

NEW FOREST NATIONAL PARK (DESIGNATION) ORDER

Notice is hereby given that under its powers contained in sections 5 and 7 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the Countryside Agency made the New Forest National Park (Designation) Order on the xxxth day of xxx 2002 and are about to submit the Order to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for confirmation.

The Order designates an area of approximately xxx square kilometres mainly in the County of Hampshire and also partly in the Counties of Wiltshire and Dorset, as a National Park. The precise boundary of the National Park is delineated on a map annexed to the Order. A description of the boundary is contained in the schedule to the Order.

Copies of the Order and the map referred to therein may be inspected, free of charge, at the following locations:

The Countryside Agency, John Dower House, Crescent Place, Cheltenham, Glos. GL50 3 RA between the hours of 0900 and 1700, Mondays to Fridays

Hampshire County Council

New Forest District Council

Test Valley Borough Council

Wiltshire County Council

Salisbury District Council

Dorset County Council

Christchurch Borough Council

East Dorset District Council

Any person who wishes to make an objection or representation concerning the Order should write to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Countryside Division 1, Zone 1/04, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6EB or by fax to 0117 372 8250 or by e-mail to NATIONALPARKSAONBS@defra.gsi.gov.uk . Such objections or representations should arrive no later than twenty-eight days from the date at the foot of this notice.

xxxth xxx 2002

Name, Address