Breadcrumbs
A South Downs National Park: designation order and advice to the Government (AP02/33)
FOR DECISION
|
Relevance to Strategy
and Corporate Plan:
|
Staff and financial
implications:
|
Main issues to
concern the Board:
|
Background
1. In April 2000 (AP00/15) the Board agreed to begin the process of designating a South Downs National Park. In March 2001 (AP01/04) the Board agreed a broad area meeting the statutory criteria for a national park designation (the area of search). In September 2001 (AP01/31) the Board agreed a draft boundary and options for the administration of a South Downs National Park for public consultation. In April 2002 (AP02/11) the Board considered the responses to the public consultation and agreed a proposed boundary for statutory consultation with the local authorities and its proposed advice on administration.
2. The Board needs now to consider responses to the statutory consultation and agree if the Agency should proceed with designation, including agreeing a final boundary. It also needs to agree any advice it wishes to give on the administration and the establishment of a South Downs National Park Authority. (While not a statutory requirement, in the case of the proposed New Forest National Park, the Secretary of State has extended the scope of inquiry to cover the advice the Agency chose to offer on administration in that area).
The Statutory Consultation
3. The consultation ran from 31 May to 16 August 2002. We sent a detailed consultation document (CA111) to all local authorities, town and parish councils with land in the proposed boundary. We also invited Southampton and Portsmouth City Councils to comment as joint structure planning authorities. We sent a newsletter to all those who had responded to the public consultation, and made it available locally. We held a seminar at the beginning of the consultation period for all statutory consultees; a road show in each county; and a meeting with local authorities to discuss the proposals.
4. 107responses (out of 202 consultees) were received. These have been recorded and analysedand assessed against national park purposes and the statutory criteria for designation. This paper reports on the outcome of the consultation.
The Boundary
5. The majority of consultees suggested changes to the boundary, both additions and deletions. As well as site specific comments, some generic issues were raised: in particular the case for a chalk-only park, the inclusion of towns, and the splitting of parishes. We have carried out further research and fieldwork to look at suggested boundary alterations and these generic issues. We have reconsidered the current state of development plans and proposals, to see if any revisions should be made in line with our policy on allocated sites (guideline 2i). Similarly, we have looked at the South Coast Multi Modal Study (SoCoMMS), which reported in September and is expected to be adopted by SEERA in November and to receive the Minister's final decision in January 2003[]. We have noted an announcement of plans to build a flyover taking the A27 over the railway at Beddington, east of Lewes.
6. Annex 1 summarises the issues raised by the consultees, and sets out officers' recommended response following assessment against the statutory criteria and the Agency's policy for boundary setting. We recommend 56 revisions: see the table at the end of Annex 1, noting in particular, that Woolmer Forest, Ditchling and Coney Hill are included, land south of Arundel is excluded and there is no change at Kirdford and Rowlands Castle. If agreed, these would result in the national park boundary shown on the map at Annex 2. I recommend this boundary as the land which meets the statutory criteria for designation.
Designation Order
7. If the Board decide that the area shown meets the statutory criteria, they must decide whether to make a designation order using their powers under the 1949 Act, including a consideration of whether designation of such an area is "especially desirable". Annex 3 summarises the criteria and the reasons for designation.
8. In response to the statutory consultation, 7 local authorities object to the national park in principle and two support it. The others do not state a clear view. Those opposed have in particular questioned the desirability, including the added value that a national park would bring over the current AONB arrangements. The Board considered this issue in detail in April 2000 when they decided to begin the designation process and concluded that a National Park would provide measures to address the special needs of the South Downs which it had previously identified.
9. With the exception of Winchester City Council (who would like to see the existing two AONBs managed separately) and Mid Sussex District Council (who would like the current arrangements to continue, but with increased funding) those opposed wish to see a South Downs Conservation Board constituted under the AONB provision of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. They argue that this could equally meet the needs of the Downs, and also that development control decisions should not be taken by a body that is not directly elected. West Sussex County Council have challenged the basis of the Agency's consultation as it does not offer this as "an option". Annex 3 suggests that a conservation board would not adequately address the needs of the South Downs because:
- it would not have a statutory role in the planning system
- it would remain dependent on voluntary annual contributions from local authorities and thus be more vulnerable to fluctuating resources than has been the case for National Parks generally over the past decade.
- it would not have the duty, powers and ability adequately to address the pressures that face the area, (eg development, visitors and changes to agriculture).
Revocation of East Hampshire and the Sussex Downs AONBs
11. As agreed in April 2002, the local authorities affected were also consulted on the proposed revocation of the AONB designations for East Hampshire and the Sussex Downs (should a National Park be designated). Winchester City Council objected in principle, because they are opposed to the designation of a national park and a number of parish and town councils indicated that they would object to the loss of protection of those small areas of AONB not within the national park. Having considered comments officers concluded that none gave grounds for not revoking. Draft Revocation Orders were therefore placed on deposit from 27 August to 27 September 2002 and advertised to allow for representations, in accordance with the legislation. (See Annex 4).
12. The representations received on each of the draft orders (274 in total) together with the comments received from the statutory consultees are summarised in Annex 5. We have considered all of the representations, and have also taken them into account when considering revisions to the national park boundary. Many of the areas against which representations were made are now included within the national park boundary (eg Greatham). There are now 71 small areas which would fall outside the proposed boundary (see Annex 6), either because they do not meet the natural beauty criteria, having been developed/allocated for development or significantly degraded since AONB designation; or because the AONB boundary is indistinguishable on the ground. None of these areas now meet the criteria for AONB designation. I therefore recommend that the Agency make Orders to revoke both AONB designations in their entirety, subject to confirmation of the national park designation order.
Establishment of a South Downs National Park Authority.
Local Authority responses on administration
13. Annex 7 summarises the views put forward by local authorities on the administrative matters and our response to them. The main issues raised were :
- objection to the role of a national park authority (NPA) in land use planning,
- concern about NPA membership and a perceived loss of democracy.
14. Countryside management There was general support for a NPA role in land management, in part for a NPA role in visitor management (although West Sussex and Hampshire object to the proposed delegation of rights of way powers) and for the role of the national park management plan and the way in which a NPA would work in partnership with other organisations and local people.
15. Membership There was widespread support for a full NPA membership of 46 and opposition to any reduction. Many local authorities have opposed the proposal to reduce the size of authorities in the National Park Review (see para 18 below) and proportion of local authority members. They believe that all local authorities require a seat, and an overall majority to ensure democracy.
16. Planning The main issue of concern to the local authorities was town and country planning. A particular concern was that a unitary development plan would make planning for the park isolationist and inward looking, and would not properly address cross boundary issues. Only Brighton & Hove supported the UDP approach: others preferred three joint structure plans (with different views on the local plan). These points of view were known to the Board in April when it favoured the UDP on the basis of efficiency and simplicity, an approach that was already in place in other extensive national parks. No new arguments or alternatives have been suggested through the statutory consultation. There were further calls for total transfer of development control to the existing authorities (and for tailor made legislation to allow for a national park without planning functions). No new arguments have come forward to cause the Agency to change its previous position on this.
17. The Deputy Prime Minister made a policy statement on the review of the planning system during the consultation period. Annex 8 summarises the implications for the Agency's proposals. Most local authorities felt they were not able to consider this issue fully and wanted to be consulted again on implications for the South Downs once the changes were in place. The Agency has previously identified a number of principles for planning in the South Downs, drawing from national and local technical working groups, which remain valid whatever the outcome of the review. The Agency's position in April 2002 that a South Downs National Park Authority should be responsible for forward planning across the whole park area, working closely with neighbouring authorities, and agreeing the most effective way of discharging its development control responsibilities is compatible with the Government's proposals.
18. In September 1999, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Ministers asked the Agency specifically to advise on the effective administration of planning in a South Downs National Park. Parliament is likely to have an opportunity to consider how the proposed changes in the planning system should apply in national parks generally which may be informed by the DEFRA led study referred to in Annex 9. We see no need for special legislative provision for the area of a South Downs National Park Authority.
19. National Park Review DEFRA's National Park Review report was published during the consultation period. An analysis in relation to the South Downs is given at Annex 9. Local authorities were invited to comment on its implications for administration of the South Downs in their response to our consultation: 5 did. Some local authorities called for us to re-consult or even (in the case of West Sussex County Council) to stop the designation process because of the Review. Annex 9 shows, by and large, that the Review recommendations are in line with the needs of the Downs. If other complex national parks, such as the Peak District, are thought able to operate well with so few changes following a quite fundamental review, we can be confident that the Review strengthens the evidence that a South Downs National Park can work well.
Advice to the Secretary of State on Administration
20. The Agency has a duty under the 1949 Act to advise on administration of National Parks. At the outset of the designation process it recognised the special circumstances of the South Downs area (in terms of population, intensive agriculture, development pressure, visitor pressure etc.). Having carried out a considerable amount of work, including extensive consultations over the last two and half years, officers are however, convinced that the Downs face no issues which cannot be adequately addressed through the current legislative and policy provisions for national park administration.
I recommend therefore that the Agency advises the Secretary of State, should she confirm a South Downs National Park Designation Order, to establish a South Downs National Park Authority under the provisions of the Environment Act 1995.
21. That is not to say however there are not a number of issues in the South Downs which will require particular attention, including by a NPA and local authorities. Those which have arisen through the Agency's work are summarised in Annex 10.
Next Steps
22. If the Board agree with the above recommendations, the Designation Order showing the boundary will be made in December 2002 and put on deposit in January 2003: (see Annex 11 for drafts). It will be submitted to the Secretary of State with AONB revocation orders who will be asked to confirm all three. The Agency's advice on administration would be given at the same time. In the meantime the Agency will continue to support the Sussex Downs Conservation Board and East Hampshire AONB JAC and work with them towards a future administration.
Risks and mitigation measures
23. Objections leading to a public inquiry
24. Procedural challenge/judicial review
- []Although SEERA approval is expected the Agency has concerns about the weight given by SoCoMMS to designated landscapes and the lack of options given to the extensive list of road improvements. The Highways Agency has begun consultation on the road schemes in SoCo MMS before the Secretary of State's final decision on the study. Any decisions related to the national park boundary in the Arundel area because of its status in development plans should not be seen as pre-empting the final decision on SoCoMMS or endorsing its findings
Annexes
1. Boundary tables
2. Boundary map (995KB)
3. Reasons for designation
4. Draft AONB revocation orders and public notices - Sussex Downs / East Hampshire
5. Representations to the draft AONB revocation orders
6. Map of AONB areas that fall outside NP boundary (334KB) - Description
7. Local authority comments on administration
8. Planning policy statement
9. National park review
10. Issues to be address
11. Draft designational order and public notice
