Archived decisions

Contact: Karin Taylor, ext 5938

1. Summary

1.1 This report considers two consultation documents recently published by the Countryside Agency in relation to the proposed designation of the New Forest National Park. These relate to the proposed boundary and proposed special arrangements for the establishment of a National Park Authority. The issues are considered from the County Council's perspective and an appropriate response to the Countryside Agency is put forward.

1.2 The Cabinet on 19 September 2001 will be recommended to inform the Countryside Agency that:

(i) the boundary for the New Forest National Park as proposed by the Countryside Agency be supported; and

(ii) the County Council wishes the following observations to be taken into account in respect of drawing up Special Arrangements for a New Forest National Park Authority:

Issue 1: The County Council would wish a tailor-made solution to be devised for the New Forest, involving new or amended existing legislation, which would take full account of the needs of commoning and the integration of Crown land. In the absence of a tailor-made solution, then it is essential that the Government publishes a circular emphasising the unique qualities of the New Forest.

Issue 2: The County Council is concerned at the lack of direct democratic accountability associated with National Park Authorities but agrees that, in the absence of a tailor-made solution, the Verderers, the Commoners, the Forestry Commission and English Nature should be represented on the proposed National Park Authority.

Issue 3: The County Council supports the proposal for issuing special advice to promote integrated working between the proposed National Park Authority and other parties.

Issue 4: The County Council supports the Countryside Agency's preferred option for the preparation of development plans.

Issue 5: The County Council welcomes the proposal to recommend the delegation of development control to the existing local authorities.

Issue 6: The County Council agrees that how land is managed is crucial to conserving the New Forest, but requests that further consideration be given to the respective roles of the Forestry Commission and the proposed National Park Authority in the management of Crown land.

Issue 7: In respect of visitor management the County Council agrees that rights of way should remain the responsibility of the highway authorities; it further requests that the Countryside Agency addresses heritage-related issues more specifically and, in particular, how the historical, archaeological and architectural character of the New Forest is to be conserved and enhanced.

Issue 8: The County Council supports the need to involve local expertise in the work of the proposed National Park Authority and suggests that this can be developed from existing structures.

Issue 9: The County Council supports the wide involvement of different interests in the work of the proposed National Park Authority and supports the further development of the New Forest Consultative Panel as a model for partnership working.

1.3 The Committee is asked to consider the above recommendations to the Cabinet and formulate comments on them which will be reported to the Cabinet meeting.

2. Introduction

2.1 National Parks are designated by the Countryside Agency, subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State, under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (amended by the Countryside Act 1968 and Environment Act 1995). The statutory purposes of the National Parks (as amended by the Environment Act) are to:

(i) conserve and enhance their natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage; and

(ii) promote opportunities for public understanding and enjoyment of their special qualities.

Where it appears that there is conflict between these purposes, Government policy is to attach greater weight to the first.

2.2 The New Forest has been a specially protected area for more than 900 years and has long been recognised for its natural beauty and valued as a place for quiet recreation. The idea of a national park for the New Forest goes back for more than 100 years although it was not until 1998 that the Countryside Commission (now the Countryside Agency) recommended to the Government that it be formally designated. This followed the definition in the early 1990s by the New Forest Committee (an independent non-statutory coordinating body) of the New Forest Heritage Area and the adoption by the relevant local planning authorities of special planning policies for the Heritage Area. In 1994 the Government announced that the same planning policies as those of a national park would apply to the Heritage Area.

2.3 The Countryside Agency is now engaged in the formal process of designating a national park for the New Forest and in June 2001 the Agency commenced consultation on the following two major issues:

(i) formal consultation in respect of the proposed national park boundary; and

(ii) public consultation in relation to the proposed special arrangements for setting up a New Forest National Park.

The documents produced by the Countryside Agency explaining these proposals in detail are available in the Planning and Surveyor's Library. Three small summary leaflets have also been produced, which have previously been sent to Members. (Copies are available from the County Planning Department (ext. 6806) and have been placed in the Members' Room.)

2.4 The deadline for responses to the Countryside Agency is 28 September 2001. Following consideration of these the Agency will make the Designation Order which will include a map of the area to be designated (autumn 2001). If any objections to this are made to the Minister, a public inquiry may be held (2002/03). If the Designation Order is confirmed, the New Forest National Park is created (by end 2004).

3. Proposed National Park Boundary

3.1 The Countryside Agency is seeking to identify a boundary for the New Forest National Park based on national park purposes and boundary setting conventions. In July 2000 the Agency identified a draft New Forest National Park boundary and this was the subject of a public consultation that took place between October 2000 and January 2001. A report on the draft boundary was considered by the former Planning and Transportation Committee on 22 January 2001 and the Countryside Agency informed of its resolution, attached as Appendix 1.

3.2 The current consultation represents the formal consultation on the proposed boundary by the Countryside Agency with the local authorities affected, as required by legislation. The explanatory document published by the Agency reports on the outcome of the public consultation on the draft boundary, explains the reasoning as to whether change is justified and sets out the proposed boundary which the Countryside Agency is minded to designate as a National Park. The revisions to the boundary which are now proposed take account of public comments, further research and technical fieldwork.

3.3 The Countryside Agency's interpretation of the statutory criteria for designation of the proposed National Park is set out in Appendix 2, along with its approach to defining national park boundaries (Appendix 3).

3.4 The proposed National Park boundary is shown on the attached map. There are changes to the original draft boundary line in seven sections:

(i) Section 3 Eling

(ii) Section 6 Hythe to Langley

(iii) Sections 8 and 9 Ashlett Creek to Calshot

(iv) Section 11 Lymington River to Everton

(v) Section 13 Avon Valley below Ringwood

(vi) Section 15 Avon Valley north of Fordingbridge

(vii) Section 16 Searchfield Farm to Plaitford Green.

The other sections remain unchanged. The consultation report describes each section, summarises the suggested amendments and explains the Agency's response, along with the reasoning both for the changes that have been made and for rejecting other proposals.

3.5 Since the consultation in respect of the proposed boundary is with local authorities only, the New Forest Committee and the Hampshire Wildlife Trust are unable to submit formal responses to the Countryside Agency. These organisations have, however, informed the local authorities of their views and, where appropriate, these have been incorporated in this report.

4. County Planning Officer's Comments in Respect of the Proposed Boundary

4.1 Consultation has been undertaken with all appropriate Chief Officers and, where appropriate, their views have been incorporated in this report.

4.2 The Countryside Agency has not, in its revisions of the draft boundary, been minded to accommodate every comment made by the County Council following the former Planning and Transportation Committee's resolution. However, the justification for not doing so has been included in the consultation document. Significantly, the following have been included as recommended:

(i) the salt marshes adjacent to Fawley Power Station;

(ii) Ringwood; and

(iii) Breamore Conservation Area.

4.3 Those sections of boundary which were subject to comment by the former Planning and Transportation Committee on 22 January 2001 and have not been revised in the proposed boundary are:

(i) Part of the area north of Totton (Section 1) Hillstreet/Wade Hill Farm and Testwood Lakes are retained within the boundary. The argument for inclusion of this area is that, despite being traversed by the A36 (T), the A326 and the M27, it has retained a clear Forest character, there are long distance views from the ridge line at Hill Street and from the motorway, and the area acts as a gateway to the Forest. Although there is some merit in this statement the case for justification continues to remain weak.

(ii) Arnewood House Park (Section 12) has not been included. The case for not including this area is the increasing urban fringe influences affecting the landscape quality, and the New Forest Heritage Area boundary in this location has stood the test of time.

(iii) The Avon Valley (Sections 13-15) boundary to the west of Fordingbridge along Harbridge Drove South to the A31. Following further consideration of this boundary the Countryside Agency's response was that, although parts of the area had merit in terms of natural beauty and recreation, substantial areas would not meet the criteria. The case for the inclusion of Fordingbridge was regarded as not sufficiently compelling. It was not included because of the amount of modern development. In consideration of Section 14 the New Forest Committee has resolved that the area west of the Avon Valley should be included within the proposed National Park. Likewise, the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trusts recommend a boundary delineation to the west of the Avon Valley which differs from the proposed boundary.

(iv) Melchet Court and Park (Section 16) have not been included. The existing New Forest Heritage Area boundary is considered to have worked well and although the area north of the boundary is of high quality, with wildlife, historic and grazing interests, the landscape at the edge of the chalk at this point loses its strong forest links. The case for inclusion was not considered strong enough. The New Forest Committee has requested that the inclusion of this area be further considered.

4.4 The Countryside Agency's reasons for not adjusting the boundary in the above areas are noted. It is acknowledged that in most cases the Agency puts forward a reasonable argument, although not always compelling. It is proposed, however, that the Agency's conclusions for these areas be accepted.

4.5 Proposed additions to the draft boundary are minor modifications and, with the exception of the addition of land around Lymore ( Section 11), have no strategic significance. The case for their inclusion appears well justified. The proposed extension around Lymore is underlain by workable sand and gravel deposits. Despite this consideration, the Countryside Agency's justification for including this pocket of high quality landscape is reasonable.

4.6 It is worthy of note that the proposed boundary extension at Frost Lane (Section 6) is immediately adjacent to the Charleston Road special waste treatment and incineration plant. This is identified in the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan as a nationally important facility. Proposals to improve, extend or increase the capacity of this plant will be considered in the light of national and regional need.

4.7 The proposed inclusion of the inter-tidal areas at Eling and between Hythe and Calshot is consistent with the inclusion of other coastal areas. However, the boundary to Southampton Water to the mean low water mark can only be short-term. The coast is dynamic and inevitably will change due to the rise in sea level, which is currently six millimetres a year and will have a measurable impact in the longer term.

4.8 Following further consideration of extension of the boundary from mean low water mark to the midpoint of the River Test, the Countryside Agency concluded there would be no added benefit. However, the New Forest Committee resolved to restate its support for such an extension as the accepted method of delineating river boundaries. The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trusts recommend definition of a seaward boundary below mean low water mark delineated along a line of identified structures. As National Park and Planning Authorities' responsibilities do not extend below mean low water, this recommendation would be difficult to support.

4.9 There are some inconsistencies in the application of the criteria within the report. To give one example, Testwood Lakes are included and Broadlands Lakes immediately adjacent are excluded. The area around Hill Street has a number of atypical and incongruous features which detract from the quality of the landscape as being outstanding.

4.10 Further detailed anomalies in the application of criteria and loss of opportunity to provide a more physically appropriate and distinctive boundary line are noted by the New Forest Committee in Sections 16-17 Searchfield Farm to Plaitford Green; and Section 15, suggesting more complete inclusion of the Conservation Area at Breamore. These inconsistencies are, however, at a detailed level and not sufficiently strategic to justify objection. However, the Countryside Agency would be advised to note the advice and concerns raised in order to ensure that a practical, sustainable and clearly understood boundary is secured.

4.11 The criteria and other key considerations which the Countryside Agency has used to define the proposed boundary within the report are generally supported. The observations set out in this report are not considered sufficiently strategic to detract from the recommended proposed boundary.

5. Proposed Special Arrangements for a National Park Authority

5.1 The Countryside Agency is required to advise the relevant Government Minister on administrative arrangements for a National Park Authority (NPA) that reflect the New Forest's special circumstances for consideration when making the New Forest National Park Authority Establishment Order. In formulating its own advice, the Agency is consulting widely and will take responses into account prior to making a submission to the Government in winter 2001/02.

5.2 The background to existing arrangements within the New Forest Heritage Area is set out in the Agency's consultative document (see paragraph 2.3). Nine issues have been identified which need to be addressed and the Agency puts forward its preferred approach in each case, along with other options on which it is seeking views. The County Planning Officer's comments in relation to each of these issues are set out below and incorporate the views of other appropriate Chief Officers.

6. County Planning Officer's Comments in Relation to Proposed Special Arrangements

Issue 1 - Special Guidance for a New Forest National Park Authority

6.1 The Countryside Agency is proposing that an NPA for the New Forest be set up under existing national park legislation but against the backdrop of other relevant legislation, for example the New Forest Acts. Key issues of special significance to the New Forest could be addressed in policy guidance from the Government, such as by means of a Government circular. Whilst the recognition of the special circumstances of the New Forest is welcomed, it is not certain that the provision of guidance in this form would give sufficient support and commitment to commoning, upon which the character of the New Forest depends. A tailor-made solution, involving either new legislation or an amendment to the Environment Act 1995, would be preferable and would reflect the County Council's previously stated preference.

6.2 In addition to commoning, a characteristic of the New Forest National Park, which sets it apart from the existing national parks, is the amount and extent of Crown land, which amounts to nearly 50% of the total area and forms the central core of the forest. This land is generally of extremely high value both for nature conservation and recreation and it is important that its management is fully integrated with surrounding non-Crown land.

Issue 2 - Membership of a National Park Authority

6.3 The framework for NPA membership is set out in legislation. It comprises a balance of local authority members, parish council representatives and people appointed by the Secretary of State for their special expertise and experience to take account of the park's national purposes. Local authorities appoint one half plus one of the members of the NPA membership.

6.4 In the New Forest there are a number of special circumstances which need to be reflected in the membership of the proposed NPA. These include the New Forest Verderers, the Forestry Commission, commoning and land management and other experience and expertise to reflect national and local issues. The Countryside Agency is proposing that special provision is made to represent such interests through the Government-appointed NPA members. In principle, this is to be welcomed, although it has to be recognised that there is no certainty in the proposed arrangement. Irrespective of the interests of the representatives on the proposed authority, there remains an issue of democratic accountability in that NPAs are local authorities but none of their members are directly elected and a significant proportion are appointed by the Secretary of State.

Issue 3 - The Relationship between a New Forest National Park Authority, the Verderers and the Forestry Commission

6.5 In view of the special circumstances of the New Forest and, in particular, the role of the Verderers and the Forestry Commission, it is vital that all the parties involved in the management of the forest work closely together. The Countryside Agency proposes that Government advice (eg within a circular, see Issue 1 above) will be issued to ensure that the relationships are made clear and to guide the various bodies to work together. This is supported.

Issue 4 - Development Plans

6.6 Existing national park legislation makes NPAs the strategic and local planning authority for the area. They have responsibility for preparing development plans (the structure plan, local plan, and minerals and waste local plan) for the national park area. The Countryside Agency believes that the development plans for the proposed National Park should be closely linked with the areas beyond the National Park and is therefore proposing that joint plans be prepared as follows:

(i) a joint structure plan between the proposed NPA and the Hampshire Structure Plan authorities;

(ii) a joint local plan between the proposed NPA and New Forest District Council; and

(iii) a joint minerals and waste local plan between the proposed NPA and Hampshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan authorities with input from the other local authorities around the National Park as consultees.

6.7 Other options considered by the Countryside Agency include the preparation (by the proposed NPA) of development plans for the National Park area in isolation from neighbouring areas, and the transfer of responsibility to the existing planning authorities under the provisions of the Environment Act 1995. The preferred option, set out in paragraph 6.6, is considered to offer the best solution for making sure that national park considerations are taken fully into account but without losing sight of the needs and priorities of adjoining areas or the opportunities for achieving sustainable development. This arrangement would however mean that the Hampshire local planning authorities would, along with the NPA, be responsible for producing the development plans for small parts of Wiltshire and Dorset.

Issue 5 - Development Control

6.8 Development control is the responsibility of all English NPAs under the provisions of the Environment Act 1995, although some elements can be delegated to local authorities. The decision on whether to delegate would be one for the NPA. The Countryside Agency is proposing that development control within the proposed New Forest National Park should be delegated to the local authorities, with the extent of such delegation (ie purely handling the administrative side to making decisions on minor, major or all matters) to be agreed between the parties. This approach is supported, since it makes effective use of local expertise, more sensible use of resources and ensures greater accountability. The proposed approach would also enable the NPA to concentrate on other key matters and not become over occupied with detailed planning matters. Whilst the delegation approach is to be supported, it has to be recognised that it cannot be prescribed and depends on the willingness of the NPA. It is probable that the proposed NPA would retain the right to make the decisions on major or contentious matters, particularly those which potentially conflict with national park purposes.

Issue 6 - A New Forest National Park Authority's Role in Land Management

6.9 The Countryside Agency recognises that how land is looked after is crucial to conserving the New Forest and that the proposed NPA will need to work in close partnership with the various organisations and individuals who manage the land. The Agency states that land ownership in the forest would remain unchanged and that the proposed NPA would achieve its objectives in land management by working with landowners, both public and private, for example by entering into voluntary conservation and access agreements, or providing grants and advice. Whilst this approach in general is supported, there does appear to be scope for more detailed consideration of the role of the Forestry Commission and its relationship with the NPA. In particular, issues such as the public's understanding of roles and responsibilities, potential duplication of functions, conflicts in approach to land and people management, and the costs to society of running two parallel organisation with largely the same remit need to be more carefully considered.

Issue 7 - A New Forest National Park Authority's Role in Visitor Management

6.10 Quiet recreation is a fundamental role of national parks. Visitor management is essential in order to reconcile recreational use with the other main aim, ie conservation. The proposed NPA will have an important role in promoting understanding and enjoyment of the area and the Countryside Agency recognises the importance of working in partnership with others.

6.11 As NPAs are not highway authorities they are not responsible for managing rights of way, unless this responsibility is delegated to them. The Countryside Agency does not believe that this should happen in respect of the New Forest and it is agreed that rights of way should remain the responsibility of the County Councils. This is welcomed, as are the opportunities to "add value" to existing provision by improving links with surrounding land, securing open access to land and promoting common standards throughout the proposed National Park.

6.12 Like all national parks the resource is sensitive and this applies to the natural environment, culture and heritage. The importance of the latter is not overtly stated in the Countryside Agency's consultation documents and, unlike nature conservation, there is little practical discussion as to how the historical, archaeological and architectural character of the New Forest is to be conserved and enhanced. The heritage-based tourism industry is considerable, but likewise the resource on which it depends is extremely sensitive to both visitor and development pressure. It is suggested that the Countryside Agency addresses this issue more specifically in order to ensure that the proposed NPA does not lose sight of it.

Issue 8 - Ensuring the Active Involvement of Local Expertise in the Work of a New Forest National Park Authority

6.13 All NPAs work closely with local people in order to achieve their aims and objectives. They are required under the Environment Act 1995 to prepare and publish national park management plans which act as an umbrella document for an NPA's work, coordinating the work not only of the NPA itself but also of other agencies and partners. The production of these plans involves wide public consultation and they are reviewed every five years.

6.14 Different national parks have developed different methods of engaging partner organisations and the public in discharging their functions, for example executive or advisory committees and working groups and fora. Within the New Forest area a number of groups already exist, for example the New Forest Transportation Strategy Members' Panel and the sub-groups set up by the New Forest Committee. It is suggested that the Countryside Agency recommends that the proposed NPA works within, or continues with, existing structures in order to make use of local expertise and continue good working relationships which have already been developed.

Issue 9 - Working in Partnership

6.15 A New Forest NPA would need to consult a wide range of agencies, interest groups and individuals. It would need to work closely with existing groups and consider whether other advisory/consultative groups are needed. It would also need to take account of the views of local people and visitors. The New Forest Consultative Panel could form the basis of a new consultative mechanism.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Views previously expressed by the County Council have largely been taken into account by the Countryside Agency and this is welcomed, as is the commitment to take account of local factors in both drawing up the National Park boundary and setting up the NPA. The issue of commoning is of paramount importance and, along with the management of Crown land, needs to be handled sensitively in order for the character of the New Forest to be conserved.

Recommendation

That the recommendations to the Cabinet be supported.

6677/KT

APPENDIX 1

Resolution of Planning and Transportation Committee - 22 January 2001

495. NEW FOREST NATIONAL PARK DRAFT BOUNDARY: CONSULTATION BY THE COUNTRYSIDE AGENCY

The Committee considered the report of the County Planning Officer (Item 12 in the Minute Book) on the consultation by the Countryside Agency on the draft boundary of the proposed New Forest National Park. During the course of the ensuing discussion, Members felt that revisions should be made to the Avon Valley section of the document, and these are incorporated in the substantive resolution shown below.

RESOLVED:

That the Countryside Agency be informed:

(i) that the County Council welcomes the opportunity to comment on the non-statutory consultation document on the New Forest National Park draft boundary.

(ii) that the criteria and other key considerations used to define the draft boundary of the New Forest National Park are supported.

(iii) that the draft boundary is supported with the exceptions and comments set out in paragraphs 6.2-6.26, particularly in relation to:

1. part of the area north of Totton (Section 1) where the Countryside Agency should reconsider the inclusion of the Hillstreet/Wade Hill Farm/Testwood Lakes area;

2. the salt marshes adjacent to Fawley Power Station which should be included in the draft boundary (Section 8-9);

3. Arnewood House Park (Section 12) which should be considered for inclusion;

4. the Avon Valley (Section 13-15), where it is suggested that the boundary is revised to include the whole of the Breamore Conservation Area and to follow the boundary as shown on the map appended to these Minutes to the west of Fordingbridge to pick up with the top of the escarpment and thence the Harbridge Drove, to follow this south until it joins with the Countryside Agency proposed boundary in the area of the A31, and that Ringwood be included;

5. Melchet Court and Park (Section 16) which should be included in the draft boundary; and

6. land north of the River Blackwater may not meet the criteria but nonetheless the draft boundary is supported.

(iv) of the comments in Section 6 of the report and also that the County Planning Officer will make a number of detailed comments on the draft boundary, particularly with regard to the A326, Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation adjacent to the boundary and other nature conservation designations along the shore.

APPENDIX 2

Interpretation of statutory criteria for National Park designation

APPENDIX 3

The Countryside Agency's Approach to Defining National Park Boundaries

1. The Countryside Agency shall first determine in broad terms that an area of land meets the statutory criteria for designation.

2. It shall then in drawing a National Park boundary take account together of the following considerations.

a. Areas of high landscape quality should be included within the area of land identified for designation.

b. Areas to be included may be of differing landscape character: quality will be the key determinant rather than uniformity.

c. Areas which provide or are capable of providing a markedly superior recreational experience should be included.

d. Boundaries should include land and settlements which contribute to the rural economy and community life within the Park and to the Park's special qualities and purposes. Such areas should however be excluded where activities there, in particular urban or industrial development, conflict with or outweigh the essential values of the Park.

e. Wherever possible, an easily distinguishable physical boundary should be chosen.

f. Where local government boundaries follow suitable lines, it may be administratively convenient to adopt them. In the majority of cases, however, they will be unsuitable.

g. Towns or villages should not normally be cut in two by a National Park boundary: inclusion or exclusion should normally depend on their contribution as a whole to the character and purposes of the Park.

h. Unsightly development on the edge of a National Park should generally be excluded, although the possibility of its modification or screening should not be overlooked where the immediately surrounding country claims inclusion.

i. Land allocated in adopted development plans as to be worked for the quarrying and mining of important deposits on the margins of a National Park should normally be excluded from the Park, unless the land will be restored to a land use and quality which contributes to Park purposes. This approach will also apply to major industrial and commercial developments for which land is allocated in adopted development plans at the time of designation.

j. Features of scientific, historic or architectural value (eg Nature Reserves, important archaeological sites and Ancient Monuments) which are situated on the margins of a National Park should be included where practicable.

3. The statutory criteria point to the inclusion of land where both high landscape quality and a markedly superior recreational opportunity exist. Not all land within the Park must necessarily satisfy both criteria (a) and (c), but there should be a high degree of concurrence.

4. The boundary should not be regarded as a sharp barrier between areas of differing quality. In most situations there will be a transition of landscape quality and recreational experience across a sweep of land: the boundary chosen should be an easily identifiable feature within this transition.