Contact: David Carman, ext 5967

1. Summary

1.1 In January 2002 the Environment and Recreation and Heritage Policy Review Committees and the Cabinet considered a public consultation, published by the Countryside Agency, on the proposed South Downs National Park. The Countryside Agency has now considered the responses to the public consultation and embarked on the formal consultation with local authorities.

1.2 The purpose of this report is to set out the key issues for Hampshire outlined in the Countryside Agency's consultation and to recommend to the Cabinet the County Council's response.

1.3 The consultation report is in three parts:

(i) Part A - the Countryside Agency's proposed advice on administration of a South Downs National Park;

(ii) Part B - the Countryside Agency's proposed boundary for a South Downs National Park, indicated on the attached location plan; and

(iii) Part C - revocation of the East Hampshire and Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty designations.

Part A comprises a further consultation to that undertaken between December 2001 and February 2002, Part B is a statutory consultation on the proposed boundary and Part C is a statutory consultation on the revocation of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) designations for East Hampshire and the Sussex Downs. The response is a Key Decision for the Cabinet in the County Council's Forward Plan because of its significant effects on communities living or working in the area.

2. Introduction

2.1 The Countryside Agency undertook a public consultation programme between December 2001 and February 2002 about the South Downs National Park. The Cabinet decided on a comprehensive response to the consultation. Significant points in the response included:

"(i) Designation of the South Downs as a National Park would reconfirm the landscape importance already recognised through the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty designations and emphasise the countryside recreation opportunities, but the real test of the proposed designation must be `does it add value to what is already being achieved and could be achieved by existing agencies?' The answer to this question depends on the extent to which additional resources are made available for the conservation and management of the area. In the absence of any guarantees about future resources for a proposed South Downs National Park Authority, then there is no certainty about `added value'.

(ii) The County Council is concerned at the lack of direct democratic accountability associated with National Park Authorities.

(iii) In the absence of special arrangements to address the lack of democratic accountability, the Countryside Agency's preferred option for a National Park Authority of 46 members be supported.

(iv) The appointment of County Council seats on the National Park Authority should be based upon the geographical area and population of each County Council within the National Park.

(v) Structure Plan: the Countryside Agency's preferred option (a) for three joint Structure Plans be supported.

(vi) Development Control: in the interests of democratic accountability, all development control decisions should be made by existing local authorities.

(vii) Transport: the proposal for the active involvement of the National Park Authority in the preparation of the Local Transport Plan be supported. The proposal that the National Park Authority should deliver and implement parts of the transport strategy covered by the park area through the delegation of powers, resources and funding be rejected."

2.2 The Countryside Agency has considered the responses that it received (6,676 of which 6,250 were from individuals, small organisations and businesses) and it has now produced a further consultation document.

2.3 The Countryside Agency's two main tasks are to:

(i) identify the statutory boundary for the National Park and make a South Downs Designation Order; and

(ii) advise the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) on the administrative arrangements.

2.4 All local Members and Members of the Cabinet, Environment Policy Review and Recreation and Heritage Policy Review Committees have been sent copies of the Countryside Agency consultation document. The County Surveyor and the Director of Recreation and Heritage have been consulted on the document. The deadline for responses to the Countryside Agency is 16 August 2002. After considering the responses, on 14 November 2002, the Agency Board will decide upon a boundary for the National Park Designation Order and prepare its recommendations to the Secretary of State on a National Park Authority (NPA). The Designation Order will be placed on deposit and advertised, allowing 28 days for representations to be made. The Secretary of State will announce a decision in early 2003 whether the Designation Order is confirmed or whether a Public Inquiry is to be held.

2.5 The consultation report suggests that the final decision might be taken in spring 2003 if no Public Inquiry takes place, or 2004/05 if it does.

2.6 Before designating the South Downs as a National Park it will be necessary to de-designate the AsONB. A revocation order for the East Hampshire and Sussex Downs AsONB will be deposited and advertised in August 2002, allowing 28 days for representations to be made.

2.7 Two announcements by the Government are expected before the end of the consultation period that are likely to be very relevant to the National Park debate. The first of these could set out the Government's intentions for strategic planning following the publication of the Planning Green Paper. The second is the result of the recent review of National Park Authorities.

3. Part A - The Administrative Arrangements

3.1 The Countryside Agency has identified seven issues that it wishes to receive further comments upon in relation to the proposed administration of the National Park. An additional issue, that of financial resources for the National Park, is addressed, although it does not form part of the consultation document.

Issue 1 - Membership of a South Downs National Park Authority

3.2 There was strong support from respondents for the Agency's preferred option for membership of an NPA, based on the 1995 Environment Act model. Under this model 50% plus one are Councillors appointed by the existing local authorities in the area and 50% minus one are people appointed by the Secretary of State. Of the latter appointees, half minus one are parish representatives and the remainder appointees with special expertise (eg in land management).

3.3 Parish representation generated much debate and there are concerns over lack of representation and of geographical spread. Although parish members are appointed, the Countryside Agency feels that a democratic process, perhaps organised by county associations of parish and town councils, would bring forward suitable candidates. It proposes advising the Secretary of State to define the characteristics sought and to agree with parish and town councils an open and democratic selection process.

3.4 Those with the responsibility for appointing members with specific skills should seek to ensure that their collective expertise covers the range of issues that the NPA needs to address.

3.5 This structure creates an NPA of 46 members and there was general concern that this would be unwieldy. For this reason the Agency proposes to advise the Secretary of State that when deciding on the number of seats per local authority to be shown in the Establishment Order, ways of reducing the overall numbers should be discussed with the local authorities. Numbers could be reduced by the County Councils not taking up their full allocation of seats, or the administration made more efficient by the establishment of a Cabinet or other executive decision-making body.

County Planning Officer's Comments

3.6 National Park Authorities are special purpose local authorities and the County Council has previously expressed its concern at the lack of democratic accountability associated with NPAs. Members of an NPA are neither directly elected, nor are they wholly drawn from locally elected representatives. In the absence of an option for a tailor-made arrangement for the South Downs then the Countryside Agency's recommendation for an NPA based on the model set out in the 1995 Environment Act needs to be considered. Since the proposed NPA would administer an area stretching from Winchester to Beachy Head then there needs to be sufficient members to enable adequate representation by Councillors from all the local authorities affected. Local authority members of the NPA should be drawn from locally elected members and/or executive members of the authorities with portfolio responsibilities. Any reduction in numbers from the notional 46 members of the authority as a whole would reinforce the democratic deficit.

3.7 Clearly, any arrangement for reducing the size of the NPA or forming an executive decision-making body would need to be equitable across all local authorities.

3.8 In recognition of the need to create an effective decision-making body, it should be recommended to the NPA, once it has been set up, that a Cabinet or Executive should be drawn from the NPA membership. This modernised structure could then be supported by topic sub-committees.

3.9 Appointed members are selected for their particular expertise in a range of fields. It is essential that expertise in landscape management is included on the list of desirable skills. The Secretary of State should consider consulting professional institutions and the voluntary sector to establish local skilled and qualified people to be appointed to an NPA.

Issue 2 - A Role in Forward Planning and Development Control

3.10 The role of an NPA in terms of land use planning was probably the most controversial issue and in the responses to the consultation there was evidence of confusion and lack of understanding. The Agency has found it difficult to draw conclusions from the submissions, except for a clear desire that there should be integration between the National Park and its hinterland and that there should be park-wide planning. About half of respondents considered that there should be a Unitary Development Plan (UDP) for the national park and about two-thirds favoured a park-wide local plan. (The consultation document acknowledges that there is incompatibility in the responses it received.)

3.11 In its earlier consultation the Agency favoured the option for three joint Structure Plans, three joint Minerals and Waste Plans and a single Local Plan. The County Council supported the proposals for the Structure Plan and Minerals and Waste Plan and favoured the status quo for the Local Plan.

3.12 The Association of National Park Authorities has advised that unitary planning is working well in the Welsh national parks and should be used in the South Downs. The Countryside Agency proposes to change its draft advice to the Secretary of State and recommend that the Park Authority should prepare and adopt a UDP for the South Downs, with Part 1 of that plan (strategic issues and minerals and waste planning) being prepared in collaboration with the neighbouring strategic planning authorities. Cross-boundary issues would be addressed through voluntary joint working.

3.13 The Agency does, however, recognise that the arguments between its previously favoured option of jointly prepared plans and its revised proposals for a Unitary Plan are finely balanced. It is therefore welcoming "any further advice from the local authorities affected should they believe that an alternative to a UDP is preferable" before it finalises the advice to the Secretary of State.

3.14 The consultation indicated strong support for development control to be the responsibility of the NPA. The Agency proposes to advise Government that the NPA should be responsible for development control, but that ministerial advice should encourage the NPA to work with local authorities over the effective handling of casework.

3.15 Whilst the Agency stresses that its responses to the consultation have been based upon current legislation, the Agency will reconsider its advice to the Secretary of State when the Government's position following the Planning Green Paper becomes clearer. It recognises that the proposal to replace structure and local plans with a single planning document, the Local Development Framework (LDF), would have implications for the planning regime in the national park. Although it believes that the new system could simply be considered as replacing the single UDP with a single LDF, the Agency is seeking comments on the implications of the Green Paper's proposals should they eventually be put into practice.

County Planning Officer's Comments

3.16 The five basic principles for an effective planning system in the national park are that it:

(i) delivers national park purposes;

(ii) achieves consistent decision-making;

(iii) integrates decision-making across the national park boundary;

(iv) is clearly understood and accountable; and

(v) is efficient and cost effective.

The proposed UDP has major failings on these counts.

3.17 Whilst a single land use plan for the national park should reflect national park purposes effectively, this can still be achieved through the approach originally proposed by the Countryside Agency, and supported by the majority of existing local planning authorities, including the County Council.

3.18 The South Downs are not a natural social and economic unit. The diversity within the South Downs would lead to the need for discrete sub-areas which would make the preparation of a UDP, and thus the desire for consistency, more difficult to achieve.

3.19 The necessary coordination of policies, plan-making programmes and the consultations underlying them would lead to a complex plan preparation process. Far from integrating decision-making, the scope for inconsistency is increased.

3.20 The addition of yet another tier of local Government is unlikely to ease confusion about responsibilities. The formation of yet another planning unit in this part of South East England is a regrettable regression into an already complicated pattern.

3.21 Although the NPA will include some local authority members, its members are not there on a constituency basis. By definition, there is bound to be either a real or perceived democratic deficit as these `unelected' members make decisions on the plans and policies against which they will then make decisions on individual planning applications. This does not meet the test of accountability.

3.22 There is little evidence that cost-effectiveness will result from the creation of a new planning authority. The level of cross-authority consultation in the pursuit of integration will require new resources for the national park, duplicating work being undertaken by the existing local authorities. Local authorities may be reluctant to accept delegation of routine development control casework when they are not responsible for policy.

3.23 The problems of plan-making in the national park and its integration with the plans of adjacent authorities will remain if the Green Paper's proposals are implemented and the proposal for a park-wide UDP is replaced by a proposal for a park-wide LDF. The assumption that cross-boundary matters will be dealt with at the regional level presumes a much greater sophistication in regional planning policy than is the case. The suggestion that a separate sub-regional strategy could be prepared for the national park to ensure cross-boundary issues are properly addressed raises two problems: first the sub-region would need to be extended beyond the national park forming a sub-region much larger than envisaged in the Green Paper; and second, the final strategy would be adopted by the Secretary of State, not the NPA. The complexity of responsibility at the strategic level will be compounded at the local level, where LDFs are seen as spatial plans rather than simply land use and transportation plans prepared to implement Local Community Strategies which will remain the responsibility of the existing local authorities.

3.24 A simple translation of the proposed planning arrangements from a UDP to an LDF in the manner suggested by the Countryside Agency would add to the complexity of plan-making and further undermine the practical delivery of an integrated set of plans and policies across the national park boundary. These problems could be overcome if LDFs were prepared for appropriate sub-areas which would include elements of both the national park and the surrounding area: the approach now rejected by the Agency for planning under the existing arrangements.

3.25 Voluntary joint working is an inadequate mechanism for addressing strategic issues such as minerals and waste planning. For the integration of strategic land use planning to be effective and to ensure true joint working between the NPA and the adjoining authorities formal working arrangements are needed.

3.26 The opportunity that the Agency would have to review its advice to Government when it announces its decision on the future of land use planning should be extended to the local authorities. The land use planning decisions of Government are so fundamental to the County Council that further consultation is essential. This would ensure that the County Council considers fully the implications for the national park of a statutory change to the planning system.

Issue 3 - A Role in Land Management

3.27 The Agency considers that the NPA, in conjunction with DEFRA, the Forestry Commission and voluntary sector groups, should provide a first-stop shop for landowners to give advice on agri-environment schemes and provide specialist advice.

3.28 Chalk downland restoration and long-term management is seen as a priority, and the Government will be advised of the need to recognise this and for the NPA to have sufficient resources to enable it to be achieved. Nature conservation is accepted by respondents as an important function of the NPA and the Agency will advise that the NPA should have a leading role in implementing Biodiversity Action Plans.

3.29 Respondents also recognised the high importance of the cultural heritage of the South Downs and this is reflected in the Agency's advice that the NPA should play an active role in its conservation through close working with the local authorities and English Heritage.

3.30 The marine environment was raised as an important issue by respondents and the Agency therefore proposes to advise that an NPA should take the lead on Integrated Coastal Zone Management.

County Planning Officer's Comments

3.31 Any additional financial and other resources that the national park may be able to draw in will be a major benefit for the landscape and cultural heritage of the South Downs. However, apart from funds for its administration no new funds are currently being offered by the Government for the new national park. Within the County Council there is a high level of expertise and active participation in the management of this heritage, which it is hoped will continue. The role of the local authorities needs to be stressed in the Agency's advice to Government, not just in terms of cultural heritage but in all aspects of management of the landscape.

3.32 An NPA should promote and participate in the development of land management planning tools, such as the Land Management Information System being developed by Hampshire County Council in partnership with DEFRA and the Countryside Agency, to support the concept of a first-stop shop for landowners and achieve the objectives of the management plan

3.33 Opportunities for furthering archaeological research and developing a consistent approach to landscape character assessment and historic landscape assessment across the national park should be a high priority for an NPA.

Issue 4: A Role in Visitor Management

3.34 Countryside management. During the previous consultation the County Council supported the principle of the NPA creating an integrated countryside management service, provided that it added value to existing services. The valuable work undertaken by the East Hampshire AONB, the Sussex Downs Conservation Board and the voluntary network is recognised in the Agency's proposal to advise Government that an NPA should establish a countryside management service which coordinates and adds value to existing area/county-based services.

3.35 Site ownership and management. The issue of management and ownership of sites by the NPA was aired in the previous consultation and the prevailing response has been that, whilst an NPA should have the power to own sites, this should only be if absolutely necessary. This reflects the view of the County Council, and the Agency now proposes to advise Government that an NPA should have a strategic role in site management through the development of standards for publicly-owned land, only taking on land where there is a demonstrable benefit in doing so.

3.36 Access and rights of way. Rights of way and the management of public access is, at present, a local authority duty. In the previous consultation the Agency proposed that highway authorities should delegate those powers to the NPA, which was rejected by the County Council. Around two-thirds of respondents supported the Agency's position, giving credence to the Agency's proposal to advise Government that an NPA should develop an access strategy in association with a local access forum and that there should be delegation of all rights of way powers to the NPA. The details of how this would be achieved would be agreed between the NPA and the highway authorities.

3.37 Transport. The issue of rural traffic prompted a high level of interest during the previous consultation. Many respondents expressed concern at the volume of traffic and the impact that this has on tranquillity. All the County Councils recognised the value of working in partnership with the NPA but did not support the delegation of powers and resources to it. Despite this, the Agency proposes to advise Government that an NPA should prepare a park-wide traffic strategy to help inform policy and the content of local transport plans. Implementation of the strategy/plan would be by the NPA using its own powers and resources, or on behalf of the highway authorities.

3.38 Tourism. Tourism is, and will be, a major part of the economy of the South Downs. Whilst some concern was expressed about the likelihood of national park designation leading to an influx of visitors, the value of an NPA acting in partnership with others to manage tourism was also recognised. Previously the Agency stated that it did not see a promotional role for an NPA, which the County Council felt that it should. Its advice now will be for an NPA to develop a tourism strategy with the local authorities and take an active role in promoting and supporting sustainable tourism.

3.39 Education and interpretation. The County Council supported the Agency's proposal for a role for the NPA in education and interpretation. A large proportion of respondents also supported this role. The Agency proposes to advise that an NPA should develop and coordinate interpretation of the national park, produce a strategy for interpretation of publicly-owned land and develop an outreach programme.

County Planning Officer's Comments

3.40 The valuable role of an NPA in the management of visitors to the national park should be welcomed by the County Council. This relates particularly to the contribution that an NPA will make to the management of tourism and of education and interpretation. The County Council should also welcome the prospect of working closely with an integrated NPA countryside management service to continue achieving the high standards established in the management of County Council land.

3.41 The Agency's advice that an NPA should purchase land only when there is a demonstrable benefit responds positively to the comments made previously by the County Council. This recognition of the high standards of management of recreational sites achieved by the County Council is welcomed.

3.42 Despite strong objections by the County Council to the Agency's proposals in relation to rights of way and access, the proposal for delegation of powers remains. Rights of way throughout Hampshire are managed to a high standard by the County Council, which has the advantage of experience and a strong network of groups and individuals. With the additional resources that a national park could bring, the County Council could deliver above its current high standards in accordance with standards set by the Park Authority. This avoids fragmentation of responsibility for the rights of way network, which could cause confusion amongst users and leave the NPA free to concentrate on improving the rights of way network and managing open access.

3.43 It is proposed that joint delivery of a service could be achieved through the following structure, subject to the agreement of the other highway authorities:

(i) overall strategic responsibility for the management of rights of way in the national park rests with an NPA;

(ii) an NPA undertakes all of its duties relating to open access;

(iii) a Local Access Forum for the South Downs be formed to advise on the provision of access to the countryside within the national park;

(iv) an NPA produces a Rights of Way Improvement Plan for the whole of the South Downs;

(v) management and improvements to the network is delivered by the existing highway authorities. This is particularly important in relation to difficult or time-consuming enforcement issues which do not sit comfortably within the work of national parks;

(vi) the important link between the maintenance of the legal record of rights of way and the provision of paths on the ground be retained or renewed as appropriate;

(vii) a new Rights of Way and Access Committee is formed to act as the link between the requirements of the NPA and the delivery by the highway authorities to ensure compliance to a minimum standard across the national park; and

(viii) resources are provided to highway authorities to be spent on improvements to access in addition to the amounts traditionally spent by the authorities or the Sussex Downs Conservation Board in these areas.

County Surveyor's Comments on Transport

3.44 In the summary of the County Council's response to the earlier consultation, on page 31 of the consultation document, it should be clarified that the County Council would welcome the involvement of an NPA in the preparation of a Local Transport Plan for Hampshire.

3.45 The County Council does not support the proposed advice to Government that an NPA should prepare its own traffic strategy and implement it through its own powers and resources or on behalf of the highway authorities. Proposals for addressing rural traffic should fall within the remit of Local Transport Plans produced by highway authorities. Transport planning must be undertaken at a strategic level and involve the close cooperation of the adjoining highway authorities. A South Downs National Park is not an appropriate socio-economic and geographical unit within which to prepare a separate traffic strategy as it is transversed by many major routes linking key destinations on the south coast and with the capital. Consequently, there is no rationale in transport planning terms for an NPA to produce its own strategy because the complete matrix of transport patterns would not fit well with the proposed national park boundary. Strategies for addressing issues of rural traffic within the national park can be incorporated into highway authority Local Transport Plans.

3.46 Effective partnerships and joint working arrangements have been the key to successful transport planning in Hampshire and the adjoining counties, involving districts and many interest groups. The County Council would welcome an NPA as a partner in joint working provided that it is in conjunction with all those with an interest in the national park. This is best achieved by the County Council, with its established partnerships and its outward-looking approach to transport planning.

Issue 5: A National Park Management Plan

3.47 Respondents generally sought a strengthening of the role of the management plan as a statement of public policy, and thereby its ability to influence more effectively issues which affect the national park. The County Council considered that the role of the management plan was generally understated. This issue will be considered as part of DEFRA's National Parks Review.

3.48 The Agency proposes that the Government might clarify the role of the management plan as a means of establishing, coordinating and implementing policies and programmes. It also refers to the need to monitor progress and the need for public bodies to take account of national park purposes as stated in the management plan.

County Planning Officer's Comments

3.49 The Agency's proposed advice is welcomed as it raises the profile of the national park management plan and increases understanding about its strategic role. It also serves to contribute to the growing recognition of land management planning as a tool for achieving positive change in the management of land both within and outside designated areas.

3.50 To be effective the management plan must drive both local and national policies and programmes. It is not a plan for the NPA but a plan for the national park, and the Government must sign up to the delivery of its objectives as neither the NPA nor other local authorities will have the powers or resources to deliver the management plan. Most of these lie in the remit of Central Government departments and agencies and the European Union. It is therefore essential that the Government secures the necessary flexibility in the distribution of European funds to deliver the purposes of the national park management plan.

Issue 6: Working in Partnership

3.51 The vital role of the voluntary sector was the main factor to emerge from the public consultation in relation to this issue. All respondents recognised and supported the essential nature of working in partnership and the Agency proposes to advise that strategic partnerships are formed at a local level as well as at a wider regional level.

County Planning Officer's Comments

3.52 The Agency's proposed advice is welcomed as it serves to build on the many partnerships already established between local authorities, the voluntary sector, businesses and individuals, and to further develop partnerships at a strategic and regional level.

3.53 It is disappointing that DEFRA has not been represented to date in the key meetings leading to designation. Although it is acknowledged that ministers will have a quasi-judicial role in the designation process, DEFRA's importance as a key deliverer of national park objectives makes its presence at such meetings particularly desirable.

Issue 7: Involving Local People

3.54 This was one of the most popular issues and prompted a large number of suggestions as to how people could become and remain involved. One of the key considerations is the relationship of the NPA's activities to Community Strategies. In its proposed advice, the Agency stresses the need for local involvement and recognition of the role of Community Strategies.

County Planning Officer's Comments

3.55 The County Council has a duty to prepare a Community Strategy, and it is working with the district councils on their own Community Strategies. This is an important area of work for local authorities and will have a significant influence on the provision of services across the county. An NPA should be a Local Strategic Partner in the delivery of Community Strategies to ensure that national park policies and services are responding to local needs and that Community Strategies are addressing the needs of the national park.

Financial Resources

3.56 Reference is made throughout the document to the resources that national park status will bring to the South Downs. This is to be welcomed, as national park status should enhance the level of funding and standard of services provided. However, the Agency is urged to secure from Central Government a firm commitment to adding value to the South Downs through designating the area as a national park. Delivering society's aspirations for a national park in the South Downs will need a change in the priorities for Government spending in this area and it will require new financial resources.

4. Part B - The Countryside Agency's Proposed Boundary for a South Downs National Park

4.1 On 25 February 2002 Cabinet accepted that the draft boundary of the national park as defined by the Countryside Agency in the public consultation document in November 2001 should be supported, with the exception of 17 sections. Fifteen of these were set out in the report to Cabinet. At the request of Cabinet, two more sections were added.

4.2 After considering the evidence gained from the public consultation, the Countryside Agency has made a number of changes to the draft boundary. Maps showing the revised boundary appear in the Local Authority Consultation document which has been sent to Members.

4.3 In defining the revised boundary the Agency has taken on board five, but rejected 12 of the 17 representations supported by Cabinet. Four of the 12 sections involve relatively minor modifications or do not merit further consideration. In one section there are concerns about long term sand deposits, which are referred to in paragraph 4.25. The remaining seven sections warrant further representations to the Countryside Agency. These are set out in paragraphs 4.6 to 4.12. One further representation to the Agency has arisen as a result of a change to the boundary suggested by another consultee. This is referred to in paragraph 4.21. Otherwise, the Agency's revised boundary is supported.

County Planning Officer's Comments

4.4 Consultation has been undertaken with all appropriate chief officers and, where appropriate, their views have been incorporated into this report.

4.5 The following part of the report deals with:

(i) those areas where the Agency has rejected the County Council's recommendations. Paragraphs 4.6 to 4.12 refer to seven sections of the boundary where further representations to the Agency are warranted;

(ii) the issues relevant to considering the inclusion of an area at Rowlands Castle, raised by the local County Member (paragraphs 4.13 to 4.17);

(iii) other changes to the boundary proposed by the Agency after public consultation (paragraphs 4.18 to 4.23); and

(iv) concerns regarding long term sand deposits (paragraph 4.24).

Areas Previously Recommended for Exclusion by the Cabinet and not accepted by the Agency

4.6 Part of Section A: the small area immediately next to Junction 9 of the M3 (Easton Lane) at Winchester. This urban landscape is dominated by modern industrial development and it does not meet the national park criteria. There appears to be no response by the Countryside Agency to Cabinet's comments on this particular area.

4.7 Part of Section V: the area north of Wickham, between Mill Lane/Frith Lane, Close Wood and the old railway line. The degrading influence of the landfill site at Frith Farm, and the eroded structure and character of the adjacent land, create a landscape that is not of sufficient quality to meet the national park criteria. The Countryside Agency has acknowledged this in its response, but has failed to modify the boundary accordingly.

4.8 Part of Section W: the area between Swanmore and Upper Swanmore. This area is strongly influenced by urban features and dispersed smallholdings. Although the narrow, hedgerow-lined lanes help to create a distinctive character, the scattered houses, numerous horse paddocks and the occasional farm building in poor or derelict condition together create an urbanised landscape. These characteristics create a landscape which fails to meet the national park criteria.

Areas Previously Recommended for Inclusion by the Cabinet and not accepted by the Agency

4.9 Part of Section A: the area south of Brambridge Park, between the railway and the B3335. Overall, the landscape has a predominantly rural character, and the recreational opportunities associated with the Itchen Navigation towpath/footpath and the Site of Special Scientific Interest are significant features. The small pockets of development in the area have only a minimal impact on the landscape and they do not detract from the quality of the immediate setting of the Itchen Navigation.

4.10 Part of Section D: the area west of Blackmoor between Selborne Brickworks and Southerington Lane. This area forms the setting to The Hangers. It has an unspoilt rural character and is an integral part of The Hangers landscape. There is no discernible difference in landscape quality between the southern and northern parts of the area and, as a whole, it meets national park criteria.

4.11 Part of Section E: Woolmer Forest, north of the A3. The Forest is a wildlife habitat of both international and national importance, with significant recreational potential when military use does not restrict public access. The Countryside Agency acknowledges its potential but has ascertained that both military use and the restrictions are likely to continue. The Agency will continue to liaise with Defence Estates before making a final decision, and has invited further views from local authorities. In this context, the outstanding nature conservation interests and the outstanding landscape quality with heritage associations should take precedence in determining the inclusion of Woolmer Forest. In the context of the lifetime of a national park, land use changes, with respect to military use, are to be transient.

4.12 Part of Section W: `The Moors' Local Nature Reserve, south-east of Bishops Waltham. This is a landscape of high quality, consisting of calcareous fen meadows which are designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest. The site is largely owned and managed by the County Council. The area is also associated with Chase Mill, a Victorian Grade II listed building, and Park Lug and King's Way, an ancient boundary of Bishops Waltham. The issue is the quality of the landscape which would link `The Moors' to the proposed national park. This landscape consists of small scale fields with intact hedgerows and minimal detracting influences. The strength of character of this landscape is well above the questionable quality required to justify the exclusion of `The Moors'.

Additional Area at Rowlands Castle recommended by Local Member

4.13 Part of Section U: significant support has been voiced through the local County Member for inclusion within the national park of Rowlands Castle and its surrounding landscape. The attached plan shows the proposed boundary in the present Countryside Agency consultation document.

4.14 However, the Countryside Agency has decided that the draft boundary should remain as delineated in the public consultation document. This boundary excludes Rowlands Castle and the landscape immediately surrounding the settlement from the national park.

4.15 The justification given by the Countryside Agency for the decision was that, although Rowlands Castle has some attractive qualities, its landscape quality is limited to its historic core. There are significant areas of more ordinary development within the settlement which, as a whole, do not meet the criteria. The landscape to the south-west and north-west of the settlement is also regarded as failing to meet the natural beauty criteria. To include the settlement without surrounding high quality countryside would not be in line with the criteria for inclusion of settlements.

4.16 Officers from the County Planning Department have undertaken detailed desk and site analysis, applied the national guidance on landscape character assessment and tested the Countryside Agency's decision against national criteria set down for delineating national park boundaries. The key findings are summarised as follows:

(i) the quality landscape is limited to the historic core;

(ii) there are significant areas of ordinary development;

(iii) historically there has been coalescence of neighbouring settlements, detracting from the quality of settlement character and having no relationship to the original core;

(iv) detracting urbanising influences from the settlement edge leak into the landscape setting;

(v) the landscape character surrounding the settlement is indistinguishable from much of the chalk and clay (open arable) landscape in Hampshire;

(vi) the landscape quality of the surrounding countryside is not regarded as meeting the national park criteria;

(vii) traffic and parking has a significant urbanising impact on the character of the settlement and detracts from the ruralness of the surrounding roads and lanes; and

(viii) within the context of other `gateway' settlements such as Alresford, Bishops Waltham and Wickham, which are all contiguous with the proposed boundary, but not included within the proposed national park, there is not a sufficiently compelling argument to demonstrate that Rowlands Castle has any greater townscape or landscape quality in order for a special case to be made for its inclusion in the national park.

4.17 The Countryside Agency's response to retain the boundary as shown in the public consultation document is therefore supported.

Other Changes Proposed by the Countryside Agency

4.18 Following public consultation the Countryside Agency proposes a number of other changes to the boundary. These changes are as follows.

Areas Excluded

4.19 Part of Section A: playing fields in Itchen Valley at Winchester. This small intensively managed area does not have the more natural characteristics which occur generally in the valley. This exclusion is supported.

4.20 Part of Section C: north-east of Wolfhanger Farm, near Bramdean Common. This area consists of a large arable field bounded by hedgerows. The change would necessitate de-designation of part of the East Hampshire AONB. The stated purpose for the change is that, at present, the boundary does not follow a clearly definable feature on the ground. This is incorrect. The existing boundary of the AONB is in fact clearly defined by well-treed hedgerows. The area meets the national park criteria, and there is therefore no justification for the change. This exclusion is not supported.

4.21 Part of Section E: Greatham village. Some parts of the village do not meet the criteria. To avoid the village being split by the boundary, de-designation of the East Hampshire AONB would be necessary. On balance, this exclusion is supported.

4.22 Part of Section W: Stroudwood Farm, Lower Upham. This small area is the only land within Eastleigh Borough to lie within the proposed national park boundary. It consists of two fields next to the B2177. The farm is dominated by two visually prominent modern barns. This exclusion is supported.

Areas Included

4.23 Part of Section W: part of Lower Upham. The area contains part of Lower Upham village, and a pond which is designated as a Site of Importance to Nature Conservation. Inclusion of this area would avoid splitting the village. This inclusion is supported.

Area of Concern Regarding Sand Deposits

4.24 Part of Section D: north and west of Oakhanger. This area is included within the proposed boundary of the national park The area meets the criteria for inclusion, both in its intrinsic characteristics and its landscape quality. It forms the setting to The Hangers, and it includes Shortheath Common, a Site of Special Scientific Interest consisting of heathland, bog and mire. However, there are serious concerns about the potential `loss' of sand deposits which occur near Oakhanger and Kingsley within the proposed boundary. Although this area is not included in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan, the deposits are of long term strategic importance. The proposal for the NPA to prepare a UDP significantly increases these concerns. It is recommended that these concerns are conveyed to the Countryside Agency.

5. Part C - Revocation of the East Hampshire and Sussex Downs AONB Designations

5.1 The existing AsONB lie almost entirely within the proposed national park boundary but there are a number of exceptions, particularly in the vicinity of the East Sussex coastal conurbation. Within Hampshire there are six locations where land within the East Hampshire AONB lies outside the proposed national park. Revocation of the AONB will leave these areas without the special protection afforded by AONB status. However, normal countryside policies will apply to these areas.

5.2 Revocation will take place immediately after the national park has been designated.

County Planning Officer's Comments

5.3 Concerns about the exclusion of AONB land from the national park have been considered in the context of the criteria for defining the boundary. Six separate areas of the AONB lie outside the proposed national park. Four of these involve minor boundary rationalisations, for example the exclusion of the M3 slip road, the Bar End Park and Ride site at Winchester and other areas not meeting the national park criteria. These are not considered in this report. However, one of the two remaining areas meets the criteria and should not be excluded. The other has been proposed for exclusion by the Countryside Agency following public consultation, and the Agency's view is supported. These two areas are referred to in paragraphs 4.20 and 4.21 of this report.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The Countryside Agency has ensured, at all stages of the consultation process, that all parties have been kept informed. This is the case for both the South Downs and New Forest National Parks and the various AsONB in the county. Documents and meetings have been prepared to a high standard. This work is undertaken by a small and dedicated team within the Agency and the County Council signals its appreciation of the work of the Agency.

Recommendation

That the Cabinet on 22 July 2002 be recommended that the Countryside Agency be informed that:

1. Part A- Administrative Arrangements

Issue 1- Membership

(i) The County Council remains concerned at the lack of democratic accountability associated with National Park Authorities.

(ii) In the absence of special arrangements to address the lack of democratic accountability, the Countryside Agency's proposed advice to Government to establish a National Park Authority based on the model set out in the Environment Act 1995 is supported.

(iii) The apportionment of individual County Council seats on the National Park Authority should be based upon the geographical area and population within the National Park. Local authority representatives should be drawn both from locally elected members and from executive members with specific portfolios of relevance to national park purposes.

(iv) The County Council would support a proposal to form a decision-making executive or Cabinet supported by topic sub-committees, in the interests of achieving effective decision-making and subject to suitable representation of the County Council.

(v) The Agency should include landscape management as an essential area of expertise in its appointees and that professional institutions should be consulted to assist the Secretary of State in securing the range of identified professional skills on the National Park Authority.

Issue 2 (Forward Planning and Development Control)

(i) The Agency's proposed advice to Government that a Unitary Development Plan be prepared for the national park be rejected for the reasons stated in the report.

(ii) The County Council supports the original preferred option of three joint Structure Plans and three joint Minerals and Waste Plans, with each local planning authority preparing its own Local Plan, with all plans to include a chapter relating to national park purposes.

(iii) Formal joint working arrangements are essential to ensure the integration of strategic land use planning issues between a National Park Authority and adjoining authorities.

Issue 3 (A Role in Land Management)

(i) In its advice to Government the Agency stresses the important role of the local authorities in the management of landscape and cultural heritage, in terms of expertise and action.

(ii) A National Park Authority should promote and participate in the development of land management planning tools such as the Land Management Information System, to support the concept of a first-stop shop for landowners.

(iii) A National Park Authority should promote activities which further the knowledge of the landscape and cultural heritage of the national park.

Issue 4 (A Role in Visitor Management)

(i) The County Council's statutory responsibilities for access and rights of way should continue in their present form to prevent fragmentation of the network.

(ii) Transport: the proposal for the active involvement of the National Park Authority in the preparation of the Local Transport Plan be supported. The proposal that the National Park Authority should prepare a park-wide traffic strategy and deliver and implement parts of the transport plan be rejected.

(iii) The Agency's proposed advice to Government on countryside management, site ownership and management, tourism, education and interpretation be supported.

Issue 5 (A National Park Management Plan)

(i) The Agency's proposed advice to Government be supported, particularly with reference to the clarification of the role and importance of the management plan.

(ii) The Government secures flexibility in the use of European funds and application of European policy to enable National Park management objectives to be delivered.

Issue 6 (Working in Partnership)

(i) The Countryside Agency's proposed advice be supported.

(ii) The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is an active participant in future meetings leading to designation of the national park.

Issue 7 (Involving Local People)

(i) The National Park Authority should be a Local Strategic Partner in the preparation, review and delivery of Community Strategies.

Financial Resources

(i) The Agency secures from Government a firm commitment to a level of funding that ensures that existing standards are exceeded.

The Countryside Agency

(i) The County Council appreciates the work of the Agency and its staff in involving the public and local authorities in the consultation processes.

2. Part B - Proposed Boundary

The proposed boundary of the South Downs National Park as defined by the Countryside Agency be supported, with the exception of the areas referred to in paragraphs 4.6 to 4.12, and paragraph 4.20 of this report. Also, that the Countryside Agency be informed of the concerns regarding the sand deposits of long term strategic importance referred to in paragraph 4.24.

3. Part C - Revocation of East Hampshire Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

The proposed revocation of the East Hampshire Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is supported.

7262/DC