Contact: Merrick Denton-Thompson, ext 6826

1. Summary

1.1 The following decision is sought:

That the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs be informed of the County Council's responses, as set out in the attached report, on the Governments' review of English National Park Authorities.

2. Reason

2.1 To contribute to the review of National Park Authorities by the Government at a time when new National Parks are being proposed for the New Forest and the South Downs.

2.2 The closing date for the consultation is 11 October 2002.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 Not to give a response.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or a Member or Officer consulted - None.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: ................................ Date: .................................

Councillor T K Thornber

Contact: Merrick Denton-Thompson, ext 6826

1. Introduction

1.1 This report sets out the recommended response to the consultation by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) on the Review of English National Park Authorities (NPAs).

1.2 The Government announced a review of NPAs in September 2000 and published the Review findings on 13 July 2002, announcing at the same time a further round of consultation on seven specific recommendations. Comments on these seven issues are invited by 11 October. Extracts from the Review document dealing with these seven issues were attached to the letter of 16 July 2002 from the County Planning Officer and sent to all members of the Cabinet.

1.3 The publication of the Review comes at a time when the County Council is preparing for its submission to the Public Inquiry into the New Forest National Park, which commences on 8 October.

1.4 It also came at a time when the formal consultation by the Countryside Agency on the designation of the South Downs as a National Park was under way, this closed on 16 August (this was the subject of a report to the last Cabinet meeting on 22 July). A Designation Order is expected to be published early in 2003.

2. Scope of the Consultation

2.1 The Review findings are set out in a publication of over 100 pages containing 54 separate recommendations. Most of these recommendations are directed back to the Government. These include the need for a new vision for National Parks, clarifying the role of Park Authorities, the need to undertake more promotion and promoting sustainable development.

2.2 The Government has focused attention on seven recommendations upon which comments are invited. They cover the following subjects:

(i) level of delegation of planning decisions to officers;

(ii) statutory responsibility for rights of way;

(iii) authority membership - size and composition;

(iv) independent Chairman;

(v) continuity of local authority appointees;

(vi) Members' Code of Conduct; and

(vii) 100% funding by Central Government.

2.3 Of these one particular recommendation stands out from the others, and concerns proposals to increase the ratio of Secretary of State appointments on NPAs which appears to contradict the Government's new vision for local Government set out in both the Local Government Act 2000 and the White Paper published in December 2001 - Strong Local Leadership -Quality Public Services.

3. Detailed Proposals and Recommended Response

3.1 Levels of Delegation of Planning Decisions to Officers

3.1.1 The Review recommends that because of the sensitive nature of National Parks it may be appropriate to reduce the national Best Value target of 90% of planning decisions to be delegated to officers.

3.1.2 Response

(i) It should be left to the NPA to decide whether to vary from the 90% target, giving the reasons why. It may well be that 90% of applications are so insignificant to the integrity of the Park that to vary the target would be unnecessary.

(ii) Although views on planning matters are only sought on the issue of the Best Value performance target, it is worth raising an inconsistency in the existing primary legislation to do with the setting up of NPAs. Under the current legislation, when setting up a National Park, the Secretary of State is able to determine the transfer of Plan preparation to existing local authorities in the area but is unable to transfer development control in the same way. As currently constructed, the legislation runs counter to accepted practice in a plan-led system, where decisions are made by the plan making authority. It is therefore recommended that the primary legislation is amended to allow the Secretary of State to transfer the development control function to the existing local authorities in the same way as the plan making function can be transferred.

3.2 Statutory Responsibility for Rights of Way

3.2.1 The Review recommends that NPAs should be encouraged to use their legal powers to create new access opportunities and that DEFRA should consider NPAs becoming statutorily responsible for rights of way.

3.2.2 Response

(i) The Review acknowledges that the legal powers exist for NPAs to create new access opportunities. It would be more beneficial if the Government put in place the necessary incentives to encourage land owners to provide new access to the countryside rather than emphasising legal powers available to the NPAs. New opportunities exist to make financial provision through the new `broad/shallow' first level entry scheme being brought in by the Government in 2004, and possibly through the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy where subsidies might be de-coupled from production.

(ii) The Review accepts that current arrangements for rights of way are `working reasonably well' and `few respondents have sought change'. Recommending that NPAs should become responsible for rights of way implies that NPAs would undertake the work more effectively than local authorities, but there is no evidence to support this. Indeed, highway authorities would be far better equipped to undertake this work, as they have the legal infrastructure and administration already set up and working. Furthermore, the recommendation treats rights of way in National Parks as an island when there is much to be said for integrating rights of way with the `surrounding' areas. This would be particularly true in the South Downs because of its long thin shape. It would be an unnecessary expense to make any change as suggested in the Review. It is recommended that this is opposed; however if the Government decides to proceed then it is suggested that each case is dealt with on a case-by-case basis, depending on individual circumstances. For example, it would not make sense for the New Forest National Park to be the Rights of Way Authority as there are so few rights of way on the Crown land in the centre of the proposed Park. The main rights of way are on the periphery of the proposed Park and it is the links outside of the Park and with surrounding communities that should be the focus for attention.

3.3 Authority Membership - Size and Composition

3.3.1 The Review recommends consideration is given to legislating to restrict the number of Members on a National Park Board to between 20 for smaller Parks and 25 for the largest Park. In addition, it recommends consideration is given to change the ratio of Secretary of State/national appointees to two-fifths from a quarter as it is at present. The remaining three-fifths would be made up of local authority and parish Members.

3.3.2 Response

(i) NPAs should be subject to the same modernising discipline as the remainder of local government. An executive or cabinet would streamline the decision-making process of large authorities. This approach would remove the need to impose limitations on the size of National Park Authority which would severely erode local democratic involvement in the authority's decision-making.

(ii) By increasing, from 25% to 40%, the proportion of Secretary of State national appointees on NPAs local decision-making would be further eroded, moving them further away from being a local authority, as they are now, towards being a direct agent for the Government. Part of the argument for the proposed change is that "Central Government provides 100% of the funding". This argument is deeply flawed since all local government gets a proportion of its funding from Central Government, but in all other tiers of local government there are no Government appointees on the authorities. It has been said by Government officials that democracy is not being eroded by the use of Secretary of State appointees because the Secretary of State is part of the democratic system. This assertion is rejected. It is further asserted by Government officials that Secretary of State appointees are necessary to secure the national interest in the future management of the National Park, and yet Members on current NPAs are reminded that they are there to represent the interests of the National Park and not their respective local authority. The argument that national appointees by the Secretary of State help promote national interests fails to recognise that many existing local authorities have within their administrative areas features of national interest or importance, and the local authorities concerned take into account and respect those interests without the necessity of national appointees on their Councils. If national appointees are deemed necessary, then the ratio should remain as it is at present but that the Secretary of State appointees should be identified from a group of people nominated to represent voluntary and commercial organisations with an interest in the National Park. It is also worth mentioning how Scottish legislation deals with the new National Parks in Scotland where one-fifth of the members are directly elected to the authority. This could be a mechanism to deal with Secretary of State appointees.

3.4 Independent Chairman

3.4.1 The Review recommends developing ideas for the appointment of independent Chairmen for NPAs.

3.4.2 Response

The Review makes the point that NPAs are hybrid local authorities. The appointment of independent Chairmen would increased the hybrid nature of NPAs and move further away from the local democratic principles which underpin local government. The system that works for local government works well; if there are weaknesses they have been created through the erosion of the powers of the local authorities by the Government. The appointment of an outside Chairman would further erode local determination and democracy, and is therefore not supported.

3.5 Continuity of Local Authority Appointees

3.5.1 The review recommends allowing Members appointed to an NPA who cease to be councillors during an election but who are subsequently re-elected to parent councils to continue to hold office until a new appointment has been made, subject to a limit of three months.

3.5.2 Response

This recommendation is supported.

3.6 Members' Code of Conduct

3.6.1 The Review recommends that the NPA model Code Of Conduct for Members should be amended to ensure a level playing field for all interests. This proposal includes omitting a special clause that was originally intended to cover the interests of land owners on the Authority and navigational interests associated with the Broads Authority. The amendment would bring NPAs more into line with local authorities' code of conduct.

3.6.2 Response

The recommendation to standardise the code of conduct across local government and NPAs is supported.

3.7 100% Funding by Central Government

3.7.1 The Review recommends "On balance 100% of National Park grant should come direct from Central Government rather than, as now, 25% being redirected via local authorities".

3.7.2 Response

Since NPAs are 100% funded by Central Government (75% directly and 25% via a precept on constituent local authorities which is reimbursed by Government grant) then one can see how the Review recommendation has been arrived at. However, the Review fails to address the more fundamental point: should NPAs be 100% funded by the Government? A proportion of genuine local funding would be more consistent with the principles of NPAs being local authorities, would reflect local representation on the NPA and encourage local accountability. The level of local funding should reflect the proportion of local representation.

4. Conclusions

4.1 On balance the review of English NPAs has two quite separate levels of recommendations. These are:

(i) small-scale, business-like recommendations modernising the roles of NPAs; and

(ii) a thinly-disguised shift for NPAs to move away from the local authority arena toward becoming a set of national agents, at the same time eroding the role of local democratic accountability.

4.2 There appears to be a presumption that local democracy is quite unable to secure the future of national assets. This would be in direct contradiction with Tony Blair's foreword to the December 2001 White Paper in which he says: "Establishing a national framework of standards and accountability for the delivery of high quality services and effective community leadership. Within this framework, devolution to local councils to encourage diversity and creativity, giving them the freedom they need to respond to and meet their communities' needs."

4.3 In fact Hampshire County Council's record in securing the environmental quality of the New Forest and South Downs is exemplary. At its discretion and using scarce unrestricted funds, the County Council has invested in different ways to the benefit of both areas. If a factual audit were to be undertaken of environmental decline in these areas, it would conclude that the single most destructive mechanism over the last 30 years has been driven by Central Government - the agricultural intervention system that has failed to help the farming community secure an integrated approach to land management.

7336/MD-T