Contact: Merrick Denton-Thompson, ext 6826

1. Summary

1.1 The following decisions are sought:

(i) That Hampshire County Council responds to the South Downs Designation Order 2002.

(ii) That Hampshire County Council's response be "qualified support" in accordance with the advice note for making representations published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

(iii) That approval be given to the decisions made by Cabinet on 22 July 2002 as the basis for representations to the expected South Downs National Park Inquiry.

(iv) That support be given to the proposed boundary of the proposed National Park as set out in the Order (confirming the decision of Cabinet on 22 July 2002 which did not support the Environment Policy Review Committee's recommendation to include Rowlands Castle with the National Park boundary).

2. Reasons

2.1 National Parks set up under the 1949 and 1995 Countryside and Environment Acts would result in a reduction in local democratic control of the South Downs because a proportion of the membership of the National Park Authority would be appointed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

2.2 There should be clear benefits from designating the area as a National Park, adding value to the area to meet society's aspirations for a National Park in the South Downs.

2.3 To set out clearly the County Council's opposition to transferring existing functions, such as those relating to the Rights of Way network, to the National Park Authority.

2.4 Objections or other representations on the Order have to be received by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on or before 28 February 2003.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 To support the National Park Designation Order.

3.2 To object to the National Park Designation Order.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or a Member or Officer consulted

4.1 Councillor Felicity Hindson and Councillor Sir James Scott both live within the boundary of the proposed National Park.

4.2 The Assistant Director of Environment, Mr Denton-Thompson, lives within the boundary of the proposed National Park.

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 The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published the Designation Order for the proposed South Downs National Park on 27 January 2003. The publication of the Order follows extensive public consultation by the Countryside Agency since the Government first announced its intentions in the autumn of 1999. Any person or organisation wishing to submit representations or objections to the Order must do so on or before 28 February 2003.

2. Hampshire County Council

2.1 The Cabinet last considered the proposed National Park on 22 July 2002 during the formal Local Authority consultation stage which closed on 16 August 2002. This followed consideration of the issues by the Environment Policy Review Committee on 15 July 2002.

2.2 The publication of the Order comes at the end of three years of consultation and consideration of the issues by joint Authority technical working groups. At the end of this process a number of key issues remain unresolved which, it is recommended, the County Council pursue by making representations at the Public Inquiry. The Public Inquiry is likely to start in the autumn of 2003.

2.3 These issues are summarised by the following decisions that were made by the Cabinet at its meeting in July:

Issue 1 (Membership)

(i) The County Council objects to 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.

(iv) The County Council reiterates its previous position that in the interests of democratic accountability all development control decisions should be made by existing local authorities.

Issue 3 (A Role in Land Management)

(i) In its advice to Government the Agency should stress 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 objects to the proposals for rights of way and considers that the 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 both that existing standards are exceeded and that there is no top slicing of the settlements for existing local authorities which will continue to deliver services not only across the remainder of their areas but also in partnership with any National Park Authority in the new area.

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.

Issue 8 (Proposed Boundary)

The proposed boundary of the South Downs National Park as defined by the Countryside Agency be supported, with the exception of:

(i) a small number of minor areas to be either included or excluded, the most significant of which was to include Woolmer Forest; and

(ii) the village of Greatham, where it was considered that the boundary should include the southern part of the village and be coincident with the existing Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty boundary.

Also, that the Countryside Agency be informed of the concerns regarding the sand deposits of long term strategic importance.

Issue 9 (Revocation of East Hampshire Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty)

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

2.4 Since the end of the formal consultation stage with local authorities, the situation has changed with regard to two of the issues set out above. The first concerns Issue 2 (Forward Planning and Development Control). The publication of the Planning Bill on 4 December 2002 adds uncertainty to the process of devising the most appropriate plan-making regime for the proposed National Park. The Countryside Agency acknowledged that it would need to reconsider its advice to the Secretary of State when the Government's position following the Planning Green Paper was known.

2.5 Unfortunately, the Bill only establishes general principles. The details of how the process will work will be set out in Regulations which have yet to be published. As far as plan-making in the proposed National Park is concerned, there can as yet be no objective commentary on how the proposed arrangements might work, especially how the system will cope with cross-boundary issues and integration with the plans and strategies of adjoining authorities; this goes as much for specialist minerals and waste planning as it does for `traditional' land-use planning.

2.6 The Countryside Agency's view that its preferred model of a single Unitary Development Plan can easily be transformed into a Local Development Framework is not proven. Until the practical arrangements of the proposed new plan-making system are known and understood nothing can be certain. No arrangements should therefore be promoted until after full debate on the implications of the changes to the planning system on plan-making within the Park.

2.7 The second issue concerns further minor changes to the proposed boundary referred to in Issue 8 above. The Cabinet considered that the southern part of the village of Greatham and Woolmer Forest should be included, and these have now been brought into the proposed National Park. At this stage of the process, following very detailed assessment of the proposed boundary, there remain a number of minor issues concerning the boundary. However, these are confined to cases where it is a matter of fine judgement and consequently it is recommended that the boundary as proposed by the Countryside Agency be supported. The detailed boundary considerations are summarised in the extract from the report to Cabinet on 22 July 2002 and the Environment Policy Review Committee on 15 July 2002, attached as an appendix.

3. Scope of the Public Inquiry

3.1 The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made it clear, informally, that it is not the role of a Public Inquiry into the South Downs National Park to re-visit the primary legislation of the Countryside and Environment Acts of 1949 and 1995. As a consequence, the Department has published an advice note to guide objections and representations to the published Order. Following the decisions by the Cabinet in July, the County Council's response should be "qualified support" enabling the County Council to make the necessary representations to the Public Inquiry.

3.2 The main thrust of that representation will seek to secure recommendations from the Inspector to the Secretary of State that would ensure that all members of the proposed National Park Authority are drawn from locally elected people (not directly elected). There appears to be some room for refinement of the process whereby Secretary of State's appointments could be drawn from an elected forum, this is currently being explored by the County Council at the Public Inquiry into the proposed New Forest National Park.

3.3 During the period between the publication of the Order and the start of the Public Inquiry, the Government might publish its intentions over the Review of English National Park Authorities. Members may recall a proposal set out in that Review that would both reduce the size of the National Park Authority in the South Downs and increase the number of Secretary of State's appointees, shifting the balance to Park Authorities becoming more an agent of Central Government. The Inquiry into the South Downs National Park would give the County Council an opportunity to make further representations on these issues, should the situation change in the interim period.

3.4 The other two key substantive points that will need to be pursued are, first to seek assurance that the proposed designation will add value to the area and not just be a change of name and administration. The second concerns existing County Council services, such as the Countryside Service. There remains a proposals by the Countryside Agency to recommend the transfer of the Rights of Way service within the Park to the new National Park Authority [see Issue 4 (i)]. However, under the current legislation this move cannot be forced upon the County Council.

Recommendations

1. That Hampshire County Council responds to the South Downs Designation Order 2002.

2. That Hampshire County Council's response be "qualified support" in accordance with the advice note for making representations published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

3. That approval be given to the decisions made by Cabinet on 22 July 2002 as the basis for representations to the expected South Downs National Park Inquiry.

4. That support be given to the proposed boundary of the proposed National Park as set out in the Order (confirming the decision of Cabinet on 22 July 2002 which did not support the Environment Policy Review Committee's recommendation to include Rowlands Castle with the National Park boundary).

7760/MD-T

APPENDIX

EXTRACT FROM REPORT TO ENVIRONMENT POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE ON 15 JULY 2002 AND CABINET ON 22 JULY 2002

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.