APPENDIX 2

Proposals for a South Downs Joint Committee for the Protection and Development of the South Downs on an interim basis in the context of the current proposals for a National Park

Key Issues for Consideration

1. Title

1.1 The Sussex Downs Conservation Board put forward two options, "South Downs Board" and "South Downs Joint Committee"; there were also some members who would like to retain "Conservation" in the title. Formally, any new body will be a local authority joint committee. It is important to distinguish this body from a "CROW" act conservation board, which is not the intention. The East Hampshire JAC has a clear preference for using the term "Joint Committee".

2. Membership

2.1 The draft agreement sets out the Sussex Downs Conservation Board proposal for membership and the East Hampshire JAC alternative proposals for membership. It is important that individual authorities respond both generally and with reference to the representation of their own authority.

2.2 The Sussex Downs Board proposals would result in a larger joint committee, with a heavier representation from local authorities at County and District level. The East Hampshire JAC expressed particular concern about the relative lack of representation of parishes. An alternative draft in bold italic proposal has been added following discussion by the Sussex Downs Conservation Board and the East Hampshire JAC, which would modify the Sussex Downs Board proposal by requiring the Countryside Agency representatives to include at least three (geographically spread) parish representatives. It might also be appropriate to make a specific requirement for parish representation on the JAC element of the new proposed arrangements.

3. Finance

3.1 It should be noted that the finance provision is not in its final worded form. The proposal is that the existing finance regime should stay the same so that as far as possible there would be no more modification in the contribution from any authority than would be the case in normal circumstances, and that, initially at least, the grant and finance arrangements for the East Hampshire JAC and the Sussex Downs Conservation Board should be run in parallel but separately.

3.2 There are issues about whether flexibility should be maintained over the three-year life of the proposed body so that modifications in the budgetary arrangements could be made if necessary. The East Hampshire JAC feel strongly that this should not be permitted, but there is opposition to this view. It may be appropriate to deal with this issue through the protocol (see para 7 below).

4. Planning

4.1 Similarly, proposals have been made to enable Hampshire planning issues to be dealt with separately.

5. Interim Nature

5.1 It is common ground between the East Hampshire JAC and the Sussex Downs Conservation Board, and in particular an issue for the Countryside Agency, that these arrangements are of an interim nature. Once the decision with reference to the proposed National Park is made new planning will be required as to the way in which the position is taken forward (whatever the outcome).

6. Neutrality

6.1 It is common ground between the East Hampshire JAC and the Sussex Downs Conservation Board that the proposals must be seen as neutral in terms of the decision on the creation of a new National Park. The proposal is meant, as members will see from the papers, to provide either a useful and dynamic short term arrangement which can allow policy and other development to flow through the period for creation of any National Park or a sound South Downs-wide basis for the creation of effective organisational support for the South Downs in the absence of a National Park, whichever is required.

7. The Role of an Advisory Forum

7.1 The proposal includes both a formal joint committee on a South Downs-wide basis and an advisory committee. The model is similar to that currently used by the Chichester Harbour Conservancy. The idea would be for the Advisory Forum to spread South Downs-wide, and form a wide base of interested parties with particular reference to local communities and parishes and to other communities of interest in the Downs which could influence and support the Joint Committee in developing the interests of the South Downs.

7.2 The successful development of this element on a South Downs-wide forum is critical to the success of the project and arrangements need to be put in hand to ensure effective joint working (including provision to avoid overlap).

8. Protocol

8.1 The East Hampshire JAC has, helpfully, suggested that there should be a protocol to supplement the formal arrangements set out in the enclosed proposed agreement. This could be used to structure the more detailed development of arrangements over the next three years.

9. Consultation and Publicity

9.1 This is the consultative phase only. If the proposal goes ahead a carefully planned and co-ordinated pattern of publicity for the new proposals will be required.

10. Timetable

10.1 Authorities were asked to respond by 31^st January 2005. If the proposal goes ahead a carefully planned implementation timetable will be needed and proposals for this will be developed.

Consultation on Interim Arrangements for the Protection of the East Hampshire and Sussex AONBs

In addition to Chief Executives of the constituent local authorities and the Countryside Agency, copies to Sussex Downs Officer, East Hampshire AONB Officer the following have been sent copies of the consultation papers:

Adur District Council Sarah Groom, Head of Leisure Services

Arun District Council Brian Banister, Principal Planning Officer

(Policy)

Brighton & Hove City Council Pat Foster, Assistant Director, The

Environment

Chichester District Council Sam Howes, Deputy Chief Executive

East Hampshire District Council Alison Wood, Head of Planning Policy

East Sussex County Council Richard Partridge, Asst. Director, Law &

Performance

Eastbourne Borough Council Mike Smith, Downland, Trees and Woodlands Manager

Hampshire County Council Merrick Denton-Thompson, Assistant Director, Environment

Horsham District Council Louise Gibbons, Senior Planning Officer

Lewes District Council Lindsay Frost, Director of Planning & Environmental Services

Mid Sussex District Council Tim Barkley, Head of Environment

Wealden District Council Mr D Phillips, Senior Planning Officer

West Sussex County Council Jeff Bartley, Head of Environmental & Economic Policy Service

Winchester City Council Robin Cooper, Director of Development Services

Worthing Borough Council Mike Bleakley, Asst. Director, Policy Development

Countryside Agency Bob Roberts, David Thompson, Jane Cecil, Kristophe Kratz

9140app2