Archived decisions

Potential impacts on National Parks

1. Background

1.1 Section 62 of the Environment Act 1995 places a duty on all relevant authorities to have regard to the statutory purposes of National Parks when exercising or performing any function that could affect land in the Parks, and to demonstrate that they have fulfilled this duty. The impacts on the National Park caused by making decisions or undertaking activities must be considered. Such impacts may be direct, indirect, or `cumulative indirect' effects. An identical duty exists in respect of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs).

1.2 This report considers the extent to which the emerging South Hampshire sub-regional strategy (and in particular, new housing proposals) impacts on the New Forest National Park and also the proposed South Downs National Park, (whose status will be decided by government next year). It analyses the key impacts on each National Park in turn.

2. New Forest: Development pressure around the boundary

2.1 If the strategy for South Hampshire 2006 -2026 is successful it should contribute to an increase in disposable income for many workers in the sub-region, potentially allowing residents to afford to travel further for holidays and recreational breaks. This may have a negative impact.

2.2 Development at Totton and Waterside will be the only development to occur on the National Park boundary. However, the population in Totton and the Waterside part of New Forest district is projected to decline over the period 2006 to 2026 in all three dwelling supply options set out in `Where shall we live'(ranging from 2,400 to 4,500 people). Other development impacts on the National Park such as new roads, cables and pipelines are anticipated to be small, no service providers having identified a need for any infrastructure to support the emerging strategy.

3. New Forest: Increased recreational pressure

3.1 Urban South Hampshire as a whole will see a net increase in population between 2006 and 2026. The strategy options would result in up to 25,000 additional people living within a 20 minute drive of the Park and about 75,000 within an hour. One calculation puts the increase in park visitor numbers at under 200,000 visits per annum, or about 0.7% increase in all visits¹ - a small impact. Managing recreation demand within urban South Hampshire, especially within the two proposed Strategic Development Areas (SDAs), will further reduce this impact.

4. New Forest: Sustaining New Forest Commoning

4.1 The safeguarding of back-up grazing land within the Waterside parishes has been recognised as an constraint that could impact upon greenfield developments (notably housing). However, as the PUSH strategy is not proposing any greenfield releases in this area there should be no impact on this resource.

5. Potential impacts on the New Forest Special Protection Area (SPA) and candidate Special Area of Conservation (SAC)

5.1 The New Forest has been classified as an SPA in accordance with the EC Directive 79/409 on the Conservation of Wild Birds, and as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) in accordance with the EC Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats. Development may lead to many direct impacts, such as dog walking disturbing ground-nesting birds, and domestic cats hunting protected birds. There are further potential indirect impacts, for example horseriding on heathland areas damaging the soils.

5.2 As has been demonstrated in 2.2, the strategy is expected to contribute to a net decline in the number of people living within close proximity of the Park. Furthermore, no new greenfield releases are proposed within the immediate vicinity of the Park. Apart from Hythe and Holbury no part of the New Forest SPA or SAC is within the hunting range of domestic cats. Finally, although there is likely to be a small increase in the number of visitors to the Park from urban South Hampshire, the management of recreational activity within the Park is an issue for the new Park Authority which, through working with English Nature, could guide visitors away from the most sensitive parts of the SPA and SAC.

6. South Downs National Park: Recreational demands

6.1 The level of growth proposed for the Southern Parishes of East Hampshire district (immediately south of the Park boundary) are very modest and reflect the amount of additional housing proposed for the area. Population forecasts indicate that the population of this area would grow by about 2% (300 people). The other parts of urban South Hampshire that abut the proposed Park are largely rural in character and are expected to remain so. Development will be small scale and related to local needs. No significant impacts are therefore anticipated on the Park from local visitors.

6.2 The additional population of the rest of South Hampshire will inevitably look to the proposed Park to meet some of their informal recreational needs. Drawing from the analysis of visitors to the New Forest from South Hampshire, this increase is likely to be small when compared to the total number of day visits made from existing residents of urban South Hampshire and other places.

7. South Downs National Park: Traffic impacts

7.1 The development strategy for urban South Hampshire has an urban renaissance focus, particularly with regard to Portsmouth and Southampton. Promoting out-commuting is contrary to the strategy. Furthermore, the strategy anticipates that commuting distances will reduce. The anticipated increase in recreational visitors will increase traffic in the Park. There is potential for this impact to be moderated through improved public transport services, an approach that would fit well with the public transport emphasis of the strategy.

8. South Downs National Park: Impact of visible tall buildings

8.1 As shown in 6.1, there is only a modest amount of residential development proposed in close proximity to the Park which is not expected to be high rise. Both Portsmouth and Southampton are far from the Park boundary and, there is no anticipated noticeable impact on views from the Park.

9. South Downs National Park: the need for additional infrastructure and knock-on implications

9.1 One example of this type of impact could be further water abstraction lowering water tables/reducing flows or building new reservoirs to meet the needs of urban South Hampshire. The water companies have advised that they envisage meeting water demand through a combination of water efficiency and new infrastructure, including a new reservoir at Havant thicket (just outside the Park). It is not expected that this will impact on the Park.

10. South Downs National Park: Light pollution

10.1 The concern here is the effect of urban conurbations on the night sky. The majority of new development is planned to be built within the two cities and any light pollution as a result of the new development is likely to be lost amongst that already emitted. The larger urban extensions and SDAs will emit substantially less light than existing urban areas, through use of energy efficiency, design improvements and greater awareness of the issue.

11. Conclusion

11.1 The main impact on the proposed New Forest and South Downs National Parks is likely to be further recreational pressure. The overall increase in both cases is likely to be modest and could be reduced through the creation of attractive alternative provision within urban South Hampshire, especially as part of the proposed SDA's. The potential impacts on the SPA and SAC in the New Forest National Park are anticipated to be small, and are unlikely to require any specific additional measures as a consequence of the strategy for urban South Hampshire.

Conclusions

1) That members note the potential impacts on the New Forest National Park and proposed South Downs National Park that could arise as a result of the emerging strategy for urban South Hampshire as set out in the report.

On the basis of the report, it is suggested that there is no need to amend the emerging strategy.