Environmental Planning: National Parks
Introduction
I am going to start by looking at the National Parks for a few minutes and then I
will spend some time looking at the principal elements of the legislative
framework for National Parks.
Once I have covered this ground, I will look at a few live or, in one case, very
recent case studies, and finally leave you with some food for thought.
Let me turn first to the National Parks family of England and Wales.
National Parks are extensive areas each with their own managing authority to
conserve and enhance their natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage and to
promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of their special
qualities by the public.
There are 9 Parks in England, including the New Forest which is the newest
addition, covering 8 % of England’s land area and 3 Parks in Wales covering
20% of Wales. The South Downs is not yet formally designated with a decision
expected from the government on this in 2006. The Countryside Agency is also
reviewing the boundaries of the English National Parks with the eastern Lake
District and the north western Yorkshire Dales, known as the Howgills, prime
candidates for expansion.
The landscape is what determines the character of the British countryside, and it
belongs to each and every one of us. Landscape is more than just a backdrop to
our lives; it is a source of invaluable economic and spiritual resources, it provides
us with a historic record of human activity and helps us define our sense of who
we are.
Landscape character is defined as 'a distinct, recognisable and consistent pattern
of elements in the landscape that makes one landscape different from another,
rather than better or worse'. Essentially, landscape character is that which
makes an area unique.
There is a mix of landscapes across the Parks. For example, the dramatic
gritstone edges and heather moorland of the Dark Peak, the steep, wooded
inland valleys of Exmoor with villages and farmsteads nestling in the sheltered
valley bottoms and the rugged peaks of Snowdonia.
But the National Parks are not just important environmentally, they are of crucial
importance to the economy, both directly though visitor spend or indirectly, for
example through branding and promotion of local produce.
And of the course the Parks are enjoyed by millions of people each year with the
Peak District the second most visited National Park in the world after Mount Fuji
in Japan. The Parks are especially valued for their peace and beauty – 58% of
visitors come for the scenery and landscape, 29% for the peace and quiet.
Enjoyment by millions is all well and good but it’s vital that all sections of society
have the opportunity to experience and appreciate the Parks. This is important
for both the communities concerned and also for the Parks themselves, as if the
Parks are to continue to be relevant to modern society for another 50 years they
need to reach and involve all sections of society.
This image is one of many visits inspired by a CNP project called Mosaic, which
aimed to build stronger links between ethnic minority communities and National
Parks.
Visitors to our Parks from overseas often raise an eyebrow or two when they
discover that thousands of people live or work in our Parks, and that in some
cases the Parks contain towns, roads, or even power stations and factories.
They may be more used to the wildlife reserves of southern Africa or the
wildernesses of north America where communities have often been excluded.
This is in stark contrast to our Parks which are lived-in, worked-in landscapes
that have been shaped by the hand of human influence for hundreds of years
and which need continued human management in order to achieve conservation
and indeed enhancement.
But where people live they need to earn a livelihood.
And where people live and work they need schools, hospitals and other facilities,
which can sometimes present challenges to the land use planning system in
terms of accommodating development, controlling natural resource use and
providing more affordable housing.
Since they were established during the 1950s National Parks have been putting
sustainable development into practice, long before the term came into use.
National Parks are viewed by the Government as role models for sustainable
management of the wider countryside. Their pioneering work has been
recognised by DEFRA and the Welsh Assembly Government, which grant a
Sustainable Development Fund to each Park Authority in order to further good
practice, and see National Parks as being test-beds for rural revival.
National Parks are increasingly innovative in finding solutions to the socioeconomic challenges that rural communities face, and this is undoubtedly
assisted by the strong planning powers which National Park Authorities have.
Rather than stifling development, the statistics show that their average approval
rate for planning applications is 89% which compares favourably with national
approval rates. Research for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister found that
approval rates for farm diversification was slightly higher in National Parks than in
other local planning authorities.
The Council for National Parks
I would now like to move on and tell you a little about the Council for National
Parks.
We are a charity and were established in 1936, initially to campaign for the
designation of National Parks which was achieved in the post-World War II era of
nationwide reconstruction. The Parks were established by the same government
which created the National Health Service.
We are an umbrella for over 40 different conservation and amenity voluntary
organisations, including the National Trust, the Wildlife Trusts and user groups
such as the Ramblers’ Association and Cyclists’ Touring Club.
We engage in a range of activities, including raising awareness of the Parks and
undertaking research, but protecting the Parks using policy and legislation is at
the core of our work.
We couldn’t do this without a variety of formidable partnerships including with the
National Park Authorities (the bodies charged with the delivery of National Park
purposes), companies (as the corporate sector can play both the role of friend
and foe to the parks so constructive engagement with companies is an essential
part of our work) and government. And we are helped in our partnerships by
household names like actor Brian Blessed, our President, and journalist Libby
Purves.
The legislative basis for National Parks
The legislative basis for National Parks is set out in the 1949 National Parks and
Access to the Countryside Act, which enabled the designation of most of the
Parks in the 1950s. The purposes of National Parks were quite simply
preserving natural beauty and promoting public enjoyment.
The Broads however has a different legislative basis emanating from the1988
Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act but it is widely regarded as a member of the
National Park family and enjoys the same level of protection as the other Parks.
The Broads has an additional third purpose to protect the interests of navigation
which as anyone who has visited the area knows is no mean feat.
The Sandford Principle was first conceived in the 1970s but not enacted until the
1990s and exists to provide legislative priority for the first purpose in cases of
irreconcilable conflict. The references are on the slide. In our experience the
principle is rarely invoked because every effort is made to resolve potential
conflicts through negotiation or management and, in any case, most conflicts are
within the second purpose itself (between different recreational uses) or between
conservation and economic development, in which case, unlike the position in
Scotland, Sandford does not bite.
The 1995 Environment Act established free-standing National Park Authorities,
enshrined the Sandford Principle in law for the first time and revised the
purposes. It also introduced a duty on relevant authorities, which includes public
bodies and government departments, to have regard to Park purposes in their
decision making or when carrying out their functions.
It also introduced a duty that in pursuing their statutory purposes, National Park
Authorities shall seek to foster social and economic well-being of their local
communities. The government considers that this should be done in cooperation with other bodies, and, presently at least, without incurring significant
expenditure.
National Parks and the planning system
A National Park Authority is the sole local planning authority for its area and in
terms of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Authorities in England
are classified as former strategic planning authorities.
National Park Authorities are in the process of preparing Park-wide Local
Development Frameworks and there is much activity this summer on the new
Statements of Community Involvement. Until the new system is up and running
the existing patchwork of Local Plans and joint Structure Plans will continue to
make up the development plan for the Park areas.
Joint working is encouraged, particularly at the area action plan level.
National Park Authorities in England are actively involved in the preparation,
monitoring, review and implementation of Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)
policies, with some RSS proposing sub-regional chapters to coincide with Park
boundaries.
National Park Authorities are responsible for the implementation of the
development control function in their area, with the majority utilising an in-house
service with ‘extras’, such as technical advice, bought in as and when they are
needed.
A high % of applications is delegated to officers but generally this is below the
ODPM’s desired 90%, not least because of the sensitive environment in which
development control decisions are made.
There is a higher emphasis in National Parks on pre-application discussion, with
the proof of course being in the pudding in terms of high quality development and
a high rate of planning approvals. Unsuitable applications are often weeded out
at an early stage resulting in greater certainty for both business and the public.
Specific guidance exists for assessing major developments with the test being
whether or not exceptional circumstances and public interest can be
demonstrated. This includes an assessment of national need, alternatives and
environmental impacts.
Environmental policy case studies
I would now like to look at three case studies:

Ribblehead (a former quarry in the Yorkshire Dales);

Bluestone (a proposed holiday village in the Pembrokeshire Coast); and

Whinash (a proposed wind energy development on the doorstep of the
Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales).
Ribblehead is a former quarry which covers 24 hectares and is of national
importance for wildlife and cultural heritage. It is also located wholly within the
Yorkshire Dales National Park. In 1999, Hanson decided not to oppose a
Prohibition Order at this site, which meant that the threat of this site being worked
would disappear as the old mineral permission would be extinguished.
This is an inspiring example of a voluntary-corporate-statutory partnership, which
resulted in positive gains for both wildlife and landscape and helped catalyse the
relinquishment of several other old mineral permissions in the National Parks.
This important initiative by the aggregates industry was very welcome and sets a
positive agenda for other sectors to follow.
Some of you may be familiar with the Bluestone case as it has had a reasonably
high profile in the planning and legal press.
Firstly some facts. Bluestone is a major holiday village proposed in the
Pembrokeshire Coast, comprising several elements including 340 log cabins, a
new village and a sewage treatment works. Despite being held to be contrary to
the development plan it was approved by the National Park Authority, following a
hard sell by the developer in terms of local jobs.
Pembrokeshire falls within an Objective 1 area which was part of the backdrop to
the decision. Interestingly, the latest unemployment figures for the area are at an
all time low. Press reports of local tourism industry managers lamenting the local
labour shortage and describing their overseas recruitment efforts for workers, for
instance in eastern Europe, reinforce our view that the claim of jobs should not
have been sufficient to override the development plan.
Despite the controversy surrounding the application the Welsh Assembly
Government declined to call in the application because it deemed that only
issues of local significance were at stake. This case quickly became a political
hot potato, with support expressed in public by ministers of governments in
Westminster and Cardiff and in advance of planning consent being obtained.
As far as the Council for National Parks was concerned the principles at stake
were important enough to trigger our first ever application for judicial review.
Jack J heard the case in December and in January, unfortunately, dismissed the
claim.
We sought and were granted leave to appeal and Keene LJ considered that the
case raised important issues for Section 54A and the development plan, as we
had argued that the claim of local jobs should not be allowed to override the
development plan and its policy on major developments. This was because local
jobs had already been taken into account as part of that policy and therefore was
immaterial to the decision and not “an other material consideration” capable of
displacing the primacy of the plan.
To my mind, this case clearly highlights the imbalance within the legal justice
system where well-financed organisations have an obvious head start and
smaller organisations or members of the public are generally excluded from
entering into litigation. Cost is undoubtedly the most significant factor which
prevents many environmental cases from being brought forward.
There is no doubt that without the outstanding commitment of our legal team
(David Wolfe from Matrix and Richard Stein and Jamie Beagent from Leigh Day
& Co) we would not have been able to bring the case forward. As it is, the Court
of Appeal sat on Friday, and Lord Justices Latham, Jacob and Kay heard the
case. We await their judgment on both the substantive matters and also on
costs.
In conclusion, the general practice that costs follow the event and the high nature
of the costs themselves is, to my mind, a serious impediment to accessing the
legal justice system in the UK today.
Finally a few words on Whinash, another high profile case, where 27 wind
turbines each standing at 115m high have been proposed on the doorstep of the
Lake District and Yorkshire Dales, and in land that is currently under active
consideration for inclusion in the Lake District because of its high landscape
quality.
The installed capacity of the development would exceed 50MW so it is classed
as a power station with a final decision to be made by the Department of Trade
and Industry.
The public inquiry concluded on Friday. We gave evidence that the scale of this
development was inappropriate for this sensitive landscape.
While allowing plenty of scope to argue the landscape demerits of the case, a
downside of the inquiry is that it has polarised debate on renewables with
organisations either falling into ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ camps. This is unfortunate as there
should be no choice on whether to develop renewables, the real question should
be where. And even more importantly, the vital importance of reducing energy
use and achieving more efficient use are all too easily forgotten when wind
turbines are on the table for discussion.
Finally, I would like to leave you with some food for thought which I hope we may
be able to consider in the discussion session.
Firstly, given increasing development pressures and our ‘must have now’
lifestyles, are National Park policies and legislation robust enough for 21 st century
life?
Secondly, given the issues I have highlighted from our experiences during the
Bluestone case, how are we to provide the level of access to environmental
justice envisaged by the Aarhus Convention without a radical look at the costs
system.
Thirdly and finally, climate change is an imperative but consensus not conflict will
be essential if we are to make the progress we are all desire.
Ruth Chambers
Council for National Parks
Tel 020 7924 4077 ext. 222
Email ruth@cnp.org.uk
19 June 2005