NFNPA 30/05 Options for Preparing

NFNPA 30/05

NEW FOREST NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY

AUTHORITY MEETING – 20 SEPTEMBER 2005

Options for Preparing a Core Strategy and a Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework (for the New Forest National Park Authority and Minerals Planning Authority)

Report by: Peter Nelson, planning consultant

Summary:

1. This paper takes forward the Authority’s resolution (16 June) to commission a draft Local Development Scheme. It takes into account advice provided by the Members’ working group and observers.

2. The paper explores options for the preparation of a core strategy development plan document, and the equivalent document for minerals and waste.

3. The approach outlined in the paper has been discussed with staff in Salisbury District Council, Test Valley Borough Council, Wiltshire County Council, Hampshire County Council, Southampton City Council, Portsmouth City Council and New Forest District Council.

4. The paper also refers to the New Forest District Council’s Statement of Community Involvement and advice offered by the Authority staff.

Recommendation:

1. To confirm, in principle and subject to discussion with the Government Office South East (GOSE), the Authority’s intention to prepare a joint core strategy development plan document with the New Forest District Council.

2. Members are invited to confirm a preference for this joint core strategy to be produced in two interlinked volumes, with one covering the New Forest National Park area and the second, the remaining areas of the New Forest District.

3. To confirm the Authority’s intention to seek agreement with Hampshire County Council, and Southampton and Portsmouth City Councils, to produce a Joint Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework for the four authorities’ areas, subject to appropriate amendments being made to the Preferred Options Document on minerals policies affecting the National Park.

1 4. To confirm the Authority’s support for the Statement of Community Involvement prepared by New Forest District Council and to agree to work closely with the District Council and with Test Valley Borough Council and Salisbury District Council in developing common approaches to community liaison on plan-making processes.

5. To confirm this Authority’s ongoing commitment to close informal working with all of the constituent local authorities and adjacent planning authorities.

Resources: Planning consultancy support until December.

Other major considerations: None

2 NFNPA 30/05

Options for Preparing a Core Strategy and a Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework (for the New Forest National Park Authority and Minerals Planning Authority)

Introduction

1. The paper describes the options that have been explored as a basis for taking forward priority development plan documents as part of the indicative Local Development Scheme (LDS) for the New Forest National Park. The priority documents are the core strategy which provides the strategic overview of spatial planning issues for the National Park, and the equivalent document relating to minerals and waste. (Other planning documents will need to be referred to in the draft Local Development Scheme in due course and proposals for such documents will be reported to a future meeting of the Authority).

2. Preparation of this paper has involved consultation with the Authority’s member working group and discussions with staff from all of the affected local authorities.

3. In the light of those discussions, the options the paper makes recommendations on:

1) the preferred approach of preparing a joint core strategy in two interlinked volumes, with New Forest District Council; 2) seeking agreement with Hampshire CC, Southampton CC and Portsmouth CC on preparing a joint Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework; and, 3) confirming support for the approach being taken by New Forest District Council in revising its Statement of Community Involvement for its Local Development Scheme.

The priority development plan documents

The Core Strategy

4. One of the benefits of the new planning system is that development plan documents do not have to be produced in sequence. There is, however, a strong incentive to preparing a core strategy first because, as the name implies, it provides the context for other more detailed topic-based documents which will follow on.

5. As stated in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 12:

“The core strategy should set out the key elements of the planning framework for the area. It should comprise of a spatial vision and strategic objectives for the area; a spatial strategy, core policies and a monitoring and implementation framework with clear objectives for delivery”.

6. In the case of National Parks, the National Park Management Plan will articulate the vision and strategic objectives in delivering the National Park purposes. Consequently there needs to be a very close link between production of the management plan and core strategy. Further advice from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) on the content of core strategies is reproduced in Box 1.

Box 1

Extracts on the content of core strategies (PPS12 Paragraphs 2.12-2.14)

The core strategy should contain clear and concise policies for delivering the strategy which will apply to the whole of the local planning authority’s area or to locations within it, but should not identify individual sites. These should be dealt with under site specific allocations development plan documents or area action development plan documents.

General locations for strategic development, major transportation issues and main patterns of movement and constraints may be set out in a key diagram which will illustrate the broad strategy for the area in a diagrammatic format.

The local authority should ensure that policies and proposals in the core strategy provide certainty for the future. The time horizon of the core strategy should be for a period of at least 10 years from the date of adoption.

The core strategy should be kept under review and the horizon rolled forward in subsequent reviews of the document.

7. Advice on the role of core strategies is set out in PPS12:

“Local planning authorities should therefore take account of the principles and characteristics of other relevant strategies and programmes when preparing local development documents and in particular the core strategy. These should include the community strategy and strategies for education, health, social inclusion, waste, biodiversity, recycling and environmental protection. Local development documents should be prepared taking into account urban and rural regeneration strategies, local and regional economic and housing strategies, community development and transport plans” (Para. 1.9)

“The local development framework should be the key component in the delivery of the community strategy setting out its spatial aspects as appropriate and providing a long term spatial vision…” (Para . 1.10)

“Local planning authorities should work collaboratively to ensure they take account of the identified benefits of linking the preparation of community strategies and local development frameworks from both a policy content and process perspective” (Para. 1.11)

Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework

8. A minerals and waste local development framework (LDF) is structured in the same way as a spatial planning framework, with a core strategy, proposals map, minerals sites plan and waste management sites plan. Similar observations apply to those relating to the spatial planning core strategy in terms of role and content.

Criteria for developing options

9. Development of options needs to take into account:

• The pivotal and crucial relationship between the National Park Management Plan, core strategy and other local development documents, which applies only in National Parks. • The fact that the National Park Authority, as the Planning Authority, is required to have regard to Community Strategies which are prepared by other local authorities and the Local Strategic Partnership. • The need to establish a clear identity for the National Park Authority in relation to its planning functions. • The importance of meshing in with the production and timetable of development plan documents with those of adjacent local authorities, including Hampshire, Wiltshire, Salisbury, Test Valley and the New Forest. • The aim of integrating spatial planning for the National Park with the delivery of related services and functions by other authorities (in accordance with the legal requirement for those authorities to have regard to National Park purposes under Section 62 of the Environment Act, 1995). • The scope for influencing spatial planning policy in areas outside the National Park which are likely to have significant impacts on park purposes, (both potentially positive and negative). • The benefits of joint working wherever practical to share resources and expertise, avoid unnecessary duplication and secure positive outcomes for the National Park.

10. The development of options also needs to consider the National Park Authority’s responsibilities for minerals and waste planning as well as other aspects of town and country planning.

11. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004 enables authorities either to prepare their own LDFs or to prepare joint LDFs with adjacent authorities. This flexibility applies to any document that is produced within the LDF. The New Forest District Council was confronted with this question when it embarked on its own Local Development Scheme a year ago, and it has clearly stated its preference to join with the National Park Authority in preparing the first of its major documents, a joint core strategy covering the National Park and outlying areas of the district. This paper sets out the arguments for preparing either a separate or joint core strategy from the standpoint of the National Park. In doing so, it also focuses on parts of the National Park lying in Salisbury District and Test Valley Borough.

12. The first part of this paper considers the basic choice between production of separate or joint core strategies. This discussion concludes that there are advantages and disadvantages in both approaches but suggests that the balance of advantage favours a joint approach. The paper concentrates on the subject of preparing a core strategy (and associated minerals and waste planning documents) because these are judged to be priority areas. The way other development plan documents are treated will tend to stem from this initial approach but do not have to be the same.

13. The second part of the paper goes on to examine variants of a joint approach to see whether there is scope to maximise the benefits and minimise any risks.

14. The third part of the paper discusses options for covering minerals and waste planning functions.

Part One – The choice between a stand-alone or joint core strategy

15. The two options for developing the core strategy are:

Model A – stand-alone core strategy, and, Model B – A joint core strategy

Advantages and disadvantages of both options are explored below.

Model A – Stand-alone core strategy

16. Description: This approach assumes that the National Park Authority would manage all parts of the LDF process itself and have total control over the content of the core strategy. In developing the core strategy the Authority would pay close attention to the content of the statements of community involvement and community strategies covering those parts of New Forest District, Salisbury District and Test Valley Borough falling within the National Park boundary.

17. The National Park Authority would aim to produce a core strategy covering only the area of the National Park, with the possibility of introducing topic- based documents for detailed subjects and possibly Area Action Plans promoting similar policies for specific topics or geographical areas which straddle the park boundary, on a joint basis with neighbouring authorities.

18. Responsibility for preparation of the core strategy would be for Authority staff. The timescale could be set at roughly 2-3 years (allowing for the existing saved policies of the Local Plan to run for three years from September 2004 (or August 2005 in the case of those policies revised in the amended version of the plan which has just been adopted this month)).

6 Advantages:

• There would be no doubt that the core strategy was unambiguously the product of the National Park Authority. • The approach would accord with that adopted by all other National Park Authorities. • The timescale could be set to allow maximum integration of the LDF and Management Plan processes. • The Authority would have complete control over the content of the core strategy and its relationship with other planning documents, including the management plan. • The Authority could programme and manage its own public consultation and engagement process with local communities.

Disadvantages:

• Opportunities for exploring the strategic issues (like transport and tourism) that extend beyond the National Park boundary could be reduced significantly due to differences in timescale with the LDFs in other authority areas. • Significantly different policies might emerge for areas lying within, or outside, the National Park boundaries which could cause confusion or tensions when the document came to be examined at local inquiry and subsequently amended in response to binding recommendations of inspectors. • Community support for National Park aims might be weakened within neighbouring authority areas due to a sense of exclusion and lack of opportunity for engagement. • Parts of the former New Forest Heritage Area lying outside the National Park boundary could either be ignored or subjected to inappropriate development resulting in greater pressure on the park itself. • Any overall efficiencies from joint working would not materialise. • Opportunities for strengthening the links between the community strategies and local development framework might not be realised.

Model B – A Joint Core Strategy

19. Description: This model assumes that the National Park Authority and New Forest District Council agree to produce a joint core strategy covering the National Park (including the relevant parts of Salisbury District and Test Valley Borough) and outlying areas of New Forest District.

20. Where joint local development documents are prepared it is a formal requirement that both authorities agree the wording of the document and can demonstrate that they have followed the same procedures leading to its adoption. However it is not necessary to form a joint committee. Both authorities would agree on the programme of work and would share responsibility for drafting and for organising public consultation. The two authorities would also independently approve the completed document before submitting it for public examination. Both authorities would work together on exploring the interrelationships between the Park and its surrounding areas. The National Park Authority would, however, concentrate on issues arising within the park boundaries while the District Council would focus on the outlying areas.

21. Under the joint arrangement it is proposed that the New Forest National Park Authority would engage with Salisbury District Council and Test Valley Borough Council to ensure that their respective community strategies and statements of community involvement were fully taken into account. The National Park Authority has already stressed that it intends to give full weight to community involvement in its planning processes.

22. New Forest District Council’s approved timetable for preparing its core strategy envisages completion of the draft core strategy (prior to its submission for examination) by August 2007.

Advantages:

• The approach would provide the best opportunity for considering policies overlapping the two areas. • The combined resources of both authorities would be potentially available. • Consultative programmes/meetings involving the public and stakeholders could be coordinated, providing clarity about the aim of parallel processes (e.g. community strategy, LDF and Management Plan consultations). • Strategic sub-regional and trans-boundary issues could be tackled in a consistent and comprehensive manner. • A single examination of the core strategy would be expected to reduce costs. • Maximum opportunity would exist for tapping the experience accumulated in strategic and local planning for the former New Forest Heritage Area.

Disadvantages:

• A joint document dealing with areas within and outside the National Park boundary could lead to confusion about the New Forest’s status as a National Park in terms of public perception and awareness. • The timetable for developing the National Park Management Plan would be shortened by 6-9 months (to August 2007), creating pressure on preparing this vital document which will guide national park policies for the next ten years (although NFDC has indicated a willingness to relax its existing plan preparation programme by 3-4 months). • Differences of opinion on strategic aims and policies and conflicting priorities for implementation could delay the preparation of the document and require compromises that might weaken delivery of National Park goals or, in the worst case, make joint production impossible. • A greater level of interest could be shown by developers, landowners and other consultees in the areas lying outside the National Park rather than inside its boundaries, resulting in more time being spent on these issues and policies at the expense of the Management Plan aims and objectives. • Any ambiguity in the wording of the core strategy relating to control of development in outlying areas could be used by developers and their agents to support appeals within the National Park. (It should be noted, however, that equivalent treatment of the New Forest Heritage Area in the existing Local Plan has never given rise to this problem).

8 Discussion

23. Analysis of the two basic options indicates that there are advantages and disadvantages with both approaches.

24. The strength of an independent approach would lie in avoiding ambiguity about the status of the National Park and in being able to build on and allow sufficient time for the preparation of the Management Plan, and in being seen to be preparing an exclusively National Park oriented plan.

25. The benefits of a joint core strategy would be gained through adopting a consistent but not identical spatial planning approach across the park boundaries and recognising that things happening outside the Park will directly affect its interests and vice-versa. Examples of the pressures on the landscape and enjoyment of the New Forest which arise in the adjacent areas include housing expansion, mineral production and traffic generation.

26. There would also be benefits in applying consistent sustainability objectives and Strategic Environmental Assessment/Sustainability Appraisal (SEA/SA) to the joint planning process. Finally, a joint approach by the two authorities should make it easier to incorporate the Community Strategies for the relevant areas into the core strategy.

27. It is important to note that any decisions reached now can be modified at a later date by revising the National Park Authority’s LDS. Consequently, if a decision is taken to prepare a joint core strategy with New Forest District Council and any of the disadvantages identified above became too difficult to manage, the Authority could then elect to prepare its own core strategy.

Conclusion

28. Taking all factors into account, on balance the benefits of collaboration favour a joint approach, providing the disadvantages described above can be minimised. Ways of overcoming the risks of a joint approach are explored in part two.

Recommendation 1: The Authority resolves to confirm, in principle and subject to discussion with the Government Office for the South East (GOSE), the Authority's intention to prepare a joint core strategy development plan document with the New Forest District Council.

Part Two – Refining the approach to joint working

29. As discussed in paragraphs 18-20, the concept of a joint core strategy is that of a single document which covers the whole of the National Park, and New Forest District. However advice from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in PPS 12 (Local Development Frameworks) stresses the flexibility of the new approach. Accordingly, officials have discussed with New Forest District Council and with other adjacent authorities, the option of producing the joint core strategy in sections that would clearly identify that part of the document relating to the National Park and that part applying to the remainder of New Forest District. Another approach would be to split the document into two volumes which would reinforce the distinction between the policies relating to the National Park and those applying to areas outside the Park.

30. Regardless of the format of the final document, both authorities would work together on all stages of its preparation, including consultation, drafting and review of drafts. Each Authority would need to consider the draft documents (issues and options papers, preferred options, and submission draft) and related Sustainability Appraisal and SEA reports. They would also need to endorse the content of the entire document. However, in separating the document into discrete sections or volumes the risk of confusion over the status of the National Park could be minimised.

31. Informal discussion with the Planning Inspectorate suggests that there would be no obstacles to presenting the core strategy for examination in sections, or in separate volumes as long as both authorities had been fully involved and had adopted the entire plan. At the same time the Inspector holding a single examination into the core strategy could be briefed to ensure that the implications of changing the content of one section/volume on another section /volume were taken into account.

32. In developing a joint core strategy, the New Forest National Park Authority would carefully consider the interests of both Salisbury District and Test Valley Borough Councils in ensuring that their respective community strategies were taken into account in developing the relevant section/volume of the core strategy.

Recommendation 2: Members are invited to confirm a preference for the joint core strategy to be produced in two interlinked volumes, with one covering the National Park area and the second, the remaining areas of the New Forest District.

Other Documents in the Local Development Framework

33. The most important decision that needs to be taken by the Authority in preparing its indicative Local Development Scheme (LDS) is whether or not to prepare a joint core strategy with New Forest District Council (and its decision on whether or not to join Hampshire County Council, Southampton City Council and Portsmouth City Council in preparing a joint LDF for minerals and waste (see next section)).

34. The National Park LDS will also need to explore what other documents are likely to be required and produced in the next three years. A provisional list of subject areas has been drawn up and this is presented in the box below. It is not critical at this stage to decide which of the documents would be produced, or to decide whether they would be prepared jointly with other authorities or independently by the Authority. One of the merits of the new planning system is that it leaves a high degree of flexibility and discretion to individual authorities.

POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENTS FOR THE NEW FOREST NATIONAL PARK

STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT (SCI)

CORE STRATEGY Development Plan Development (DPD) Topics: Long-term vision for the National Park Achieving sustainability Landscape protection / enhancement (1st Purpose) Nature conservation and biodiversity Built heritage, history and archaeology Recreation and tourism (2nd Purpose) Management of land Water environment (rivers/coast/mires/pools) Commoning Community strategies Housing Accessibility and traffic management Employment Environmental protection Education Health Utilities including communications

PROPOSALS MAP

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL POLICIES

RECREATION and TOURISM DPD

AREA ACTION PLANS (Supplementary planning documents/SPDs) (Settlement Based?) – Town and Parish Plans

FOREST MANAGEMENT DPD Joint Action Plans for trans boundary issues ( grazing)

TRANSPORT and ACCESS DPD

SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE

HOUSING Siting, design and affordability

ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT

Part Three - Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework

Background

35. Minerals extraction and waste management are treated as separate considerations from other aspects of land use planning because of the specialised issues raised. Until recently minerals and waste planning were treated as ‘county matters’. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004, has confirmed County Councils, Unitary Authorities and National Park Authorities as Mineral Planning Authorities with responsibility for both minerals and waste planning. The link between minerals and waste planning was once very strong because most waste was used to ‘landfill’ disused mineral workings. Today, these links are becoming less apparent as more waste is recycled or treated. Nevertheless landfill will remain essential for some forms of residual waste disposal into the foreseeable future.

36. In the case of National Park Authorities, the government has advised that the authority should either develop its own strategy and policies for minerals and waste within its core strategy, or it should prepare a joint local development framework with adjoining authorities.

37. At present, Hampshire County Council, and the city councils of Southampton and Portsmouth are engaged in drafting a Preferred Options Document for a joint LDF for Minerals and Waste. (This is the penultimate stage before the Draft Plan is submitted for examination). The Preferred Options document will be published for public consultation in September 2005.

38. The greater part of the New Forest National Park is included within the emerging Minerals and Waste development plan document, because HCC remains the Minerals Planning Authority until the New Forest National Park Authority takes up its strategic and local planning functions in April 2006. The National Park Authority is an observer on a members’ group which is overseeing preparation of the Minerals and Waste LDF and it has also been represented by officers on a technical working group.

39. In addition to the Hampshire area of the National Park, the Authority will also assume responsibility for minerals and waste planning in the Salisbury District area, which is currently covered by the existing plans of Wiltshire County Council and the Wiltshire and Swindon emerging joint Minerals and Waste LDF.

Importance of Minerals and Waste in relation to the New Forest

40. Minerals: The New Forest National Park boundary excludes most of the sand and gravel bearing land of the Avon Valley which is one of the major sources of aggregates in Hampshire, although many of the gravel pits lie within the former New Forest Heritage Area. Continued extraction of sand and gravel has significant environmental effects on the National Park in terms of its landscape setting and the adverse impact of road haulage of minerals. There are other small deposits of sand and gravel that are commercially viable in the southern/south eastern area of the National Park but only one working site exists.

12 41. Government policy on mineral working within National Parks has consistently maintained that extraction should only be permitted if the resource is required in the national interest, all other alternative sites have been considered and there is no lasting environmental damage. This policy would preclude any further sites being identified for the working of sand and gravel within the National Park. However, the Proposed Changes to Regional Planning Guidance for the South East – Waste and Minerals (RPG9) was issued for consultation on 24 August 2005 by the Government Office for the South East and this contains certain suggested policy statements that are considered to be inconsistent with national guidance. A separate report on this document will be prepared and presented to the Authority at its October meeting.

42. In addition to superficial mineral deposits, rock structures underlying the New Forest area are potentially of a type which could contain reserves of oil and gas. There has been a history of interest in drilling to explore for such reserves which has been strongly resisted and the existing mineral plan specifically prohibits exploration or extraction of hydrocarbons.

43. The consultation draft of RPG 9 Waste and Minerals contains only two sentences on this subject as quoted below:

"11.28 Oil is currently being extracted under Hampshire, but there is currently no evidence of market demand for hydrocarbons.’…. And,

11.59 While there is no specific regional policy regarding hydrocarbons …, it is important that mineral planning authorities with such resources within their area consider these as part of their preparation of local development documents".

44. The current draft of the Preferred Options Hampshire Joint LDS on Minerals and Waste proposes that a new policy should be introduced on Oil and Gas exploration and extraction within the New Forest National Park which would allow such development in some circumstances.

45. Authority staff have advised HCC that the proposed wording is inconsistent with national policy on mineral working and have advised that the existing policy should be retained until the National Park Mineral Planning Authority has considered the issue. This matter will be addressed in a separate paper to the October meeting of the authority.

46. In connection with oil and gas exploration, members should be aware that the Government is currently considering which areas should be included in the 13th round of on-shore oil and gas exploration licenses to be commercially tendered to mineral exploration companies. The area of search currently includes the whole of the New Forest National Park. A strategic environmental assessment is being conducted by consultants on behalf of government to determine whether any areas of search should be excluded. No approach has been made to the National Park Authority for information or advice, although it is understood that a scoping report has been submitted to the statutory consultees. We have written to the Department of Trade and Industry, asking for the National Park Authority to be consulted on the findings when they are published this autumn and verbal confirmation has been given that the Authority will be given this opportunity.

13 Waste Management Planning

47. Hampshire, Southampton and Portsmouth are generally recognised to have been very progressive in their approach to waste management, and the levels of recycling are above average. In general terms the strategy should be neutral in terms of delivering National Park purposes, although there will be a need to examine very carefully references to waste treatment facilities lying immediately to the east of the National Park at Marchwood and Fawley.

48. The National Park Minerals Planning Authority will also need to incorporate relevant strategies/policies to cover waste management activities within the Wiltshire area including Pound Bottom.

Issues and choices

49. The background to minerals and waste has been discussed in some detail, because it is relevant to the National Park Authority’s decision on whether to seek to work jointly with adjacent authorities or to produce its own minerals and waste policies. It should be noted that all comments about the advantages and disadvantages of preparing a joint or single document relate to strategy and policy formulation. The National Park Minerals planning authority will be responsible in any event for taking all planning development control decisions on minerals and waste within the National Park, regardless of the route used to develop the strategy and policies.

Factors favouring joint working

50. The following factors strongly favour a joint approach:

• A great deal of research and consultation has already taken place with the minerals and waste industries and other stakeholders in preparing the preferred options document for the joint core strategy currently being produced by the Hampshire, Southampton and Portsmouth authorities.

• It is judged that most of the proposals contained in the Preferred Options Document (referred to in the preceding bullet) would be supported by the Authority.

• The issues of waste management need to be dealt with on a regional or sub-regional basis and the New Forest National Park area would benefit from the proposals to develop processing and treatment facilities in areas lying remote from the Park.

• By participating in a Joint Minerals and Waste LDF, the Authority might be in a stronger position to influence the development of policies affecting the Avon Valley and other mineral resource zones lying outside the National Park, than if it developed its own policies in isolation.

14 Factors militating against this approach

51. The main concern lies in the fact that the other participating authorities have different priorities from the National Park Authority and may be unwilling to support the special provisions needed in a minerals and waste plan to secure the National Park purposes of landscape, wildlife and cultural heritage protection and enhancement and public enjoyment of the resource. Moreover, the National Park Authority will need to be effectively resourced to be able to contribute to the creation of policies influencing an area much larger than the National Park.

Factors favouring incorporation of policies in the National Park Core Strategy

52. The principal arguments in favour of the National Park Minerals Planning Authority adopting its own policies are considered to be:

• The National Park Mineral Planning Authority would be able to state, in its own terms, the importance of National Park purposes and the strictly limited circumstances under which mineral exploitation would be permitted within the Park. This could result in a more robust strategy and set of policies than the current joint LDF is likely to deliver, based on observations to date.

• Policies on minerals and waste could be more closely aligned with the objectives of the National Park Management Plan.

• The New Forest National Park would be following the approach adopted by all other National Parks.

Factors militating against this approach:

• The National Park Mineral Planning Authority has limited experience in dealing with this area of planning.

• The Authority is not a waste management authority and recent government guidance stresses the importance of integrating waste management and planning.

• The National Park Mineral Planning Authority would have less influence over strategic planning decisions affecting minerals and waste in areas adjacent to the Park.

Discussion

53. Reservations exist about the extent to which the National Park Minerals Planning Authority will be able to influence the shape and substance of the current HCC core strategy for the joint LDF for Minerals and Waste, given its intended date for submission for examination in May, 2006, shortly after the New Forest NPA takes up its responsibilities in this field. However, subject to a major proviso that crucial emerging policies relating to mineral exploration, extraction and processing in the National Park are revised to the satisfaction of the National Park Authority over the next 3-6 months, it is felt that the advantages of this approach outweigh any dis- benefits.

15 54. It is proposed that an approach should be made to the other three authorities indicating that the National Park Minerals Planning Authority is interested in preparing a joint Minerals and Waste LDF with Hampshire, Southampton and Portsmouth but only subject to reaching agreement on changes that would need to be made to the current Preferred Options LDF, including the form of wording that would satisfy the National Park Mineral Planning Authority on minerals policies for the National Park area.

55. Providing agreement can be reached by the time that the joint LDF is ready for submission in February 2006, the National Park Mineral Planning Authority would formally confirm its endorsement in its Local Development Scheme which will be approved in draft format in December 2005, but not formally adopted until the Minerals Planning Authority takes up its planning functions in April, 2006.

56. If agreement is not reached by the date of submission on the appropriate wording to deliver national park purposes, then the authority could reconsider its position and, if necessary, opt to amend its LDS and develop its own minerals and waste strategy and policies.

Recommendation 3: The Authority resolves to confirm its intention to seek agreement with Hampshire County Council, and Southampton and Portsmouth City Councils to produce a Joint Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework for the four authorities’ areas, subject to appropriate amendments being made to the Preferred Options Document on minerals policies affecting the National Park.

Part Four – Statement of Community Involvement

57. New Forest District Council is seeking to confirm its Statement of Community Involvement for submission to the Secretary of State by October 2006. We have provided comments on previous drafts. The timescale for its production is such that it is likely to be an adopted document by the time that the Authority becomes the planning authority, and as such the Authority will inherit it along with other planning policies/documents relevant to the National Park.

58. It would be helpful if the document reflects any decision taken by this Authority on how it intends to take forward its core strategy e.g. at para.4.10 of the draft for submission.

59. At the same time the Authority may wish to confirm its support for the Statement of Community Involvement produced by New Forest District Council, with the appropriate reference to the NPA’s decision on producing the core strategy for the National Park. The draft document to be submitted to the Secretary of State is attached at Annex 1 to this report.

Recommendation 4: That the Authority resolves to confirm its support for the Statement of Community Involvement prepared by New Forest District Council and to agree to work closely with the District Council and with Test Valley Borough Council and Salisbury District Council in developing common approaches to community liaison on plan-making processes.

16 Part Five - Principle of joint working

60. Proposals in the preceding text, for formal joint working on the National Park Authority’s core strategy will need to be supplemented by informal working on a range of planning issues. In particular, regular liaison with adjacent and constituent authorities will be needed to ensure proper recognition of all the community strategies affecting the National Park, and to explore any opportunities for joint working e.g on research, supplementary planning advice, shared topic based policies, and opportunities for integrated working at sub-regional and regional level.

Recommendation 5: To confirm this Authority's ongoing commitment to close informal working with all of the constituent local authorities and adjacent planning authorities.