Report to the Secretary of State The Planning Inspectorate Temple Quay House for Environment, Food and 2 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN Rural Affairs GTN 1371 8000 by Robert Neil Parry BA DIPTP MRTPI An Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Date: Food and Rural Affairs 28 November 2008 THE SOUTH DOWNS NATIONAL PARK INSPECTOR’S REPORT (2) Volume 1 Inquiry (2) held between 12 February 2008 and 4 July 2008 Inquiry held at The Chatsworth Hotel, Steyne, Worthing, BN11 3DU Temple Quay House 28 November 2008 2 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS2 9DJ To the Right Honourable Hilary Benn MP Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Sir South Downs National Park (Designation) Order 2002 East Hampshire Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Revocation) Order 2002 Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Revocation) Order 2002 South Downs National Park (Variation) Order 2004 The attached report relates to the re-opened inquiry into the above orders that I conducted at the Chatsworth Hotel, Worthing. The re-opened inquiry sat on 27 days between 12 February 2008 and 28 May 2008 and eventually closed on 4 July 2008. In addition to the inquiry sessions I spent about 10 days undertaking site visits. These were normally unaccompanied but when requested they were undertaken in the company of inquiry participants and other interested parties. I held a Pre- Inquiry meeting to discuss the administrative and procedural arrangements for the inquiry at Hove Town Hall on 12 December 2007. The attached report takes account of all of the evidence and submissions put forward at the re-opened inquiry together with all of the representations put forward in writing during the public consultation period. This ran for 12 weeks from 2 July 2007 to 24 September 2007. Over 2000 representations were submitted from local authorities, organisations and private individuals. With the agreement of Natural England I have also taken account of the small number of representations submitted after the consultation period had closed. The list of all of those who submitted representations and/or appeared at the re-opened inquiry is attached to the report. Also attached are lists of core documents and other inquiry documents. A separate volume contains maps showing the boundaries that I now recommend for any new National Park. The terms of reference for the re-opened inquiry were as follows: 1. To consider any implications for the South Downs National Park Designation Order 2002 (as varied by the South Downs Variation Order 2004) arising directly as a result of the revised National Parks legislation – namely the amendments to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 made by the National Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006; 2. To consider any implications for the same Designation Order (as varied by the Variation Order) arising directly as a result of the High Court and Court of Appeal judgements in the challenge by Meyrick Estate Management Ltd relating to the New Forest National Park; 3. To consider the possible alternative boundary line running north and east of Petersfield produced by Natural England at Defra’s request, based on a recommendation in the South Downs Inquiry Report, Volume 1, Part 2 (para. 2.71); and 4. To consider any objections to the additional areas of land recommended in the South Downs Inquiry Report for inclusion within the proposed South Downs National Park. 5. I was also asked to indicate if any other points raised during the further public consultation cause me to change any of the recommendations set out in my previous report (#CD3). That report was in 2 parts. Part 1 considered whether there were any overriding “in-principle” objections to a new National Park. Part 2 looked at the land that might be included and the way the boundary should be drawn. The attached report begins with a preamble, to set the scene so to speak, and then considers items 1 to 4 above as discrete topics. The report then looks at the implications for land having AONB status in the event that the designation order is confirmed (or not) together with “new” evidence brought to my attention. This material was not to-hand when #CD3 was written and many claim that the evidence is material to the decisions to be taken on the respective orders. As mentioned in the preamble, I agreed at the outset of the re-opened inquiry that “new” evidence should be heard to ensure that the decisions on the respective orders were based on the most up-to-date evidence. The preamble also indicates the circumstances in which I said I was prepared to hear arguments concerning the inclusion or otherwise of the so-called Western Weald in the PSDNP. The report then sets out my overall conclusions. This aims to bring the threads together. It sets out my assessment of the Western Weald, the A3 Corridor and the Lower Rother Valley and also addresses the “especially desirable” test. My recommendations in respect of the individual orders follow. The report concludes with a review of the detailed boundary recommendations which it is said are defective in the light of the Meyrick judgements, the NERC Act and so on. My earlier report, #CD3, accepted that the proposed South Downs National Park (PSDNP) contained extensive tracts of land that merited National Park status and deserved the additional resources, focus and integrated management that a National Park Authority (NPA) can provide. None of the written or oral evidence put before the re- opened inquiry claims that the Meyrick judgements, the NERC Act or any other matter undermine that conclusion. The attached report is written, therefore, on the premise that there are no overriding “in- principle” objections to the creation of a new South Downs National Park in the South-East of England. On the other hand the re-opened inquiry convinces me that some of the key conclusions and recommendations in Part 2 of #CD3 need to be reviewed. On occasions the new law or “new” evidence dramatically alters the balance of the arguments but often it simply tips the balance one way or the other. In the following few paragraphs I indicate briefly key changes to the conclusions and recommendations set out in #CD3. It seems to me that this is necessary to ensure a proper understanding of the differences between my earlier report, #CD3, and the attached report. While accepting that a new National Park was appropriate in principle, I separately recommended in paragraph 2.68 of Part 2 of #CD3 that any new National Park should be more closely focussed on the core Chalk hills, more precisely the ridge of Chalk that extends for about 110km from Winchester to Eastbourne. That recommendation took account of the advice offered by the Landscape Assessor appointed to the earlier sessions of the South Downs Inquiry. It also, as I saw it, reflected the approach adopted by the Landscape Assessor appointed to the New Forest National Park, an approach accepted in that instance by the Inspector and Secretary of State in turn. If the new National Park is more closely focussed on the core Chalk hills a significant amount of land subject to the 2002 designation order would not be part of any new National Park. In particular an extensive tract of Wealden landscape generally situated to the east of the A3 corridor and north of the Lower Rother Valley would be excluded. Much of this area, commonly identified as the Western Weald, enjoys, and continues to deserve, AONB status. In the light of the Meyrick judgements and the NERC Act I am no longer persuaded that the new National Park should be more closely focussed on the core Chalk hills. Both matters were appraised in detail at the re-opened inquiry. I now accept that in the wake of the judgements and the NERC Act that the inclusion or otherwise of land in a National Park should not depend on the presence of characteristic natural beauty. Put another way there is no need for a National Park to display a distinctive and coherent identity. The Western Weald should not be excluded simply because its characteristic natural beauty is decidedly different to that of the core Chalk hills. In the face of the new law introduced by the NERC Act I also attach far less weight to the presence of traditional or hallmark National Park qualities such as ruggedness, tranquillity, wildness and remoteness in the assessment of the statutory criteria. They are not irrelevant for assessment purposes but land should not be excluded because it lacks one or more hallmark qualities. It also follows, it seems to me, that the presence of hallmark qualities is not a pre-requisite for satisfaction of the recreational opportunities test. Many claim that the Western Weald exhibits hallmark qualities in any event and a mass of material was put before the re-opened inquiry in support of the contention. Conversely, the NERC Act clarifies that cultural heritage and wildlife qualities are relevant to an assessment of the statutory natural beauty criterion. These matters were not ignored when #CD3 was written but I am conscious that they may not have been given appropriate weight. The NERC Act also provides some additional discretion when applying the recreational opportunities discretion. It allows for the potential to provide enhanced recreational opportunities to be taken into account. #CD3 also emphasised the importance of consistency in the interpretation and application of policy decisions. In particular I said that it was important for the PSDNP to be consistent with the approach adopted in the New Forest National Park, unless there were convincing grounds for not doing so.