NAAONB PLANNING WORKSHOP
BIRMINGHAM
27th FEBRUARY 2013
Professor Peter Bibby – University of Sheffield:
Setting the Scene – How AONB designation performs in the context of development permissions:
Based upon lifestyle and development context, rather than environment
AONBs are desirable landscapes, which create a demand for planning
Prof. Bibby’s figures were based upon economic mass, i.e. number of homes within 10 km
There is more to lifestyle than having to travel a long way – you have to have money to travel
North Devon AONB only has 2.7 directorships per 100 households – this is the second lowest figure in the country, with only Solway AONB having less
Forecast for household growth in 2020 – falling household size – single living – greater longevity – dependent upon growth in real income
According to Royal Mail statistics, three out of five new homes build between 2001 and 2011 were built in urban areas. Stock grew by 8.8%. There was marked growth in areas not classified as villages, towns or named places, etc.(“nowhere”)
In the South West, there was greater growth relative to stock, but the volume of stock is low
Increased number of dwellings in AONBs in 2001-11 was 44,000, representing 2.3% of total. Stock grew by 9.8%. 20,000 dwellings were “nowhere”, i.e. not in villages, towns or named places.
The density of dwellings in AONBs grew by 2.2 units per square kilometre.
In North Devon: dwelling growth = 22.1
Dwellings in buffer zones increased 7.8% compared with 2.2% in AONBs
In “nowhere” places, the increase was 1% within AONBs and 1.2% in buffer zones
In AONBs, clusters of 50+ units = 9,500:
All other settings = 34,500
What does being “strategic” really mean? Often means ignoring all but large sites. It should mean reducing uncertainty about:
- what is happening
- what matters to us
- action through partnerships
However, it is efficient for planners only to look at strategic/large scale as this represents half of all growth. But we do need to count the small bits – smaller bits can also be strategic – they add up to considerable numbers over a large spread. How do we get planners into this mindset?
Natural England is funding work on the change in the numbers of addresses that Royal Mail delivers to.
There is also other work going on, updating Ordnance Survey maps.
Lyndis Cole, Principal, LUC
Setting the Scene- Lesson Learnt from Planning Delivery in Protected Landscapes in Wales:
Delivery of Planning Services in statutory designated landscapes in Wales (AONBs and NPs)
Only 2 out of 6 Development Plans introduce the AONB at the outset in a strategic objective or policy
Only 1 or 2 specific policies relate to AONBs
No SPG on AONB area
84.5% of planning applications are approved in AONBs, compared with 85.3% approved in other (non-AONB) areas
25% to 30% of appeals within National Parks are granted – up to 65% of appeals in AONBs are granted (due to lack of development framework)
AONBs are not picked out as being strongly constraining on development, and have no real influence on affordable housing
AONBs are seen as part of the wider landscape and their communities are seen as a constituent part of LA areas – the most rural parts of these authorities
AONBs need:
- a robust development framework
- to work to the boundaries of the AONB
- promote shared training of members
- AONB Partnerships and units to have a district identity
- To ensure the development of their Management Plans
- To have planning guidance
- To monitor planning decisions
- To improve enforcement
Also need to foster
- living landscapes that evolve
- socio-economic opportunities in harmony with development
- strong co-operation based upon common agenda and mutual support
- an “outward-facing mentality”
- sustainable design - in-keeping and using natural materials
Recommendations (e.g. importance of NPAs and AONB in planning terms (as in NPPF)):
- AONB Management Plans to have a special section on Planning
- SPG/SPD on AONB
- AONBs identified prominently in introductory sections of development plans
- Liaison between constitutional authorities
- NAAONB to promote examples of socio-economic development to fit AONB purpose
- Planning function to link with economic development, affordable housing, etc.
- Greater consistency in pre-application advice
Partnerships
- Consistent planning approach
- Planning guidelines for whole of AONB as SPG
- Forge links between the partnership and the planning authorities
- Invite economic development officers, rural housing officers, development managers, etc. to attend workshops
- Remember that AONBs are landscape designations
- Need to have a specific chapter on planning guidance, which can be lifted out and adopted as an SPG
Cornwall Council has used part of Cornwall AONB Management Plan at appeal – national –vs- local
There needs to be a collective reassertion of the importance of AONBs
Need to reinforce that planning tests are the same for NPAs and AONBs
Taylor Review – ensure that important PPGs are not lost
Dave Dixon:
Understanding the role AONB partnerships play in the Planning process – results and analysis of questionnaire completed by 31 AONBs
There is a need to review planning protocols
Spread sheets of individual AONB planning policies on specific topics (i.e. solar/wind/etc.) are being updated
Andrew Gale, National Senior Advisor on Land Use, Natural England
NPPF and Protected Landscapes – Overview of emerging issues, including consideration of the “major development” test
Drivers:
- Localism
- Stimulating economic recovery and growth leading to major housing and infrastructure projects
Major developments in AONBs should be refused except in the case of:
- exceptional circumstances
- public interest
There is also:
- need
- cost or scope of developing elsewhere
- scale
- Taylor review may identify need for new landscape guidance
Neighbourhood Plans:
- duty to co-operate:
- joint LA cross-boundary working
Growth and Infrastructure Bill:
- supports growth and provision of infrastructures
- also disapplies until 2018 the Secretary of State’s duty to have regard in the roll-out of superfast broadband
Review of Minerals Permissions:
- discretion over frequency of review of planning applications for mineral sites (at present, every 15 years)
Wildlife Trusts:
- have produced information for Government over biodiversity issues
Natural England is willing to help and to advise AONBs on guidance
Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) including wind farms, and their impact upon land- and seascapes:
- NSIPs have a new tier of planning
- investing time at the pre-application stage before planning inspectorate receives application
- We need to be working closely with Natural England to ensure that NE understands the impact of NSIPs and what mitigation should be implemented
Natural England’s engagement in development management is on a risk-based approach
NE need only be consulted when NE national perspective and expertise is genuinely needed
Discretionary Advice Scheme:
- NE is starting to charge applicants for pre-application advice, therefore will work with the developer on a paid basis
- Peter Tyldesley has been doing a training programme for NE personnel on landscape character
- NE wants good protocols with local AONBs and LAs
Questions:
- How is NPPF making a difference as a whole and on individual policies?
- Is the duty to co-operate having effect?
- What is the local intelligence on Neighbourhood Plans?
- Is the major development test working?
- NE needs to get its policy framework right
- the core methodology of “setting” is in progress, and AONBs will be contacted
We need reassurance that biodiversity is not taking precedence over landscapes
Sally Marsh, HighWeald AONB:
Responding to planning issues through AONB Management Plan review:
AONB Management Plans have no status, and Partnerships do not have a statutory planning role
Threats:
The growth agenda:
- conscious of legitimate development and bad development
- integrity of AONB boundary
- village edge development
- small scale and infill
Changes of use:
- office to residential
- agricultural to commercial
Expansion, modification and replacement of existing dwellings
SCHLAR being used as justification
Planning Principles:
Management Plans:
- NPPF
- Development Plans - Local Plans, Core Strategy, SPDs, Neighbourhood Plans
- Development Control
- Planning Appeal
Danger that the slimming down all of these plans may mean that AONB policies and plans may be dropped
There are opportunities for AONBs to get planning guidance into Local Plans
There is a difference between policy and a strategic approach – need to ensure that these are both aligned. Also, development control
AONB policy in NPPF – only in paragraphs 115 and 116
NPPF talks of “landscape and scenic beauty”, whereas the CRoW Act talks of “natural beauty”. There is also a difference in the terminology setting out how the importance of AONBs should be assessed – “great weight” versus “highest status”
In paragraph 116, “exceptional circumstances” and “need”
- need for development
- cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the AONB
- any detrimental impact on environment, landscape and recreational opportunities – assessing “harm”
Need to define “natural beauty” in Management Plans
Assessing landscape impact and visual impact:
- need to be clearly separated
o landscape impact – what is there
o visual impact – what you can see
- policies need to stress due weight to both visual and character assessment
- we need to have professional landscape architects to back up LCAs, etc., but there is a shortage of them
EMPHASIS NEEDS TO BE ON VISUAL IMPACT
A new book is to be published shortly from the Landscape Institute
NB: the word “significance”:
- distinctive
- identify core components of character
- separately identify qualities of pattern of landscape as opposed to aesthetic qualities
We need to operate at a landscape and physical level
There is a need for data sets, maps, evidence, etc. to support “natural beauty”
Ways to involve with planning system:
- reference core strategies
- maintain AONB profile, etc.
- to identify “harm” to natural beauty
3.3.13/rd