Planning Issues and AONB Management Plans Sally Marsh Director High Weald AONB

1. The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural BeautyOne of England’s Finest Landscapes Planning Issues and AONB Management Plans Sally Marsh Director High Weald AONB

2. Threats:The growth agenda

3. Threats:Housing development • New development • On the edge of the AONB and affecting the integrity of the AONB boundary • On “sustainable “ village edge locations. Can be substantial - 100 – 250 houses • Small scale and infill, may include affordable housing as justification • Change of use and redevelopment • Expansion, modification and replacement of existing dwellings

4. Housing pressure in the High Weald AONB

5. Threats • Changes in permitted development rights for homeowners, and changes of use • Office to residential - B1(a) office space c/u to C3 residential • Agricultural to commercial uses - Redundant agricultural buildings c/u to employment, hotel, leisure uses • Suspension of Section 85 ‘duty of regard’ under Growth & Infrastructure bill section 7 Erosion of AONB “policy of restraint”

6. Planning principles

7. Planning principles • AONB is a rural designation: legal framework provided by Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW) and overseen by Defra • But AONBs have little or no Planning status; • Not designated by the LPA • Not defined by local plans (unlike National Parks) • Not referred to in the planning acts • Little policy relating to them • To what extent does DCLG understand AONBs?

8. Separate systems • AONBs are perceived by the public to have a planning function and most people come into contact with them through planning • People expect the AONB to have a greater influence on planning issues than it actually does • In reality of course it is about balance and a weighing of issues • The AONB can always be (democratically) over-ruled by other planning issues BUT it is important that the impacts on the AONB are properly recognised and accounted for in decision making

9. The planning system • The Planning System • NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) • Development Plan - Local Plans (including core strategies, development plan documents, SPDs )/ Neighbourhood Plans • Development control • Planning appeal system AONB Management Plans Landowners Agents Architects Developers Communities

10. Planning Principles • Local plans and neighbourhood plans must be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF ) • Planning decisions must be taken in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise • AONB Management Plans are a ‘material consideration’ that can be taken into account No requirement that they have to be considered or that they carry anymore weight than other considerations. But there are examples where they have been significant in planning decisions

11. NPPF : Key principles A presumption in favour of sustainable development BUT the presumption in favour of sustainable development may notapply in AONB’s - this has yet to be tested at appeal! Para 14: • ‘Local plans should meet objectively assessed needs’ and ‘where the development plan is absent or silent permission should be granted’ unlessspecific policies in this framework indicate development should be restricted. For example ...those policies relating to ..sites protected under the birds and habitats directives ;.....an AONB...or within a National Park

12. NPPF • Actual planning policy relating to AONBs is scarce • National policy for AONBs is contained in just two paras - 115 and 116 These are the only strategic references to AONB’s and the only statement of the role of AONBs in the planning system • Para 115 – ‘Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty which has the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty

13. NPPF Policy wording PPS7 NPPF

14. Major development Para 116 states that major development should be refused except in exceptional circumstances. Three tests need to be rigorously and systematically demonstrated: • the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy; • the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and • any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.

15. Our role • We can provide expert evidence on the impact of the development on the purpose of AONB designation - natural beauty (or landscape and scenic beauty) • to enable decision makers (LPAs or planning inspectors) to properly weigh the harm to the AONB against any demonstrated need for the development. • AONB Management Plans are the key • We need to define ‘natural beauty’ in a coordinated and consistent way

16. Does use of LCAs and LVIA lead to better development decisions in AONBs?

17. Assessing landscape impact in the planning system Categorize and sub-divide landscapes Describe landscape units in a ‘value free’ way Claim to be objective Use a template of standard descriptive phrases Consider all landscape elements but with emphasis on the visual Other aspects such as geology and heritage are ‘layered’ on in GIS

18. LCAs in the High Weald AONB

19. LVIA at its worst • Proposal for 160 houses in the AONB on the edge of Hawkhurst village This report demonstrates that the proposed development …..incorporating the necessary mitigation measures, in particular new tree and hedgerow planting could be successfully accommodated and assimilated into the surrounding landscape without causing significant or unacceptable harm to the landscape character, visual amenity or landscape features of the area. • Proposal for new primary school at Etchingham in the AONB The boundaries of the site would be reinforced and softened with new hedgerow planting proposals, and native tree planting groups, softening and filtering views into the development area from the surrounding rural landscape. In summary, the development proposals are largely enclosed and contained within the existing site vegetation, and the proposed woodland and hedgerow boundary planting proposals to the east, north, and north-western edges, and the change in land use and visual impact would be limited

20. Visual impact v physical harm • There is an over reliance on visual and scenic concerns at the expense of assessing character and harm to the physical fabric of the landscape • The language can be misleading – from the ground an ‘enclosed’ landscape can become one of ‘concealment and views revealed’ resulting in different policy responses

21. Challenges • Seek recognition that most development will have real and actual physical impacts • Many applications try to explain away real harm to excuse development. • Harm will occur and needs to be explicitly recognised and assessed Development ALWAYS results in change but not all change is damaging – understand capacity, assess impact and make a judgement Mitigation is a response to harm, a way of ameliorating but not eliminating impact - not justification for allowing the development

22. The myth of containment • the approach of simply “containing” development, using additional planting to increase the “enclosure” is not a responsible approach to the conservation and enhancement of the AONB. • Simple screening or hiding development does not reduce or mitigate harm, it is a metaphorical ‘sweeping under the carpet’ • The harm has still occurred, the loss of amenity and character has still occurred and the character of the AONB has been altered regardless of whether it can be seen or not.

23. Management Plan Response

24. Defining natural beauty:The statement of significance - Note the word Significance • Not a general description of the landscape: It needs to identify what makes the area distinctive • what defines character at an AONB scale? - the fundamental and defining character of the AONB as a whole not features that may describe sub-areas or be distinctive at a local level • what makes the AONB distinctive, special and different from surrounding areas? (assess survival and capacity for change - distinguish between characteristics that are transitory and those that have a long time depth)

25. Statement of Significance:Principles • Understand the landscaper over time • To determine historic depth, meaning and function • Identify the core components of character that define the AONB as a whole • Unifying characteristics, unique pattern of physical components • Separate objectively determined character components from more subjective perceptual and aesthetic qualities so we can distinguish between damage to the physical fabric of the landscape and impairment of our enjoyment of it (views)

26. Making sure LVIAs work for AONBs • Doesn’t mean perceptual and aesthetic qualities are not important but they are more difficult to deal with and we need to construct different arguments around them • Doesn’t mean that LCAs are not important - All landscapes matter to people at a local level and LCAs are an excellent tool to determine local distinctiveness • For development in AONBs we need to make sure both parts of the LVIA are applied properly • Landscape impact assessment needs to operate at TWO levels – assessing impact on individual local landscape elements with a clearly separate and additional layer looking a impact on AONB character components which are of higher status and score higher in terms of sensitivity

27. High Weald: Statement of Significance Ridged and faulted landform, sandrock outcrops and gill streams Great extent of interconnected ancient woodland Radiating pattern of ancient routeways Dispersed historic Settlement One of the best preserved medieval landscapes in North-West Europe A mosaic of small fields

28. Character components that define the AONB as a whole: Gills

29. Character components that define the AONB as a whole: dispersed settlement

30. Appeal decision, High Weald AONB, 1st Feb 2013,

31. AONB responses to development proposals and planning inquiries • Be clear about direct physical impacts on landscape not just visual harm • – use the MP Statement of Significance • - insist LVIAs deal with higher level AONB characteristics separately from local landscape features, affording the former greater weight • Any damage to AONB character should be resisted by AONB Units – there is no graduation of status or condition • Only once the impact has been properly acknowledged and a judgement been made by others, weighing harm to the AONB against the need for and justification of the development, should any mitigation or compensation proposal come into play

32. Other planning challenges • Referencing in Core Strategies • Essential to have AONB referenced in Core Strategy • Policy at highest policy level • Always seek to get AONB referred to in the highest level of policy making, it all cascades down • Maintaining AONB profile • Need to ensure that the profile of AONB is not diluted or subsumed into other ‘general’ policy • Use other relevant NPPF paragraphs to support AONB character

33. Thank you

34. NPPF para 64 - Permission should be refused for development of poor design • Develop design principles to support para 58 .....Development should..function well...establish a strong sense of place ..and respond to local character • Work with county archaeologists to ensure character components identified in statement of significance are recorded on HER (para 169 • Ensure character and qualities are reflected in local landscape character assessments (pata 170)

35. Identify how biodiversity and ecosystem assets identified in the Statement of Significance contribute to Ecological Network strategies (para 117) • Carry out dark skies analysis to inform requirement to limit light pollution (para 125) • Identify areas free from noise pollution to inform requirement to protect tranquillity (para 123) • Revise the Ancient Woodland Inventory to include woodlands less than 2ha to support protection for irreplaceable habitats (para 118)