Skip to content

AONB and national park review... what might it mean for us?

Elementary Admin
By Elementary Admin &
30th May 2018
Brabourne Lees is close to the Kent Downs AONB. Could it soon be neighbouring a national park?

Could the Kent Downs and High Weald be among our next national parks?
The intriguing possibility has been raised by Environment Secretary Michael Gove’s launch of a review into the role of the country’s national parks and AONBs (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty).
Mr Gove wrote in the weekend’s Sunday Telegraph that the “the time is right” for such a reappraisal, almost 70 years after the creation of our first national parks.
The review, which was committed to in the government’s 25 Year Environment Plan published in January, will look at the possibility of expanding England’s network of national parks and AONBs.
It has been widely suggested that some of England’s 34 AONBs could essentially be upgraded and added to our 10 national parks. Our county has two AONBs: the Kent Downs and the High Weald, the latter shared with Sussex and Surrey.
Population growth, changes in technology and habitat decline were cited by Mr Gove as reasons to “look afresh at these landscapes”.
Hilary Newport, CPRE Kent director, said: “I’m delighted that the review could lead to a strengthening of protection for our natural areas.
“However, it would also be good to see proper protection of the designated landscapes that we already have, notably in Kent our two AONBs.
“Further, it would be encouraging if the review of our planning system followed sustainable principles that had protection of our most treasured landscapes at their core.”
Emma Marrington, CPRE senior rural policy campaigner, added:CPRE warmly welcomes the appointment of an independent panel to carry out this potentially game-changing review.
“National parks and AONBs are of huge importance to the nation; two-thirds of people in England live within 30 minutes of a national park or AONB, with visitors contributing more than £6 billion each year to the local economy.
“The review will also consider how national parks and AONBs deliver their responsibilities and are financed – these areas offer great value for money, with public spending on these landscapes less than £1 per person each year.
“It is also important that existing national parks and AONBs are well resourced and able to deliver their responsibilities effectively.
“This includes by ensuring they continue to have the highest level of planning protection in the revised national planning framework.”

Wednesday, May 30, 2018

  • A number of important documents have yet to emerge. For example, a rigorous transport plan and a finalised air-quality assessment. The latter is critical given that allocations at Teynham will feed extra traffic into AQMAs.
  • There seems to be no coherent plan for infrastructure delivery – a key component of the plan given the allocations being proposed near the already crowded Junction 7.
  • There seems to have been little or no cooperation with neighbouring boroughs or even parish councils within Swale itself.

The removal of a second consultation might have been understandable if this final version of the plan were similar to that being talked about at the beginning of the consultation process. It is, however, radically different in the following ways:

  • There has been a major shift in the balance of housing allocations, away from the west of the borough over to the east, especially around the historic town of Faversham. This is a move that raises many concerns.
  • A new large allocation, with accompanying A2 bypass, has appeared around Teynham and Lynsted, to which we are objecting.
  • Housing allocations in the AONB around Neames Forstal that were judged “unsuitable” by the council’s own officers have now appeared as part of the housing numbers.
  • Most of the housing allocations being proposed are on greenfield sites, many of them on Grade 1 agricultural land – a point to which we are strongly objecting.

Concerns about the rush to submit the plan

The haste with which the plan is being prepared is especially worrying given the concentration of housing in Faversham. If the town is to take a large amount of new housing, it is imperative that the policies concerning the area are carefully worked out to preserve, as far as possible, the unique nature of the town. The rush to submit the plan is likely to prove detrimental.

As Swale does not have a five-year land housing supply, it is open to speculative development proposals, many of which would run counter to the ideas contained in the current plan. Some are already appearing. This is a common situation, and one that, doubtless, is a reason behind Swale’s haste.

Our overriding fear, however, is that this emphasis on haste is ultimately going to prove counterproductive. This is because it is our view that the plan, in its current form, is unlikely to pass independent examination. We are urging Swale to listen to and act upon the comments being made about the plan and to return the plan to the council with appropriate modifications before submitting it to the Secretary of State.

Essentially, this means treating the current consultation not as the final one but as the ‘lost’ second consultation.

The consultation ends on Friday 30 April and we strongly urge residents to make their opinions known if they have not already done so.

Further information