> On the face of it, it sounds like a wonderful idea. However, some people who
have lived in a National Park (Dartmoor) have fairly strong views that living in
a national park with all its restrictions makes life very difficult, for
everyone. Might this be a good topic for another public debate, with all points of
view represented?
> Have to be careful here over what one hears about the restrictions imposed by
yet another level of bureaucracy. Perhaps OK for blanket conservation of what is
here now but I don't think that it will help with our aims of Sustainability in
any shape or form. How would we develop even small scale energy sources or put
up greenhouses (dare I mention polytunnels) for food production? Is it true that
NPs prevent householders or farmers putting solar on their roofs? Sounds
far too restrictive to my way of thinking.
> I
am a supporter but as indicated there is some strong opposition. I
understand one argument it is about governance ie genuine concerns about who
makes decisions, no voice for community, non elected control group... So
I am a yes with a caveat on how it is controlled giving communities a
say.
> We need long term conservation of the area and the NP will provide extra
protection against the place becoming a clone of everywhere else. Remember EDDC
policy is development before landscape, - they don’t do planning or
sustainability!
Looking at the issues:
Re sustainable development, Dartmoor NP had a bad record 10 years ago: Champion of green homes
bows to planners | Environment | The Guardian
But this might have changed: Sustainable
Development in Dartmoor National Park | Tavistock People which
talks of cash for the
renovation and refurbishment of a water turbine, a feasibility study into the
viability of a prototype vertical axis wind turbine for commercial distribution
etc.
Plus BBC News - Park authority
money for sustainable Dartmoor projects and Grab a grant as we
celebrate 10 years of sustainable development funding on
Dartmoor
NP status doesn’t ‘stop development’, however: www.sevenarchitecture.co.uk/media/pdfs/48c87725e48aa50dfddc7be5c24f94d6.pdf
As for polytunnels, the info is mixed. A planning
application was turned down in 2005 Enforcement case
(ENF/0317/05)
but a grant has been awarded for others:
Funding totalling £5,000 has been provided for the Camphill Devon
Community Ltd to develop food production through land-based day-care activities.
In partnership with South Devon Rural Housing Association, the community will
undergo an expansion of supported living accommodation at sites in Buckfast and
Buckfastleigh and this project aims to develop existing food production areas
including a new polytunnel and thepurchase of an all terrain vehicle suitable
for disabled drivers. Funding for Sustainable
Development on Dartmoor
NP status ‘allows space’ to promote sustainability
issues: this site from the newest NP is perhaps a bit twee but makes the point: The Sustainability Centre -
Welcome
Here are some very critical letters, but from 2006.
Things might have changed since then, though:
National parks are by
no means universally supported and respected (In praise of ... national parks,
January 30). On Dartmoor negative consequences of national park status are
similar to those in other areas... There is no overall plan for renewable energy
production, excessive tidiness has caused many historic structures to be swept
away, and an urbanising and ineffective traffic management scheme has been
imposed Our park authority is a comfortable mediocrity rather than a
sharp-edged, imaginative and environmentally beneficial body. The concept of
national parks is an anachronism based largely on an urban view of the
countryside, rather than a deep understanding of the particular qualities and
resources of a place. Tom Greeves, Chairman, Dartmoor
Society
Our national parks may
be a "product of democracy at its best" but democratic they are not. Park
authorities are ruled and policy dictated by appointed councillors mainly from
outside the parks; in our case by Staffordshire, Derbyshire, Cheshire, South
Yorkshire, Tameside and Stockport. There is no accountability. The planning
authority, in trying to conserve the park, is causing depopulation by allowing
little development - ruins of houses are denied planning permission. Young
people have to move away because houses are too expensive and there is little
attempt to provide affordable housing. Those that remain must abide by rules
that dictate the colour of window-frames (brown) and the type of trees that can
be planted (native species only; no sycamores). When the New Forest
park was set up comments reported in your newspaper (New Forest to be a national
park, June 29 2004) included: "We don't trust English Nature and other quangos
... They come along with their toytown degrees in conservation and say 'We will
look after it'. They ignore our views and treat us like peasants." We in the
Peak park know just how they feel. Roz Cullinan, Buxton,
Derbyshire
There is concern about a 'democratic deficit':
In December 2009, Natural England proposed extending the National Park in the direction of the Yorkshire Dales National Park.[5] This would include land of high landscape value in the Lune Valley. The proposal was opposed by Cumbria County Council who said it would lead to less democratic control and would make local housing less affordable.[6] A public inquiry is being held into the proposals which will require a decision by the Secretary of State.[7] Lake District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Although much of the opposition comes from Local Authorities concerned about losing powers: see Futures Forum: National Park for East Devon and Dorset: next stage pt 2
But the most interesting discussion has come out of the campaign for National Park status on the South Downs:
But critics warned that the National Parks' stringent planning rules would bring misery and expense to homes and businesses. Under these rules, applications for new homes, extensions and even conservatories can become mired in red tape. Planning decisions will be taken away from 15 elected local councils and handed to a new Park Planning Authority
South Downs becomes Britain's newest national park... but will it be a forest of red tape? | Mail Online
South Downs National Park – Background
Plans to give the go-ahead to create a national park in the South Downs
were finally unveiled in 1999 by the Government.
The South Downs have always been regarded as a special part of the English
countryside. Two Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Sussex Downs and East
Hampshire, currently cover the area.
When it asked the Countryside Agency to look again at the designation of a
South Downs National Park, the Government highlighted the importance of
providing countryside recreation opportunities close to where people live and
called for more of the downland to be restored.
Controversy
A war of words about the merits of national park status for the South Downs
has raged for decades between conservationists and councils.
Environmental lobby groups have campaigned for a park for years, saying the
famous landscape and its rare habitats for birds, animals and insects were
being destroyed by intensive farming and development.
But the decision to finally grant
their wish was greeted with fury by many councils in Sussex, unhappy about
planning decisions being taken out of local hands. Fourteen councils lobbied
Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott not to create a national park.
Opponents say park status will not deliver the desired protection for the
countryside, predicting increased visitor numbers will cause traffic congestion
and erode the chalk downland.
Worthing Tory MP Peter Bottomley echoed the opinion of many colleagues when
he said the decision was "not welcome in Sussex". Mr Bottomley said: "Democratic representatives at county and local
level wanted a conservation board that would be more democratic and better for
the South Downs."
Meanwhile, West Sussex County Council promised to "fight
vigorously" against the park which it said would be a "disaster for
local people". The most outspoken opponent of the proposals, the county council accepts
the need to protect the Sussex landscape but says it would be better achieved
through a locally-agreed authority that did not wrest planning control away
from democratically accountable councils.
National parks
The Government says a national park will raise the area's status and
provide greater access to funding to ensure the Downs are protected and
continue to be regarded as a national treasure.
A national park authority will be set up to encourage co-ordination and
joint action to protect the Downs and to take action itself where needed.
Protection
For conservationists, the national park cannot come soon enough. Pressure
from development, especially from house-building, farming and tourism, threaten
the long-term future of the Downs.
As an AONB, the Downs are not given the same level of protection they would
have as a national park, but placed where they are in the South East they
already perform many of the functions of a park.
The Government regards national park designation as the highest status of
protection of landscape and scenic beauty.
By law, national parks must conserve and enhance their natural beauty,
wildlife and cultural heritage, and promote opportunities for public enjoyment
and understanding.
Major developments in national parks should be in the public interest and
normally include an assessment of:
> The need for the development in terms of national considerations, and
the impact on the local economy of allowing or refusing it
> The cost and scope for developing elsewhere
> Any detrimental effect on the environment and the landscape and the
extent to which it should be moderated
As an AONB, the South Downs are covered by weaker protection laws.
The primary objective of AONBs is conservation of the natural beauty of the
landscape.
Environmental effects will be a major consideration in planning decisions
and it would normally be inconsistent with the aims of AONBs to allow major
industrial or commercial development.
Only proven national interest and lack of alternative sites can justify an
exception.
.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment