AONB & National Park

[Jim in the West]

I'm slightly confused....do I understand correctly that the boundaries of the AONB and National Park run along the Lewes/Brighton & Hove boundary? ie, the Stadium itself is in neither - but the coach park is in both??

On the Countryside Agency's web site there's a whole load of blurb about the proposed National Park, including the following comments:

4. Less than 5% of respondees are opposed to designation. However these include seven local authorities: a further six have expressed concerns. Brighton and Hove and Lewes have stated support. The main concerns expressed ( Annex 1) are not material to designation criteria.

7. Having applied the statutory criteria for designation and the Agency's agreed policies, officers recommend the following changes:

addition of land between Chawton and Four Marks (section C)
addition at Steyning and land in the Adur valley (section K)
removal around Brighton south of A27 (section P)
plus a number of minor changes, as shown in Annex 3

8. There is though no evidence to support changes sought by some respondents for:

removal of non chalk landscapes
removal of towns including Petersfield and Lewes:
addition of land at Falmer (section P)
removal of land at Arundel (section R)
addition of Woolmer Forest(section E)

Annex 3:

[boundary] Follows Village Way
Minor addition to boundary. Land allocated for development in the Brighton Borough Local Plan (Adopted 1995) remains excluded. However land north of Village Way within Lewes District which is not allocated for development is included because it meets the criteria and reads as part of the wider sweep of land down to the A27. As a result the boundary follows the administrative boundary.


Surely some of these comments are contradictory?

Finally, Martin Perry's comments on the club's official web site include something about the stadium site being "de-designated" as an AONB. What's all this about?

Cheers, Jim

 

[Rangdo]

Finally, Martin Perry's comments on the club's official web site include something about the stadium site being "de-designated" as an AONB. What's all this about?

Cheers, Jim

I think that once the National Park comes into existence the part of the stadium site that is designated an AONB is going to lose its status.

 

[ROSM]

that's basically it:

When the national park (finally) comes into being, anything that was aonb but not now in the park will lose its protected status.

As for the national park boundary - the guidelines say that park boundaries should follow a physical landmark e.g. a road, river, railway line etc. They should not be arbitary lines on a map like a city boundary.

The original South Downs national park plan had the B2123 (Falmer road) as the boundary, therefore putting the village pond and church in the national park, but the stadium and transport point outside. Lewes DC heavily lobbied to get the boundary moved to the Lewes/Brighton and Hove line.

So it would seem that Lewes DC love planning guidelines to be ignored when it suits them!

However, the council, club, universities etc, have been lobbying the planning bodies that when the final boundaries for approval are drawn, that they comply with their own rules. However, there is I believe an outstanding court case into the Devon national park which has made the designation of any new national parks placed on hold.

So, in essence, there is a better than average chance that all the stadium and transport site will be outside the national park and therefore no longer AONB - and a very likely chance that the stadium itself will be de designated.

 

[Screaming J]

.........I believe an outstanding court case into the Devon national park .... has made the designation of any new national parks placed on hold.

Actually (a pedant writes) I think its the New Forest the court case is into; but otherwise, that's the way I understood it too.

 

[ROSM]

Actually (a pedant writes) I think its the New Forest the court case is into; but otherwise, that's the way I understood it too.

Of course - I knew it was down where the people talk funny

 

[Lord Bracknell]

As for the national park boundary - the guidelines say that park boundaries should follow a physical landmark e.g. a road, river, railway line etc. They should not be arbitary lines on a map like a city boundary.

The best way to create a physical landmark to allow the national park boundary to follow planning guidelines and, at the same time, coincide with the LDC border, would be to build something like a stadium on the Brighton side of the boundary.

 

[ROSM]

The best way to create a physical landmark to allow the national park boundary to follow planning guidelines and, at the same time, coincide with the LDC border, would be to build something like a stadium on the Brighton side of the boundary.

Now that's an idea!

Also, all good national parks need somewhere for visitors to park - call it a gateway if you like - in order to commence their walk on the superb downs.

Now where could one be placed near this particularly stunning landscape

 

[Jim in the West]

Many thanks to all and sundry - it makes the CPRE arguments even more pathetic in the case of Falmer. You have to wonder why they included it, given that it rather undermines the potentially good arguments elsewhere.