South Downs National Park Designation Delayed for Years

[Hadlee]

That would have to be something pretty incredible for force labour about before 2009 - infact, im not sure it's even possible, is it? You can lose confidence in a PM, but not a whole political party

I think it would have to be a vote of no confidence in the Government, which is most unlikely as the current Government have a large majority and Labour MP's would have to vote against their party and do them selves out of a job !!

As you say, something pretty incredible !

 

[perseus]

Although this is good news re: falmer, it is still a shame in general that the South Downs has no National Park designation. After all it is still the only area sited in the 50s that hasn't been given a designation.

I look forward to the day when falmer is finally built AND the south downs have their National Park, both of which to be enjoyed by future generations.

The people that would be running the National Park would be an unelected Quango of approximately (some of them will be dead before it is finally adopted) the same people that are opposing the Falmer application.

"Unelected" is the operative word. Not answerable to the electorate.

 

[Hadlee]

The people that would be running the National Park would be an unelected Quango of approximately (some of them will be dead before it is finally adopted) the same people that are opposing the Falmer application.

"Unelected" is the operative word. Not answerable to the electorate.

Which is why Adur (or is it West Sussex ?) District council are against the NP.

I actually agree with them, its more democratic to have locally elected councils in charge of the South Downs.

 

[perseus]

Which is why Adur (or is it West Sussex ?) District council are against the NP.

I actually agree with them, its more democratic to have locally elected councils in charge of the South Downs.

It does seem that the County Councils will be abolished and Regional Authorities will be set up with decisions made from Guildford etc?

 

[Yorkie]

Of course it means that the AONB will remain as such for longer.

I thought that as well.
I thought one of our arguments was that the AONB can be disregarded because it was going to be redesignated when the National Park boundaries were agreed?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The High Court judgement on the New Forest case that has thrown things into turmoil is now online:-

http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/issues/landscap/natparks/sdowns/meyrick060210.pdf

The case was won by the owners of the site, Meyrick Estate Management, who were arguing that Hinton Admiral Park should be excluded from the National Park.

They won, because the High Court agreed that, to qualify for National Park status, the landscape should be outstanding and there should be public access to it.

The Falmer Stadium site is not outstanding landscape either, nor is there public access. It looks as though it could be much more difficult to designate it as National Park than people realised.




I'm beginning to like High Court judges. This one even refused Defra leave to appeal against his decision.

 

[Curious Orange]

The High Court judgement on the New Forest case that has thrown things into turmoil is now online:-

http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/issues/landscap/natparks/sdowns/meyrick060210.pdf

The case was won by the owners of the site, Meyrick Estate Management, who were arguing that Hinton Admiral Park should be excluded from the National Park.

They won, because the High Court agreed that, to qualify for National Park status, the landscape should be outstanding and there should be public access to it.

The Falmer Stadium site is not outstanding landscape either, nor is there public access. It looks as though it could be much more difficult to designate it as National Park than people realised.




I'm beginning to like High Court judges. This one even refused Defra leave to appeal against his decision.

That is absolutely incendiary, I hope the ODPM/Albion/BHCC lawyers are pouring all over that decision. It could just about knock LDC's spurious claims (based on the first Inspector's report) about 'open downland' on the head.

What a nice positive start to the day. Makes having been in bed with flu all week seem okay!

 

[Jim in the West]

LB, LDC has on it's web site the following in it's rationale for seeking a Judicial Review:

"First, the application sites are nationally protected landscape, forming part of the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty since 1966. Those parts in Lewes District are also proposed to be part of the new South Downs National Park."

Presumably the decision ref Hinton Admiral Park means that it is highly likely that the proposed South Downs National Park boundaries will need to be reviewed to avoid potential High Court challenges in the future??

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Presumably the decision ref Hinton Admiral Park means that it is highly likely that the proposed South Downs National Park boundaries will need to be reviewed to avoid potential High Court challenges in the future??

A lot will depend on how the government handle this.

Defra are considering applying to the Appeal Court for leave to appeal against the High Court decision (despite the fact that the High Court have already refused them leave to appeal).

And there's the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill, that is currently going through parliament. Theoretically, they could introduce new clauses in that to change the law.

Or they might just accept the Court's decision. It's up to Secretary of State Margaret Beckett to decide.

 

[perseus]

Or the whole National Park could be flawed?

It seems to muddy the downs to me. Just like the bloody cows!

 

[London Calling]

There is no reason why, the South Downs National Park cannot have elected officials on it. Whether there are Councillors reflecting local Councils or people specifically standing for the Np.

I would suggest the second option.

 

[London Calling]

Or the whole National Park could be flawed?

It seems to muddy the downs to me. Just like the bloody cows!

Disagree there.

It should have National Park status, and weshould have goot it back in 1949.

 

[perseus]

If you have tried talking to an elected Councillor (even a Trade Unionist) co-opted on the South Downs Board asking why the SDCB wanted the football stadium at Shoreham Harbour threatening hundreds of jobs, you will understand that such a system does not work, especially if the majority of the Committee are not elected.

And this means that the SDCB know this and are the worse type of arrogant shits imaginable representing the farmer's interests trying to turn public land into agricultural (to get grants) and wrecking the best parts of the downs with their policies.

Because it is not a natural landscape, but basically farming land with a few bits that were not good enough for farming with public access, and half of these are not on the downs, so the boundary is naff.

If the co-opted Councillor is not elected the Quango still goes on.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

That argument applies to all National Parks, perseus. And Police Authorities, Fire Authorities, Health Authorities, Primary Care Trusts, Regional Assemblies, School Governors, University Councils, the Governors of the Bank of England, the BBC, the British Olympic Committee and any other body that dispenses public money.

Whilst there's a case for democratic election to all of them, I can't see it as necessarily a more effective form of governance - particularly with the public apathy that prevails today.

At least with co-opted councillors being involved in the management of National Parks, there's a chance that the public can find out who they are.

 

[perseus]

That argument applies to all National Parks, perseus. And Police Authorities, Fire Authorities, Health Authorities, Primary Care Trusts, Regional Assemblies, School Governors, University Councils, the Governors of the Bank of England, the BBC, the British Olympic Committee and any other body that dispenses public money.

Whilst there's a case for democratic election to all of them, I can't see it as necessarily a more effective form of governance - particularly with the public apathy that prevails today.

At least with co-opted councillors being involved in the management of National Parks, there's a chance that the public can find out who they are.

Quite right. The problem arises when the Quangoes directly interfere in people's lives taking on the roles of the elected LA's notable SEEDA, Shoreham Port Authority, Shoreham Airport and the SDCB.

Of course, private individuals and private companies can do the same. So it really comes down to "some" people.

Still it is the lack of power over their own lives when faced by more powerful organisations that causes apathy and when the people in power are located in a far away place like America or Lewes.

I have just come from a business meeting, filled with trepidation (mainly because of the Bellotti-like behaviour of the SDCB in similar circumstances) because of a conflict of interest, and the principle was agreed amicably. No problem.

Its people, but if they are hiding away in a desk at Millbank or in an underground bunker in Iraq, they are not accessible. Or if they are accessible, they are just a small cog in a the giant machinery of Government.

 

[Screaming J]

It does seem that the County Councils will be abolished and Regional Authorities will be set up with decisions made from Guildford etc?

Sorry Perseus but speaking as someone who works in the sector, this is absolute cobblers.

Whatever happens in the SE you will NOT get regional Government. If there is any change it will be to remove one of the dual tiers of County or District Councils, but the Government will not be having governance at wider than County level.

 

[London Calling]

That argument applies to all National Parks, perseus. And Police Authorities, Fire Authorities, Health Authorities, Primary Care Trusts, Regional Assemblies, School Governors, University Councils, the Governors of the Bank of England, the BBC, the British Olympic Committee and any other body that dispenses public money.

Whilst there's a case for democratic election to all of them, I can't see it as necessarily a more effective form of governance - particularly with the public apathy that prevails today.

At least with co-opted councillors being involved in the management of National Parks, there's a chance that the public can find out who they are.

Just because people can't be arsed is no reason for not having elections.

Give people something to stand for with influence and power and they will stand for election and many people still believe in contributing to public services.

I personally sit on a Regeneration board, not covering my residential area. And I will soon ask to be a school governor. If I lived in Brighton I would consider sitting on the SDNp, something I have believed in all of my adult life.

LC

 

[chip]

Sorry Perseus but speaking as someone who works in the sector, this is absolute cobblers.

Whatever happens in the SE you will NOT get regional Government. If there is any change it will be to remove one of the dual tiers of County or District Councils, but the Government will not be having governance at wider than County level.

So how come we have SEERA deciding how many houses need to be built and where they should be and SEEDA spending vast sums on strange development projects (amongst other functions)?

Is that not regional government in the same way that the police, fire, ambulance services are also being merged?

I'm actually genuinely interested in your take on this as it certainly seems to be happening.

 

[London Calling]

So how come we have SEERA deciding how many houses need to be built and where they should be and SEEDA spending vast sums on strange development projects (amongst other functions)?

Is that not regional government in the same way that the police, fire, ambulance services are also being merged?

I'm actually genuinely interested in your take on this as it certainly seems to be happening.

I assume he means Elected Regional Government.

The move now is to create City Regions, Brighton is ideally placed for this.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

So how come we have SEERA deciding how many houses need to be built and where they should be and SEEDA spending vast sums on strange development projects (amongst other functions)?

Is that not regional government in the same way that the police, fire, ambulance services are also being merged?

I'm actually genuinely interested in your take on this as it certainly seems to be happening.

SEERA - with its preponderance of councillors appointed by local authorities across the South East and a proper public record of its deliberations - is a damned sight more accountable than its predecessor, SERPLAN, the "London and South East Regional Planning Conference", which was dominated by professional planning officers. SERPLAN did exactly the same job as far as housing allocations were concerned, but hardly anybody knew of its existence.

In reality, regional housing allocations are guided by national need and SEERA works within a framework that is set by national government - accountable to an elected parliament.

If anyone thinks that we will ever succeed in housing the entire nation by leaving decisions to local councillors at local level, responsive to local NIMBYs, they are in fantasy land.


SEEDA's role, as the South East Regional Development Agency, is to channel government funds into development projects in the South East. Previously this happened through a series of ad-hoc decisions taken by a variety of ministers, with little overall co-ordination and practically no real input from the business community or the local authorities. At least now there is some coherence and co-ordination and, through a more accountable SEERA, there is at least a forum at regional level that can question the priorities.