Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Parks and Other Areas of Conservation or Protection

Page 371

Chapter 19

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Parks and Other Areas of Conservation or Protection

AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY

19.1 Natural England¹may designate areas which are not in National Parks as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) for the purposes of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of those areas.²

19.2 Local planning authorities (LPAs) have the power to take such action as appears to them expedient for the accomplishment of the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB.³The Secretary of State may also set up conservation boards to manage AONBs, in which event functions will be transferred to it, but this will not include responsibility for the development plan, development control or planning enforcement.⁴

19.3 The next issue concerns the impact of an AONB designation (where great weight is required to be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty) in the context of national planning policy.

19.4 Paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) provides that:

¹Or The Natural Resources Body for Wales (see the Natural Resources Body for Wales (Functions)

Order 2013 (SI 2013/755)).

²Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, s 82. The procedure for designation orders can be found in s 83 (local consultation, publicity, and confirmation by the Secretary of State or in Wales by the National Assembly for Wales). AONBs include such well-known areas of scenic beauty as the Northumberland Coast, the Cotswolds, the Isles of Scilly, the Isle of Wight, the Surrey Hills and the Gower Peninsula.

³Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, s 84(4).

⁴Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, s 86. See also s 89 and the duty of conservation boards and local authorities to prepare (and periodically review) management plans for the AONB and the discharge of their functions in relation to that section.

Page 372

372 Planning Law: A Practitioner’s Handbook

Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty …

19.5 The NPPF, paragraph 116 provides that:

planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. Consideration of such applications include an assessment of:

♦ 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.

19.6 If only a small part of the proposed site for development lies within an AONB it will not trigger paragraph 116.⁵

19.7 In R (Aston) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government,⁶

Wyn Williams J determined that the meaning of the phrase ‘major developments’ in paragraph 116 of the NPPF:⁷

⁵R (Cherkley Campaign Ltd) v Mole Valley DC [2014] EWCA Civ 567; where only one fairway and one tee would have been within the AONB in a development comprising a hotel and spa complex and golf facilities. It was found that the actual development within the AONB could not reasonably be regarded as major development ‘in’ the AONB, even when account was taken of the fact that it formed part of a larger golf course development, the rest of which was immediately adjacent to the AONB.

⁶[2013] EWHC 1936 (Admin). Followed in R (The Forge Field Society) v Sevenoaks DC [2015] JPL
22. In DCS Number: 400-013-431, plans for 20 homes in the Cornwall AONB were refused as major development, despite a need for local homes. In DCS Number 200-005-666, an inspector accepted that plans to redevelop a derelict factory site in a National Park village with 26 homes fell within the definition of major development in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (SI 2010/2184). However, he held that the resulting improvement in the village’s appearance meant that the scheme passed the exceptional circumstances test allowed for in national policy. In DCS Number 200-006-471 (2017), 32 dwellings, retaining walls and associated infrastructure were allowed on a sloping site in an AONB adjoining a settlement in Devon, despite harm to the AONB. It was a case where the LPA could only show a two-year supply of housing land. The inspector considered that as the site adjoined a settlement, was enclosed on all sides and its topography severely restricted views into and out of the site, as did high banks and mature vegetation, the proposal would have limited visual impact, confined to just the site itself, which would not intrude into the rural landscape or setting of the settlement. The inspector also held that the development did not constitute major development in an AONB, and so para 116 was not engaged. Irrespective of the presumption against major development in AONB’s development, the ‘tilted balance’ may yet favour development where housing land supply is less than five years and where the development is liable to cause only minor harm to the character and appearance of the area.

⁷[2013] EWHC 1936 (Admin) at [94].

Page 373

Areas of Conservation or Protection 373

… was that which would be understood from the normal usage of those words. Given the normal meaning to be given to the phrase the Inspector was entitled to conclude that the Third Defendant’s application to erect 14 dwelling-houses on the appeal site did not constitute an application for major development.

19.8 It is, then, a matter of planning judgment in any particular case whether development falls within paragraph 116 of the NPPF.⁸

19.9 Where a proposal involved housing development, paragraph 116 had to be read together with the policies for housing need and supply in paragraph 47 and paragraph 48. The decision-maker had to consider whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying planning permission. While that might involve considering the availability of alternative sites, paragraph 116 did not prescribe an assessment process and did not direct a decision-maker to consider sites across the whole of an LPA’s area.⁹

SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST

19.10 A designation under this head arises when Natural England notifies the site as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI),¹⁰the criterion for which is that the land is of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna, or geological or

⁸R (Mevagissey Parish Council) v Cornwall Council [2013] EWHC 3684 (Admin); the grant of planning permission for the development of 21 affordable homes at a coastal site within an AONB was quashed where the LPA had rejected the planning officer’s recommendation for refusal of permission without making clear in its summary of reasons how and why it had departed from her interpretation of the relevant policies. The court summarised the principles governing the provisions of summary reasons as required by Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2013 (SI 2013/1238), arts 2 and 7(a). It was a case where the court held that notwithstanding the fact that the conservation of landscape and scenic beauty in an AONB was given enhanced status in the NPPF, the planning committee had given no reason for deliberately departing from the guidance. A pressing need for affordable housing might be a significant factor in the assessment of whether the circumstances were exceptional, but it was not, on its own, determinative, because there might be alternative sites that were more suitable. This was exactly the planning officer’s conclusion. The committee had to exercise its own judgment and was entitled to reach a different conclusion, but it had not indicated that it had correctly identified, understood and applied the relevant policies. Its conclusion that the provision of affordable housing outweighed any impact on the AONB presupposed that it had identified exceptional circumstances, but there was no suggestion in the summary grounds that it had. Also, it appeared that it had performed a simple balancing exercise rather than giving the conservancy of the AONB greater weight, and it had not considered any alternative sites. The inadequacy of reasons was a clear reflection of the committee’s failure to grapple with the issues that the policy required it to deal with, and, as a result, the grant of planning permission was quashed.

⁹Wealden DC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] EWCA Civ 39.

¹⁰Most SSSIs are privately owned or managed; others are owned or managed by public bodies or non-governmental organisations.

Pag...