Jonathan Shaw MP,
Parliamentary under SoS,
Defra, Nobel House,
17 Smith Square,
London, SW1P 3JR.
21st July 2007
SUBJECT: SOUTH DOWNS NATIONAL PARK – INCLUSION OF WESTERN WEALD
Recommendation:
1. That you either:-
(i) Create an appropriately sized national park, capable of fulfilling national aspirations through the inclusion of the Western Weald; or
(ii) Continue the richly deserved Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty status currently accorded to much of the West Sussex Weald if you create a small, "chalk only" park.
Detail
2. It is rare, in politics, that you have the chance to do something really good, of lasting impact. If you create a South Downs National Park including the Western Weald, you will create a park of the size to be a lasting national resource. Without the Weald, you lose much indescribably beautiful and tranquil woodland and pasture, leaving a narrow East-West strip which lacks the depth to lose yourself in or the infrastructure to cope with tourism. The value of the park for the chalk downs will be immeasurably reduced if the view from Harting Down (possibly the most popular viewing spot in the Downs) is not protected in the future – it will be lost if the Western Weald is not protected.
3. The Defra appointed inspector who recommends the exclusion of the Western Weald seems to associate it with the "A3 corridor". The A3 corridor stops as you cross from Hampshire to Sussex and the countryside of the Sussex Weald (an AONB for c. 40 years) is as awe inspiring as that I have seen in any other national park.
4. I attach an Annex comprehensively refuting the inspector's arguments against including the Weald in the national park but, in summary – create a national icon and prevent a regional tragedy by continuing to accord the Western Weald at least its current level of protection.
Yours sincerely,
William Mason
District Councillor for Linch, Milland and Rogate
Annex – Weaknesses Of and Other Commentary On the Inspector's Conclusions on Non-Chalk Downland
Below I comment on relevant paragraphs of the inspectors report, in chronological order. All quotes are from the Inspector’s report:-
2.11 “The Agency has defined a possible South Downs National Park that is different to the common perception of the area having that name.” My conversations (500+ as I canvassed for election earlier this year) with the inhabitants of the Western Weald revealed that most of them consider themselves to live in part of the Downs. Later in this paragraph the Inspector states that the fact that the Western Weald is not chalk downland “certainly does not warrant the exclusion of the non-chalk landscapes simply to more accurately to reflect its title.” - I agree.
2.13 Here the Inspector reminds us that the Agency has already concluded that the South Downs AONB (which includes must of the Western Weald) “at least satisfied the natural beauty criterion.” Here we have acknowledgement of official recognition of our natural beauty. This constitutes support for my case that, at a minimum, the existing AONB areas of the Weald must have a new AONB if they are left outside the South Downs National Park.
2.14 Here the Inspector reminds the reader that “the option of a National Park concentrating on the chalk landscape was not favoured at that time [of CD36] because it was considered that it would be a relatively small geographical area with limited recreational opportunities and a low capacity to accommodate high visitor numbers and a wide range of user groups.” I agree with these conclusions – If you give any weight to the ability of a National Park to cope with visitors ( e.g. having a decent set of north/south walks rather than merely funnelling people onto the already overused South Downs Way) then it needs the Western Weald in it to be nationally useful.
CD36 also suggests, according to the Inspector that, “access to sustainable transport nodes, SOCIAL INCLUSION, the provision of recreational opportunities, and the accommodation of visitors numbers involved all benefit from a widely drawn park.” – This is self-evident to most people, it is curious that the Inspector appears not to take these factors into account when concluding that the Western Weald should be left outside the park.
2.18 & 2.20 The Inspector here notes (in 2.18) that, “the Assessor considers that the Agency has placed too little emphasis on National Parks being remote, wild and of characteristic natural beauty” when defining the boundaries of the park. The Inspector then goes on to argue (2.20) that “tranquillity, openness and sense of wildness and remoteness are not generally qualities not generally associated with much of the more settled, intimate and enclosed Wealden landscapes…… in turn affecting their ability to provide a markedly superior recreational experience.” This is just plain wrong. Milland Valley and the woods in the north of Rogate, Trotton and Chithurst are the most tranquil places I’ve found in the whole of South Eastern England. They feel remote because the extensive forest is largely unpopulated.
To say that they are more settled than the chalk downland is also wrong. If you exclude the closely defined towns of Petersfield, Midhurst and Petworth you will find that the population density is lower than in much of the chalk downland – we are not talking about tracts of semi-suburbia but pristine countryside. I live about 200 yards from the proposed new boundary of the reduced “chalk only” park. The acid test I ask myself is where do I chose to go when I want a decent walk beyond the footpaths around my house. 70% of the time I chose to North into the Western Weald, to the footpaths around the woodland and pasture of Chithurst, Stedham, Trotton, Milland and Rogate because of the variety of scenery, the tranquillity, the sense of remoteness and the chance of encountering wild animals for my children to see is higher there than on the chalk downs. Previous generations have also felt this thus the current South Downs AONB includes much of the Western Weald. Please create a replacement AONB or put this land in the park so that it may be preserved for future generations to benefit from.
2.23 The Inspector states, “I recognise that the non chalk landscape of the prospective South Downs National Park contains land having high scenic attraction and land that internationally recognised for its ecological value….by and large the non chalk areas that are within the two areas of AONB continue to merit that status. Indeed it seems to me that the contain tracts of quintessentially English countryside.” That which the Inspector states here is right, so please give us a replacement AONB covering the whole of the current AONB or keep us in the National Park.
2.24 & 2.25 Here the Inspector seems to support the Assessor’s view that the Rother Valley should be excluded from the park on the grounds that its “natural beauty criteria is at least arguable.” There are several things wrong with the assertion:-
a) The Inspector, through his language, appears to associate the Rother Valley and the A272 (in West Sussex) with the A3 corridor (in Hampshire). The two are not the same. I don’t hold a brief for Hampshire or claim to know it that well but the whole of the area on the West Sussex side of the border has been an AONB for c. 40 years and, as a result, has been preserved from development.
b) The A272 is a busyish road but it does not impose itself of the surrounding countryside to a great extent. To give a sense of perspective, it is quiet enough to walk across most of the time – it is unusual to have to wait more than 20 seconds to cross and, often, no waiting is required. Pedestrian crossings are not installed because they are not needed. The noise it produces does not noticeably detract from enjoyment of the tranquil surrounding countryside – it is modest when contrasted with the noise pollution from the coastal A27 which hits you if you walk along the South Downs Way near Duncton Down in the heart of the “chalk only” proposed park. In short, it is entirely illegitimate to aruge that the Rother Valley should be left out of the South Downs National Park or be deprived of its AONB status on account of the A272.
c) A further point worth noting on the A272 is that a large volume of the traffic on the A272 is due to its being one of the most scenic drives in the country. Countless bikers ride it every weekend because of the beauty of the scenery – tourists voting with their feet – or at least their wheels – for the preservation of the countryside which surrounds it.
d) 2.25 refers to the Rother Valley containing glasshouses – the clear implication being that this spoils it as an AONB. I was incredulous when I read this so I drove the length of the A272 from Petersfield to just past Petworth with my family (in my environmentally friendly gas powered car on the way to a museum lest you take me for an environmentally destructive petrol head) to investigate. We looked at the awe inspiring beauty in the Rother Valley, to the south and north of the A272 and saw no glass houses to despoil the view, especially in the West of the Valley (the part of West Sussex nearest Petersfield) whose beauty the inspector seems to doubt. I understand from conversations with friends that some plastic is being used on fields near Tillington (the village nearest Petworth) to enhance crop yields but plastic laid directly on the soil is nothing more than a temporary aberration which any National Park’s board worthy of the name could work with local farmers to reduce – it is entirely different from the permanent structures implied by “glasshouses” in the report.
e) The Rother Valley is a cohesive whole. The most popular viewing spot in the West Sussex Downs is probably that from Harting Down looking north across the Rother Valley. It is so popular because of the iconic beauty which meets the eye. This view is of the whole of the Rother Valley – to protect the southern (chalk) edge of it in the park while leaving the central and northern part open to development (outside the park with no AONB status) will destroy this view.
2.27 The Inspector notes, “Most existing national parks embrace more than one countryside character area … in principle I see no objection to a national park extending across countryside character areas.” I agree – this constitutes good additional grounds for including the AONB areas of the Western Weald in the national park.
2.31-32 The Inspector notes, “2.31 [recently] … there has been a reluctance to accept the inclusion of peripheral landscapes distinctly different from the core areas [2.32] the national parks designated in the 1950s appear to have given this consideration less weight.” Firstly, the Weald is not a peripheral area but a spectacular landscape it its own right. Secondly, accepting that its different from (though connected to) the chalk downlands, the national parks created in the 1950s appear to have served well – would it not be wise to emulate them ?
2.33 The Inspector says that he attaches little weight to the fact that the West Sussex AONB has long been managed as a single unit. He should do. Sussex has been a political entity since before the Saxons created Wessex. Walk the boundaries of the North West of Sussex with which we are concerned here and you will find they follow a distinctive topography and are not the artificial constructs of the central planner. The Weald and the chalk downs are a coherent whole – any ordinary person looking out at the Rother Valley from any Downland viewing point will see it as a beautiful single entity.
2.39 The Inspector notes, “A key characteristic of national parks is their ability to provide opportunities for quiet outdoor recreational experience in an extensive tract of land having a sense of wildness and remoteness.” I wholeheartedly agree. What is disingenuous (see my comments above on 2.18 & 2.20 for evidence) is to pretend that the Western Weald cannot offer opportunities for “quiet outdoor recreational activities” at least as good as those in the chalk downs. Further, it is illogical to talk of a national park consisting of “an extensive tract of land” at the same time as recommending removing 300 sq km of Weald from it which will stop it being large enough to deliver much of what a national park should deliver i.e. “quiet outdoor recreational experiences in an extensive tract of land having a sense of relative wildness and remoteness.”
2.46 The inspector notes, “the geological relationship of the chalk to the clays and Greensand laid down in the Cretaceous period is not in dispute.” I agree with the inspector that soil type should not be the primary determinant of the park but the relationship makes something of a mockery of the case for a chalk only park. Without a geological case, there is no case for a chalk only park – it makes much more sense to create one consisting of all the AONBs if you create one at all rather than making one for the chalk and leaving the Weald unprotected.
In critiquing the value of the geological linkage between chalk, clays and greensand, the inspector points out that it is present though much of the South East. This is undoubtedly true but what is unique about the Weald in the west of West Sussex is that it is far better conserved that other areas and consequently offers a far better opportunity for preservation alongside chalk than in other parts of the South East.
2.47 That the Inspector disregards the scarpland theme which links the Wealdon landscape to the chalk downs on the grounds that is was not developed early in the designation process is scarcely a compelling reason for discounting it, especially given that he concedes that he finds it, “somewhat surprising” that it was not identified much earlier and that topography is easily understood by the public. He fails to disprove the case that the scarpland theme provides yet another compelling argument in favour of a larger park.
2.50 By saying, “historical and cultural links between adjoining areas are evidence across the countryside” the Inspector unreasonably discounts the fact that the Chichester District, the County of West Sussex and the South Downs Conservation Board have helped maintain, renew and strengthen historic and cultural links between the chalk downs and Western Weald for many years.”
2.52 The Inspector notes that, “the Greensand ridges to the north of the River Rother tend to interrupt vies and visual links between some parts of the Western Weald and the chalk escarpment to the south.” I don’t disagree with him but in making this point he concedes that the view from the south (from the chalk escarpment) is one of the whole Rother Valley – thereby making a case, in contradiction of his earlier points, that the whole of the Rother Valley should, aesthetically speaking, be in the park – not just the southern part which happens to be chalk.
With respect to the Milland Valley which covers the area from the north of the Greensand ridge (to which the Inspector refers in 2.52) to the Surrey border, I challenge anyone to visit the viewing points at the Hollycombe Steam Collection in Linch (which overlook the Milland Valley) and not think that it is such a distinct, tranquil and beautiful valley in its own right that it is worthy of continuing to enjoy the highest level of environmental protection you can give it.
2.55 The Inspector notes, “In certain circumstances the boundaries could be drawn to include land that does not exhibit core chalk characteristics but enjoys a strong visual association with areas that do.” Here I understand that inspector to make a coherent case for including the land up to the Greensand ridge which runs between Rogate and that Milland valley as that has the strongest visual association with the neighbouring chalk downland. I don’t make the case that the park boundaries should be there but it is certainly a great deal more coherent than the line for the reduced national park which the Countryside Agency has drawn up in the wake of the Inspector’s report, which runs c. 3 miles to the south of that point. That line is, frankly, nonsensical from almost any perspective.
2.58 The Inspector uses the argument that the volume of work associated with planning would entail some delegation of planning responsibilities to Chichester District Council were the West Sussex Weald to be included in the park. As a Chichester District Councillor elected on a high turnout with a healthy majority, I’d say that was an advantage as it would help secure local buy in to the conservation work of the park’s board – something you will not get if a remote park’s board removes decision making from the many local authorities in its path.
Don’t misunderstand my points – this is not a parochial power play – if you leave the Western Weald outside the park you’ll give me, as the sole district councillor for an extensive ward covering Linch, Milland and Rogate, far more influence over planning than if you create a park. I’ve always believed that power should only be taken to do good and I’ll happily give up the influence I’d wield for the sake of the greater whole – namely a park covering both the chalk downs and the Western Weald.
2.59 The Assessor was wrong when he concluded, “the decision to include the Weald departs from the long standing consensus regarding the extent of a possible South Downs National Park.”
2.62 & 2.63 For all the reasons I set out above, the Inspectors statements that, “the Weald generally lacks the hallmark qualities” and that the Rother Valley is “lower quality land” are disproved. I may have marginally fewer letters after my name than him (not that that counts when it comes to assessing beauty) but I’m pretty certain I’ve walked twenty times the number of paths he’s walked in both the weald and chalk downs. I led a team on the Three Peaks challenge to raise money for a children’s hospice in May and nowhere on that glorious route through the Western Highlands, the Lake District National Park and Snowdonia did I see beauty which exceeded that in the Weald.
In summary, the Rother and Milland valleys richly deserve their AONB status because they offer tranquil, unspoilt and beautiful countryside closely associated with the South Downs. I can’t see how the park will work as a national leisure resource in you leave out the Western Weald as it will lack the depth to be worthwhile. For those reasons, you should include the whole of the Sussex Downs AONB in the park, or at the very least, create a simultaneous new AONB covering the areas currently protected when you create the park. Do so and you will create a lasting national treasure, do otherwise and you will merely preside over a much reviled tragedy.
