Agenda item

To receive a report from Paul Esrich, AONB Partnership Manager.

Paul Esrich explained that Local Authorities had a statutory duty to prepare and publish a management plan for their AONB and once produced it must be reviewed at least every five years. Usually the plan was re-issued as a 'new' plan every five years as that helped to raise the profile of AONB and its management. Local Authorities had agreed that the AONB Partnership would carry out the review on their behalf (and with their involvement). Since no new guidance had been published the non-statutory guidance produced in 2012 and the formal guidance which predates it would be followed.

Paul explained that the context against which the review was to be conducted was changing dramatically. A significant increase in house building, the review of the National Planning Policy Framework, consultation of new agricultural policy and other Brexit related changes were all likely to be highly significant. At least the new 25 year Environment Plan had been published which provided some important pointers.

Over the next few years Government was expected to undertake pilots for new environmental land management schemes and it looked likely that there would be a reduction in regulations for farmers. It was possible that Defra would be looking to AONB Management Plans to help target the Governmen's future financial support.

Other areas to consider in the review were the State of the AONB report. Paul Esrich explained that data had been collected earlier than usual this time around to ensure that this ould better inform the review process.

In the ensuing discussion members raised the following points:

·       As a lot of change was expected, the plan needed to be responsive, reactive and able to change,

·       It was suggested that there may be merit in not focusing on certain issues which were currently unclear e.g. planning and agriculture and reviewing the plan again once more clarity existed,

·       It was felt that the next plan should not quickly become out of date/overtaken by other events and changes,

·       The plan could be written with the aim of influencing Defra by highlighting the important areas which needed the most investment,

·       It was clarified that there was no indication that Defra wished to remove the support or protection it gave to AONBs. It was possible that protected areas may become a focus for grant schemes in the future,

·       Uncertainty would continue to prevail for some time and it would be important to keep an eye on change during this period which may see much diversification,

·       Natural Capital was becoming better recognised and it was suggested that this concept should be embedded into the Management Plan,

·       The conflict between protecting landscapes as 'playgrounds' and supporting people who worked the area commercially was recognised. Farming needed to be profitable but that profit may come from different sources,

·       Increased tourism brought both positives and negatives to the area and increased 'gentrification' could also bring about undesirable change,

·       The National Association for AONBs was described as having the ear of Defra, aided by the fact that AONB Partnerships were now funded directly by Government,

·       It was felt that the existing plan had useful headings and content which could be used. It was explained that the review would take the existing Plan text as its starting point, with amendments and additions being made as required. Other important issues which should be considered were the effects of tree disease such as Ash die back, especially with regard to what plans could be put in place to help the landscape recover,

·       It would be important to keep elected members up to speed with the review,

·       Workshops with partners would happen in the next few weeks and a revised document would be produced for consultation in the Autumn, ready for endorsing at the November JAC meeting.

RESOLVED that the Committee

a)     Noted and commented on the contents of the paper, and

b)     Contributed to the review process by debating key issues, including those raised at appendix 4.