| 
|
OR NATIONAL PARK?
In this thesis so far, many aspects of tourism on the Sussex Downs have been considered. These include the factors which make the Downland a special place in Chapters 1 and 2, the nature of recreational tourism on the Downland in Chapters 4,5,6 and 7, the orchestration of tourism in the larger region through an Area Tourism Initiative in Chapter 10 and the impact of tourism considered in its environmental, social and economic conceptual frameworks in Chapters 11, 12 and 13. The two case studies in Chapter 8 and 9, one of a National Park and one of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty have provided insight into the difficulties and opportunities for appropriate tourism development under two differently designated regimes. The question now arises as to what in the future will be the appropriate designation for the Sussex Downs? At the moment the SDCB provides a unique countryside planning and management arrangement[1] which is seen as an experimental halfway house between National Park and AONB, but the life of the Conservation Board is not guaranteed beyond six years from its inauguration in 1992.[2]
The Board is the result of an agreement between the Countryside Commission, 13 local authorities in the AONB and the two Sussex County Councils who resolved to hand over their countryside and RoW management functions to the Board.[3] The Board is therefore a consolidation of interests, expertise and financial resources regrouped to recognise the Sussex Downs as an area requiring a unified approach to management and conservation. In Chapter 10 the discussion suggested that the Sussex Downs is not a realistic area for tourism strategy and planning purposes. The proposed Area Tourism Initiative overcomes this by including the coastal resorts and the area to the north of the Downland in a visitor planning and management initiative. From a tourism perspective therefore the limitations of a Sussex Downs management region are overcome by the Area Initiative.
Chapter 11 however has argued that tourism, conservation and the environment are inextricably linked on the Downland. The Downland can be viewed as a product that tourists consume and the management of that product, based on perpetuating and developing that which makes the Downs a special place, is an essential aspect of providing for the various user groups identified from the Downland Visitor Study. In turn, Chapter 13 has demonstrated that recreational tourism on the Downland has an economic value, particularly important at a time when agriculture, the traditional industry on the Downland, is declining.
The maintenance and conservation of the Downland environment has one of its principal justifications in catering for visitors and what affects the conservation will also affect the visitors. The future protection status afforded the Downland will have major consequences for recreational tourism. In particular, there must be the ability to be able to develop the necessary synergy between the interests of tourism and conservation. Any designation must have this as an essential future objective.
There are however a number of problems concerning the selection of an appropriate designation most able to achieve the objective set out in the previous paragraph. These, in part, come from the present day preoccupation with administerial reorganisation. In the case of AONBs and National Parks, the comments that follow extend the debate of Chapter 2.
Local Government Reorganisation
The SDCB is the result of a merging of the interests of a number of local and county authorities. Local authorities have recently re-appraised their two tier structure as part of the Government review with the possibility that new unitary authorities may emerge, co-terminus with the reappraisal of the merits and future of the SDCB. To give an example of the geographical implications of unitary authorities, one proposal merged Chichester and Arun District Councils to form a West Sussex Council covering 389 sq. miles and a population of 234,000. It would take over all the services provided both at District and County level previously.[4]
Although the Local Government Commissioner has now indicated that there is likley to be no major reorganisation of local government in West Sussex[5], such a prospect raises a number of questions. Should the Downland become a unitary authority, in which case its remit would extend to the full range of public service provision? Although this substantially increases power, particularly in planning issues, it creates an imbalance with the urban conurbations immediately surrounding the Downs. The Downland would be a low population unitary authority without a strong commercial base or other aspects of urban society which provide important income for local administration. It also reduces the singlemindedness of purpose which is the hall mark of the SDCB at present.
With new unitary authorities, the problems of a Downland management body coordinating with county and district authorities could be substantially reduced. No longer would the Board depend on agreement between 13 local authorities. Instead a substantially reduced number of unitary authorities would prevail.
It is expected that any reorganisation will be in place by May 1996 following elections. Some minor adjustments are expected in East Sussex but West Sussex remains as at present. There will likely be an embargo on any old style authorities committing beyond their life from Sept 1994. This in itself means that no adjustments to the reorganisation of the management of the Downs is likely before 1997, a date well within the six year life of the existing board.
National Park Reorganisation
In 1991 the second review of National Parks was completed and the Edwards report Fit for the Future was published.[6] The findings prompted the Government to announce new legislation which has been disappointingly slow in enactment.[7] Proposals for a Countryside Act [8] and the inclusion of new legislation within the Environmental Protection Bill [9] have, until recently, come to nothing. As a result a Private Members Bill was promoted through the House to ensure that the provisions established in the Edwards report are in place before local government reorganisation.[10] Timing for the Bill was for Commons approval in July 1994 and Queens assent in the Autumn.[11] The Bill's provisions included [12]:
*The re-establishment of the principal that conservation overrides public access and enjoyment where the two are in conflict.
*The establishment of Park Authorities as independent bodies within the framework of local government rather than Committees of County Councils which is the current situation in eight Parks.
*The securing of budgetary contributions from local authorities.
*The establishment of New National Parks but not including the South Downs.
* In addition the Government wishes to promote economic and social development in National Parks.[13]
Unfortunately the bill was blocked on its passage through the Commons.[14] The success of this bill would have substantially strengthened the power of National Park Authorities. In December 1994 the Government finally produced the long-promised draft legislation on National Parks. It was introduced to the House of Lords as part of the Environmental Protection Bill. Although it meets many of the proposals of the Edwards report, including the provision of new authorities for all National Parks, the bill is seen as deficient in two aspects, the protection of Parks from noisy sports and major development. The Council for National Parks are campaigning for amendments to the Bill in its passage to the House of Commons by Easter 1995. It will be some time before the final detail is available, particularly the relationship and framework for balancing the needs of recreation and conservation.[15]
AONB Reorganisation
Consonant with National Parks, AONBs were the subject of a policy and direction review in 1989 and the findings were subsequently published in the Smart Anderson report of 1991.[16] The report made a number of recommendations which were then incorporated in a Countryside Commission policy statement of 1991.[17] Key aspects of the policy statement include:
*Conservation should continue to be the primary aim of designation. Efforts should be made to re create and enhance traditional landscapes.
*The strengthening of local commitment to and administration of AONBs through Joint Advisory Committees.
* AONBs to be incorporated into structure and local plans and management plans developed to underpin the designation objectives.
*Recreation is an important element of an AONB but is not a justification for designation.
This last point is important in that it provides a different emphasis to that of the World Tourism Organisation view on National Parks and Protected Areas. It is argued, by the World Tourism Organisation, that the "tourist potential" of the area is an important factor in the justification for protection.[18]
From the Countryside Commission policy statement, it can also be seen that the administration of AONBs remains inextricably linked with public authority organisation. Whether this be as existing or any new unitary authorities, the outcome is that a single AONB will remain the responsibility of the various authorities whose boundaries cross the AONB. It falls on the Joint Advisory Committees, made up of representatives of County and District Councils, to coordinate resources and effort.
Having determined the framework within which any decision regarding the future designation of the Downland must be made, whether it be AONB or National Park, it now becomes appropriate to consider the key tourism-related issues which need to be addressed in a future designation decision.
In Chapter 10, the appropriate marketing philosophy for the Downland has been debated at some length. It is concluded that the proactive approach to tourism development is not suitable for the core study area and a "neutral" or "passive" stance is better suited. This has implications for the future designation of the landscape in the core study area.
In Chapter 2 the principal aims of the AONB are identified as "to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape." Two secondary aims, over which the principal aim takes priority, are to meet the need for quiet enjoyment of the countryside and to have regard for the interests of those who live and work there. This was reiterated in the 1991 statement of the Secretary of State detailed in Chapter 11. The findings of the Smart Anderson review have not changed the balance of emphasis.
Subject to the outcome of any revision proposals to the Environment Bill, National Parks have a slightly different set of aims, these are also identified in Chapter 2 as follows:
a) To preserve the characteristic landscape,
b) to provide access and facilities for public open air enjoyment,
c) to protect wildlife, significant buildings and places of architectural and historic interest,
while....
d) established farming use is effectively maintained.
In the case of National Parks it can be seen that there is an onus on the Park Authority to provide access and recreation facilities. The Edwards report addresses this requirement and as a result a modification is proposed to this, through the anticipated legislation, as set out earlier in this chapter: "the re-establishment of the principal that conservation overrides public access and enjoyment where the two are in conflict" This does not remove the onus on the Park Authority to provide access and recreation facilities, what it does is propose that where the aims of public recreation and conservation conflict, then the latter will take priority. Support for this approach comes from the CPRE, who quote a principal broached in the 1970s. The Sandford Principal [19] states that where conservation and public enjoyment are in conflict then the first one shall prevail, a view upheld by the CPRE in their 1992 Planning Policy Guidance note on Tourism.[20] The Draft Environment Bill does not endorse this principal where irreconcilable conflict exists although campaigning may well result in an amendment being introduced.
How then does this relate to the wish to take a neutral marketing stance for tourism and recreational development on the Downland? If the Downland management authority is charged with providing recreational facilities, the authority is obliged to actively pursue such intentions and must be seen to do so. The likely outcome is a steady introduction of all the accoutrements of tourism as the agricultural industry is replaced by tourism. These will include waymarkers, heritage and interpretation centres, car parks, toilets, road signs, play areas, refreshment facilities etc. This however conflicts with the vision of the Downs which is based around the historically grazed landscape as set out in Chapter 7. This argues against the National Park designation being appropriate for the core study area.
What is preferable is an emphasis on landscape conservation and restoration with tourism coming as an incidental aspect of that. There is no doubt that tourists will continue to be major users of the landscape, but they will be of specific types, as seen by the Visitor Survey data. The provision of extended facilities detracts from their experience and such "product improvement" will attract new user groups, thereby increasing the nature and variation of general tourism impacts as well as potentially destroying the essential character of the Downland. This would argue that the AONB designation is appropriate for the Downland because of the greater sympathy with a neutral marketing stance. This position is reflected in the report of the Rural Panel of the SDCB "it is important to note that the Sussex Downs is not a National Park, but an AONB, where conservation and landscape priorities supersede those relating to recreation and tourism"[21] Such a designation harmonises with the desire not to be protecting the landscape because of tourism potential, a point which conflicts with the World Tourism Organisation published views, but which is established in the Countryside Commission Policy Statement for AONBs, as discussed earlier in this chapter.
One of the drawbacks of AONB status is that it is a designation relying on local authorities, whether they be the new unitary authorities or the traditional authorities, to implement. The coordination of effort for those authorities involved is through the Joint Advisory Committee and it can be seen from the Malvern Hills case study that the JAC has not been a major or effective player in the management of the AONB and related recreational tourism. The lack of finance has been a major issue. The Smart Anderson report continues to endorse JACs as coordination measures but notes local authority concern that they are time consuming "talking shops".[22] Recognising these problems on the Downland resulted in the SDCB being formed and this has given a unified management approach to the Downland on recreation and conservation issues. It has also attracted funding from the Countryside Commission.[23]
The funding of countryside conservation is a major issue. The Countryside Commission contributes 50 percent of the SDCB budgets. By comparison, National Parks in Britain in 1993/4 have an approved expenditure of UK pounds 20.765 millions which will be supplemented by a National Park Supplementary Grant of UK pounds 15,604 million, ie 76 percent.[24] The economic value of tourism and recreation on the Downland has been identified[25] and as a result the government collects in excess of UK pounds 24 million p.a. in value added tax alone. Although it is tempting to argue that National Park status would be preferable because it enables the Downland to qualify for the higher National Park Supplementary Grant, an alternative argument exists. This suggests that the Downland is an economic generator which should be invested in to optimise the revenue return. Such a commercial approach is sympathetic to current Government policies of rural economic regeneration but places the justification for funding on a basis apart from that for both National Parks and AONBs. This involves a business planning process aimed at reconciling revenue against investment. It removes the relationship between local authority contribution and central government contribution, which is an administrative methodology rather than a reflection of real processes ongoing on the Downland. In this way, levels of conservation funding are determined by free market economics rather than a protracted debate about local government budget squeezing from Council Tax revenues.
What might be the outcome of such a change in funding policy? In the longer term a balance would be reached between appropriate funding on conservation, and, therefore by implication but not proactively, visitor development. The Downland would enjoy an immediate substantial increase in the availability of funding for conservation, unhindered by the artificial machinations of the present administrative methodology. To do this a formula would need to be derived, which would relate government investment to economic gain, through visitor expenditure. Offsetting the economic gain would have to be the loss due to the run down of alternative industry, particularly agriculture. In this way expenditure could be built up over a number of years until optimum operating levels were reached with government investment harmonised with conservation effort, measured through economic gain. This would enable the full realisation of the hitherto untapped potential of the Downland as a protected landscape with economic value through conservation.
Such a process of harmonisation however will easily be jeopardised through the statutory planning process.
Shoard bemoans the plight of the Sussex Downs and cites the case of Graffham Downs in the 1970s against a background that recognises the general weakness of the AONB as a landscape protection measure.[26] In Chapter 2 the more recent ineffectiveness of the ESA is also highlighted. Examples of the relentless onslaught of development proposals on the Downland are numerous, although the nature of urbanisation has changed from housing estates to road building, aerial masts and formalised leisure industry.
In November 1993 a communications company announced its wish to place a communications mast on The Trundle, the Iron Age hill fort commanding magnificent views of the Downland, Solent and Isle of Wight.[27] This followed earlier anguish over transmissions towers on Truleigh Hill, within the SDCB area of remit. The SDCB were called upon to act to stop the intrusion of communication towers in the landscape and Martin Beaton, the Board's Countryside manager anticipated that the management plan would help resolve the issue.[28] Shortly afterwards Horsham District Council noted that they were "snookered" by government policy and were obliged to approve a 15 metre lattice tower at Steyning.[29] This coincided with a general relaxing of planning policies relating to the erection of communication masts by central government.[30] The Society of Sussex Downsmen noted, with concern, that planning permission was not now needed for masts below 15 metres.[31] By December 1993, there was a growing body of opinion that the Conservation Board was not proving to be adequate protection for the Downland. Such concern related to other development issues such as mineral extraction as well as aerial masts.[32]
Even Dartmoor National Park is not free from the depredations of mineral extractors. Amanda Nobbs, as Director of the Council for National Parks, sees increased pressure on all National Parks to accommodate mineral extraction, a statement made in the context of extended china clay extraction threats on Dartmoor.[33] This coincided with an announcement that recent government proposals included the relaxing of requirements to justify mineral extraction in National Parks. New powers were being called for by National Park Authorities to combat such measures.[34]
The Council for National Parks also identifies other threats to our protected landscapes, particularly the Downs. Creeping urban and transport development are themes which are common to the Sussex Downs as well as National Parks in general. Dartmoor National Park Authority has recently lost a six year battle to prevent a golf course development.[35] In the case of the Downland, development threats include golf courses, superstores, housing development etc.; "The piecemeal dissection of the Downs by tarmac" leaving pockets of land that are then considered appropriate for built development.[36] These issues are discussed in Chapter 11. The Heritage Coast Management Plan reiterates such concerns and looks to the Structure Plans in the hope of stemming the flood tide.[37]
With the nature and intensity of development pressure not only on the Downland but on National Parks generally, the picture looks dismal. The Conservation Board is influential but has to compromise. If National Park status was conferred on the Downland would this enable the landscape to be effectively protected? The Edwards proposals included strengthening the hand of national Parks by making them independent bodies within local government. This would entail full status as planning authorities, but even this, as the examples above show, does not provide total protection against intrusive development, even though the landscape is supposedly protected.
The development of the idea of an economic value for tourism is potentially a significant weapon in the planner's armory in resisting unwanted developments. The economic value of any development planned for the Downland will be carefully costed by the developers, this can now be offset by the loss of alternative commercial opportunities through tourism by conservation. The flaw in this approach however is that it places decision making on a financial basis, with the determinate being economic benefits related to cost alternatives. Such considerations change with time and what may be valid one day is different at a different point in time, with different prevailing circumstances. In addition the relentless pursuit of tourism revenues has already been identified as inappropriate for the Downland. An alternative approach is needed in ensuring the conservation of the Downland for future generations as a unique national asset which defies valuation. AONB or National Park status does not provide the answer.
The case studies throw interesting light on the problem, particularly that of the Malvern Hills. The Hills have successfully prevented development of any type since the inception of the Conservators over 100 years ago. Two aspects of the Conservators account for their unqualified success: 1) the ownership of the land for which they are responsible, and 2) the power of the Conservators to resist development contained in their regulatory Act of Parliament. Many a powerful institution has cast covetous eyes on the Hills in the past only to be rebuffed by the Conservators. Even mineral extraction was stopped by the Conservators in spite of previously agreed extraction arrangements stretching into the future.
Land ownership has been a powerful protective force in the American National Parks. Since their inception, state or federal ownership of land has provided the principal means of protection.[38] In the UK this provision for National Parks Authorities was recognised as necessary in the formative years of the National Parks.[39] Traditionally this role has been reflected in the role of the National Trust and land owning interchange has been proposed between Park Authorities and the Trust.[40] Like the Malvern Hills Conservators, the National Trust is supported by an Act of Parliament which renders their properties inalienable if the Trust so chooses. The New Forest Verderers were recently able to stop the Lyndhurst by-pass due to the need of the planners to secure an Act of Parliament to overrule the Verderers decisions; such is the power of being constituted by statutory instrument.[41]
In Table 3:8 the inalienable ownership of the National Trust land was seen as the strongest measure of protection status, from the ecological, landscape, recreational and archaeological viewpoints. In Table 3:2 however it was noted that the Trust only controls some 4,000 hectares of the 76,300 hectare core study area, less than five percent.
How might this situation be further developed to advantage on the Downland? The resources of the National Trust are extensive but clearly committed to a national scenario which restricts their application to the Downland. In addition much of the Trust land is not declared inalienable and therefore of lower status protection.
Throughout this thesis, an underlying issue has been the decline in agriculture's land requirements and alternative economic activity to replace agriculture. The present situation endeavours to amalgamate the desire to conserve the countryside with the wish to perpetuate the farming infrastructure. This results in a conflict of objectives with the farmer uncertain whether he is a subsidised landscape and nature conservationist or a commercial food producer. Set aside particularly creates such dissonance expressed by commentators like Homer, "Paying Farmers not to farm is not the way forward" [42] Countryside Stewardship similarly presents farmers with a dual role, often in conflict, as expressed by Jonathan Batchelor, farmer of Greatham, who outlined his endeavours to serve two masters[43]: "I'm just a farmer" - "I don't think I would ever go back to intensive farming." The notion proposed in the 1970s was that the cheapest way of caring for the countryside was to make certain that it is well farmed. The proviso was that the farmer continued to receive a fair return for his investment in capital and effort.[44] Such views are now outdated in the light of modern circumstances. This thesis proposes that in selected areas of the countryside, particularly the Sussex Downland, such a dualism is not in the best interests of either farming or conservation and that the opportunity exists to redetermine key land use objectives. MAFF recognise the need to redeploy much of the agricultural infrastructure and that this need will increase as the CAP reforms are fully implemented in coming years.[45]
A mechanism is therefore needed to transfer selected land from agricultural to the alternative use, which in the case of the Sussex Downs, is tourism through conservation. Unfortunately earnings from tourism are not directly received by the host community on the Downland, a point discussed in Chapter 13. The farmer cannot therefore be expected to become a landscape gardener without remuneration for his capital investment and effort. If such a transfer of use mechanism could be in place, the general decline in the use of land for agriculture nationally could be targeted to certain areas, thereby ensuring that prime agricultural land stays in food production and that land where alternative uses are apparent, such as the Downland, are destined to be the subject of the change in use. Much of the Downland is marginal agricultural land and would arguably be in the National interests to withdraw from agricultural use.
This sounds ideal but what happens to the traditional farmer? The answer is postulated by the "Tractors on Our Lawns" 1993 documentary from the BBC.[46] It must be recognised that any restructuring of industry creates change and most members of the populace are victims of such during their lifetimes, often manifesting itself as redundancy or private businesses closing. Agriculture is facing such change along with many other industries where technology has revolutionised working practice and consumer demand. Old style farming, surrounded by wildlife, is not conducive to modern agricultural technology and efficiency and this fact must be recognised.
The BBC documentary advocates a number of linked measures:
1) provision enabling farmers to retire from the land without financial hardship.
2) provision for farmers to dispose of land, with appropriate remuneration, enabling alternative uses to be applied.
3) assistance in relocating farm businesses to designated agricultural locations.
In this way, farmer's investment in land is protected and relocated, if required, to designated agricultural areas. Alternatively farmers not wishing to relocate can effectively retire from agricultural farming and perhaps redeploy as the "agriculteur nouveau" of conservation identified in Chapter 13.
The essential aspect of these proposals is that the land ownership moves from the commercial farmer to a conservation agency. As early as 1950 it was envisaged that the South Downs would have up to 10 percent of its land area in protected ownership.[47] A prerequisite of the appointed agency is that it is protected by Act of Parliament and its land is thereby inalienable, similar to the Malvern Hills Conservators or the National Trust. A new Sussex Downs Authority could take on this role with the necessary legislation, included in an enabling Act, similar to that of the Malvern Hills Conservators. Such a provision is outside either existing or proposed National Park or AONB remit and therefore this supposes a new type of Authority.
Inevitably the question of cost arises - who pays and who loses? Earlier in this chapter the economies of Downland tourism were considered in the context of government expenditure on conservation. The suggestion is that conservation is highly cost-effective for government income generation through taxes. A programme of significant financial input into conservation, including the acquisition of an extended public land holding, could reap considerable benefits for the economy overall and would therefore be an investment with a calculated return, a situation with which the commercial sector is familiar as a normal working practice.
This approach is discussed further in the following chapter, particularly the percentage of the Downland and use applied to such a land holding. What it does is to remove the constraints of commercial agricultural output from areas of Downland. Farming practices can then be replaced by management schemes aimed at providing a traditional Downland landscape. Such proposals provide a new perspective to the need for increased public land holding in AONBs, voiced by Smart and Anderson.[48]
In conclusion therefore, the debate on whether the Sussex Downs should be designated a National Park or an AONB in the future is not the key issue, merely a possible means of resolving underlying problems. Examination of these problems suggest approaches that are not encapsulated in the normal protection measures of either National parks or AONBs. Already the Downland enjoys a unique structural status with the Conservation Board. The retention of such a body in the future, reinforcing its planning ability by making it the statutory planning authority, would provide the necessary access to the planning process. In addition however the development of an inalienable land holding would put the conservation of selected areas of the Downs on the highest level of protection available, no other lesser status will suffice.
Making the Downland a National Park appears to offer little attraction in the light of the wish to adopt a neutral tourism marketing stance and the requirement of landscape conservation as the highest priority. The case studies have been particularly enlightening in this respect. Even the funding debate, the attraction for many conservationists in National Park status, is negated in the light of the more commercial approach proposed. The existing AONB status will suffice given the strength of the related proposals.
Many fear that National Park designation alone will lead to revised attitudes to visitors and thereby increase their impact and frequency. The arguments expressed in this chapter suggest that the four aims of the South Downs National Park Campaign Group, identified in Chapter 2, will be fulfilled in spite of AONB status being preferred. In this way the concerns of many who are mindful of the Downland, will be allayed.[49] Also the continued loss of important archaeological sites on the Downland, voiced by Marion Shoard,[50] together with the perpetual threat of disfigurement through development, will be ameliorated by the securing, for all time, of a substantial public land holding, as demonstrated by the role and activities of the Malvern Hills Conservators.
Footnotes:
[1] See Chapter 2, part 3.
[2] SDCB, 1993, Annual Report, 1992/3, p2.
[3] SDCB, 1993, Annual Report, 1992/3, p1/2.
[4] West Sussex Gazette, 1994, "Merger Scheme would take in Half Coast of Downland", 14 April.
[5] Monaghan S. 1884, "People Power Prevails", West Sussex Gazette, Dec 22, p1.
[6] Edwards R E. 1991, Fit for the Future, report of the National Parks Review Panel, Countryside Commission, CCP334, Cheltenham.
[7] Friends of National Parks, 1993, "Campaign Update", Viewpoint, issue 12, p3.
[8] Countryside Commission, 1991, Caring for the Countryside, CCP 351, p17.
[9] Friends of National Parks, 1993, p4.
[10] National Parks Today, 1994, "It's Norrie to the Rescue", No 37.
[11] Wainright M. 1994, "The Land the Tories Forgot", Guardian, Environment Section, 14/15, 1 April.
[12] National Parks Today, 1994, No 37, p1; Countryside Commission, 1993, The National Park Authority, CCP 230, p12.
[13] Dept. of Environment, 1992, Fit for the Future, a (response) statement by the Government on policies for the National Parks, January, p3.
[14] Friends of National Parks, 1994, "Bill Blocked by Commons", Viewpoint, issue 14, Summer, p2.
[15] Elcoate V. 1994, "Background Briefing for MP's Letter", Council for National Parks public relations release, 13 May; Friends of National Parks, 1995, "Legislation at Last", Viewpoint, issue 15, Spring, p2,3; Council For National Parks, 1995, Environment Bill, Briefing for Peers, typescript, January.
[16] Smart G. & Anderson M. 1990, Planning and Management of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Countryside Commission, CCP295, Manchester.
[17] Countryside Commission, 1991, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, A Policy Statement, CCP356.
[18] World Tourism Organisation, 1992, Guidelines: Development of National Parks and Protected Areas, United Nations Environment Programme, see ch.2.
[19] Derived from the Sandford Committee who examined National Park policies in the 1970s, see Blunden J and Curry N. 1985, The Changing Countryside, Helm Pubs, p137.
[20] CPRE. 1992, Tourism Draft Planning Policy Guidance Notes, London, May, see 8.4.
[21] Cherrett T. (Sussex Rural Community Council) et al, 1994, Rural Community Needs, unpublished report prepared by the SDCB Rural Development Panel, Jan. see 4.26.
[22] Smart G. & Anderson M. 1990, p14.
[23] See Chapter 2.
[24] National Parks Today, 1993, "What a Difference a Year Makes", No 35.
[25] See Chapter 13.
[26] Shoard M. 1980, The Theft of the Countryside, Temple Smith, London p133.
[27] Homer P. 1993, "A New Battle Looms over Trundle Plan", West Sussex Gazette, 11 Nov.
[28] West Sussex Gazette, 1993, "Forest of Towers Cause Anguish", 24 June, p5.
[29] Monahan S. 1993, "Snookered by New Radio Mast Policy", West Sussex Gazette, 26 Aug, p5.
[30] Monaghan S. 1993, "Council Fury over New Ruling on Masts", West Sussex Gazette, 19 Aug. p1.
[31] Society of Sussex Downsmen, 1993, "Report of the Chairman of the Downs Preservation Committee", 70th Report, Society of Sussex Downsmen, p28.
[32] Matthews M. 1993, "Conservation Board is not Enough Protection", West Sussex Gazette, letter to the editor, 2 Dec.
[33] Jury L. 1993, "Demand for Clay Pits Casts Cloud over Dartmoor", The Guardian, 19 Aug.
[34] National Parks Today, 1993, "CNP Rails at Quarry Threat, No 36.
[35] National Parks Today, 1993, "Golf Battle Dumps Park in the Rough", No. 36.
[36] Hunt N, 1993, New National Parks, The Next Steps, Council for National Parks, 2.28/29.
[37] County Planning Officer, ESCC & SDCB Officer, 1993, Draft Sussex Heritage Coast Managment Plan, see 11.1-6.
[38] Shoard M. 1980, p137.
[39] Browning N. 1950, National Parks and Access to the Countryside, Thames Bank Publishing, London, p11.
[40] Browning N. 1950, p12.
[41] BBC2, 1993, Southern Eye, broadcast April.
[42] Homer P. 1994, "Bumper Crop Subsidies put Countryside at Risk", West Sussex Gazette, 26 May.
[43] Batchelor J. 1994, "I'm Just A Farmer Says Conservationist's Shining Example", West Sussex Gazette, 26 May, p1.
[44] Haines G H. 1973, Whose Countryside? Dent, London, p68.
[45] Tarran A E. 1994, "Consultation on Rural Community Needs", MAFF letter to P Tiplady, SDCB, 31 March.
[46] Radio 4, 1993, "Tractors on our Lawns", broadcast, 11 Nov, 8pm.
[47] Browning N. 1950, p32.
[48] Smart G. & Anderson M. 1990, p23.
[49] Stockton P. 1993, "National Park Status? No Thanks", National Parks Today, No.35, p6.
