Glover Landscapes Review

Proposal 1: National landscapes should have a renewed mission to recover and enhance nature, and be supported and held to account for delivery by a new National Landscapes Service National Landscapes should be special places for nature. They should lead the way to nature recovery, in line with the 25 Year Environment Plan. They should do this through management which protects and enhances their special qualities as landscapes shaped by human and natural activity. They should become exemplars of the IUCN’s Category V landscapes, supporting the very best in nature and natural beauty. In order to support this, we make two recommendations. The first is that the legal purposes of national landscapes should be revised to be explicit about this purpose, and the same purpose applied to AONBs as to National Parks. Second, we need a new National Landscapes Service to drive ambition, collaboration and delivery. A stronger purpose for nature and beauty The mission of our national landscapes is enshrined in law through statutory purposes and duties. National Park purposes and duty 1. Conserve and enhance natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage 2. Promote understanding and enjoyment of its special qualities by the public A duty to seek to foster the social and economic wellbeing of the local communities within the National Park in pursuit of purposes. A single AONB purpose Conserve and enhance natural beauty These purposes provide foundations for all actions that follow: for government policy, resource allocation and decisions; helping people understand what these places are for and why they deserve protection; and providing the tests against which difficult and important decisions are made. They also secure their national importance and have implications for how these areas are regarded by the international community. During the review process, a group of alumni of our national landscapes shared with us a brief history of how National Park and AONB purposes have evolved (see Annex 2). This shows that though John Dower’s language from his 1945 report still resonates, the legislation that followed has had to be updated. Today’s wording has been clarified by later legislation and now requires each National Park to “conserve and enhance its natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage”. AONBs, now designated under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, still only have a single purpose, and only in relation to ‘natural beauty’. We believe the current purposes are inadequate in relation to natural beauty and nature recovery. ‘Wildlife’ does not reflect the wider scientific ideas embodied in ‘biodiversity’ and ‘nature’. Nor does it support the concepts of natural capital or ecosystem services. Nor does ‘conserve and enhance’ reflect the reality that much of our biodiversity is badly damaged; simply sustaining what we have is not nearly good enough. Some important concepts disentangled • ‘Natural beauty’, although not defined in detail in the legislation underpinning our national landscapes, is considered in that legislation to include flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features.22 ∞∞‘Wildlife’ is a non-scientific term that usually covers non-domesticated plants, animals and other organisms. ∞∞‘Geological and physiographical features’, more usually referred to as ‘geodiversity’, embraces the whole variety of earth materials, forms and processes that constitute and shape the earth. ∞∞‘Cultural heritage’ concerns the associations of the landscape with people, places or events throughout history and encompasses the built environment, archaeology and designed landscapes, characteristic land management practices and associations with art and the written word. ∞∞The terms ‘wildlife’, ‘flora’, ‘fauna’ and ‘geological and physiographical’ do not entirely embrace all the important aspects inherent in the term ‘biodiversity’. ∞∞‘Biodiversity’ is defined under the Convention on Biological Diversity as: “the variability among living organisms from all sources including .... (that) within species, between species and of ecosystems”. ∞∞‘Nature’ is defined by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature in the context of protected areas as always referring to biodiversity, at genetic, species and ecosystem level, and often also refers to geodiversity, landform and broader natural values. Protecting biodiversity is therefore more than the conservation of fauna and flora or ‘wildlife’ as it includes ecosystems and genetic variation within species. We propose a new set of wording applicable to both National Parks and AONBs to read as follows: Recover, conserve and enhance natural beauty, biodiversity and natural capital, and cultural heritage. A revised statutory purpose that combines natural beauty and cultural heritage with the delivery of biodiversity and natural capital would be very significant. It would be a new statement of the national importance of our national landscapes in providing vital, life supporting ecosystem services, to be placed alongside their established role in protecting landscape and nature of national importance. It would also help enshrine the essential link between people and nature. 22 Section 114(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and section 92(2) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. A National Landscapes Service Our system of landscape protection today is fragmented, sometimes marginalised and often misunderstood. We believe this leads to duplication, wastes resources and diminishes ambition. We want to see a National Landscapes Service maximise partnerships between national landscapes, set challenging targets and make sure they are met. Key to this would be the National Landscapes Service working alongside Natural England, including creating greater collaboration between different forms of designation, such as National Nature Reserves which are currently often poorly connected, and SSSIs. And working alongside Forestry England on the public forest estate and the Canal and River Trust where relevant. It should share skills, good practice and link landscapes. It should challenge and help landscape bodies do more than they do now. Improved oversight, coordination, direction and national focus would enable National Parks and AONBs in their individual management to act more collectively as a ‘family’ to deliver benefits which could then be expected to exceed the sum of their individual efforts. Oversight by the National Landscapes Service would also facilitate much clearer monitoring of, and reporting upon, the outcomes delivered by national landscapes collectively. We set out fuller details on the role of a new National Landscapes Service in the New Ways of Working chapter.

Proposal 10: Landscapes that cater for and improve the nation’s health and wellbeing We think there should be a new role for our national landscapes in helping the health of our nation, working with another great national institution founded the year before legislation for landscapes: the NHS. They can and should move faster to be at the heart of this developing field, locally and nationally. At a national level they should, through a new National Landscapes Service, come together to establish national conversations and relationships with the Department for Health and Social Care, Public Health England and NHS England, to ensure their role and all they can offer is embedded in relevant strategies, policies and guidelines. At a local level, they should all establish strong relationships with local public health teams, clinical commissioning groups and social prescribing link workers. Our national landscapes must also make strides to make their areas more accessible for disabled visitors. The Policy Lab work and meetings with groups representing disabled visitors showed us the huge appetite those faced with physical disabilities have for getting out into nature. But poorly designed countryside infrastructure can needlessly make it hard for them or stop them visiting at all. We would like to see more done. ‘Miles Without Stiles’ routes were commonly mentioned as exemplars of best practice and we were highly impressed with the work of Accessible Derbyshire. We think national landscapes should work to develop a network of accessible, hard surface, stile-free paths that are disabled and wheelchair-friendly, deploy gates with RADAR keys, and provide all-terrain mobility scooters and routes. Arnside and Silverdale AONB Tramper Visitors with limited mobility now have greater access to RSPB Leighton Moss nature reserve thanks to the funding and provision of a Tramper. As an all-terrain mobility scooter, the Tramper is ideal for exploring the nature reserve, and enables those who may need a little extra help getting around to experience the area’s special landscape and nature. The Tramper was funded through the Arnside and Silverdale AONB Sustainable Development Fund, with match funding from the RSPB, Lancashire County Council, Lancashire and District Ramblers Association, Arnside Ramblers, Yealand Manor and Leighton Hall Estate. The Tramper is free to use and no prior experience of using a Tramper is necessary, as users are given an induction in how to operate it. The Tramper comes with instructions, wet weather gear, and a radio and first aid kit. Staff training events were organised in order to provide a good service to the public. The Tramper is used frequently each week. Work has now started on the provision of a much longer Tramper-friendly route, linking up Leighton Moss with nearby Trowbarrow, Gait Barrows and Coldwell nature reserves and widening access to some of the must- see parts of the AONB. A route map will be published shortly and the new route will be widely promoted, both in its own right and also as part of a network of such routes in the Morecambe Bay area.

Proposal 11: Expanding volunteering in our national landscapes We want national landscapes to develop a structured approach to volunteering. There should be a really strong pro-volunteer ethos right across the board in all national landscapes. It should be a highly diverse, professionally-supported and powerful group of people doing many different things, which could include volunteer rangers, education, practical conservation, surveying and information gathering, wildlife watchers, rights of way support through to people playing a role supporting the administration and organisation of the national landscapes. National Parks and National Landscapes should take on an ‘enabling’ role to foster a very wide range of volunteering for a wide range of organisations working in the landscapes. The New Forest has done just this, with its volunteer opportunity directory and workshops. They must also set ambitious goals for attracting and retaining volunteers and, via the National Landscapes Service, work collectively to ensure a consistency of approach both for volunteers themselves and third party partners. Particular emphasis should be made in forging links with communities currently underrepresented among volunteers. Volunteering with the South Dorset Ridgeway Landscape Partnership The South Dorset Ridgeway Landscape Partnership, led by Dorset AONB, set out to conserve, enhance and celebrate a little known but internationally important ancient ceremonial landscape, and to engage volunteers in the process. The volunteers achieved a huge amount: ∞∞440 condition surveys of Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age monuments, with half completed by just two volunteers. ∞∞40 archaeological features brought into improved condition. ∞∞540m of dry stone wall restored and 2.2km of hedgerow laid. ∞∞30 training and survey events, 300 participant days and 2,000+ new records for nature. ∞∞18 Wildlife Champions recruited and trained. ∞∞12 village greenspaces improved for biodiversity and 15ha of priority habitat in improved condition. The volunteers comprised a core group of 40 Volunteer Rangers who committed over 1,700 volunteer days – their average commitment was 43 days over three years. Female participation was improved, rising to 57% of the regular volunteers. Overall, volunteers committed over 2,700 days to the project and the total value of volunteer time was over £300,000. “I never thought I’d do anything like this, you get out with your bowsaw and loppers – I’ve even got a chainsaw ticket now! I like to feel useful and the Ridgeway project has really changed me – I was never one for high heel shoes but now I go around in steel toe caps!”

Proposal 12: Better information and signs to guide visitors The National Landscapes Service should develop core principles of public access for all of our national landscapes, from a single helpful website, to high standards on rights of way signs and entry points. It should feel special to be in a national landscape, and people should be helped to find their way. They should work with other private and public bodies who have their own signage and branding to help visitors understand how it all fits together. As part of this, we think National Parks should take on the legal responsibility to maintain rights of way in the areas they cover and that funding for this should move from local government. In practical terms, most local authorities devolve this power already. But it makes no sense for some of the most used walking routes in the country to be overseen by local highways authorities. Given their size, AONB bodies are unlikely to have the resources in some cases to take on the legal responsibility, but we nevertheless urge close working between them and local highways authorities to ensure that rights of way in our nationally important landscapes receive the priority they deserve.

Proposal 13: A ranger service in all our national landscapes, part of a national family We recommend a 1,000-strong, professional, nationwide ranger service. The type of impressive, engaging nationwide ranger service which underpins the US National Park Service and is part of its welcome to visitors does not exist in the same way here. The small number of rangers that National Parks do employ are popular and hard- working, aided in many places by excellent volunteers. We want to build on this approach, with many more rangers with an explicit purpose to help and encourage visitors make the most of our wonderful landscapes and to support local communities. Rangers should become the friendly face of our national landscapes, supported through a career structure based in the National Landscapes Service. Rangers would also be a key link with land managers and residents, picking up on issues as they occur, informed by excellent knowledge of their patch, their communities and the issues at hand. We have heard from many people the friction that can be caused by some visitors and the need for education and information provision to tackle this. Rangers should be the friendly face providing this service. Rangers should be the ambassadors for our national landscapes and have a key role in supporting visitors to make the best use of the full range of opportunities our landscapes offer, helping spread visitors more evenly and away from the so-called honeypot sites to other treasures. They would also have a key role with schools, supporting our ambition for every school child to spend a night in a national landscape. We hope that volunteer rangers – including the excellent junior ranger scheme in Dartmoor – would be established through this. In order to deliver this ambition, we want to see 1,000 rangers across our 44 national landscapes.

Proposal 14: National landscapes supported to become leaders in sustainable tourism We realise that increasing numbers of visitors is not without its challenges. One respondent to our call for evidence reflected that certain places were being overwhelmed: “their popularity heralds their demise”. We believe who comes, where they go, what they do and how they benefit from their experience can be shaped through leadership and education, and good destination management, rather than restrictions on numbers through rules or fees. Everyone involved in managing landscapes knows the so-called honeypot sites, the days to avoid, the moment quiet lanes along somewhere like Wastwater are lined with parked cars, impacting the special qualities people come to enjoy in the first place. Some have talked of using charging as a way of managing numbers and raising funds. We would never want to discourage anyone from visiting and we do not believe charging would be fair or practical. Our national landscapes do not have entry fees and nor should they. Instead, we hope they will be encouraged to apply to become tourism zones under the new Tourism Sector Deal. Such areas would see destination management organisations, local authorities, local enterprise partnerships, and local businesses working together to develop solutions that address local market failures in relation to tourism. For areas that are successful in their bid to become a Tourism Zone, a package of support would be offered and they would create a sustainable development plan to reduce environmental impacts. Some of our national landscapes should be at the forefront of these initiatives, with others able to benefit from lessons learnt.

Proposal 15: Joining up with others to make the most of what we have, and bringing National Trails into the national landscapes family There is scope for our national landscapes to do more with the other public bodies operating in their areas, from Natural England on SSSIs and National Nature Reserves to Forestry England on public forests. We see the National Landscapes Service having a core role in supporting national level conversations to make these links and join things up. Within this, we think there is a very strong case for bringing National Trails into the national landscapes family. Doing so could help develop the links between national landscapes and their surrounding areas, forming the basis for accessible networks of routes linked to these long distance routes and imaginative ways to encourage enjoyment of these special places. We believe the stronger links and wider relationships will also help National Trails with issues we’ve heard of, for example, walkers facing difficulties finding accommodation when providers want a minimum booking of three nights. We think they should be brought squarely into the fold of the new National Landscapes Service, supported by funding, giving them a national voice and focus. National Trails Walking in the wild and beautiful parts of Britain became increasingly popular in the early decades of the twentieth century. After World War II the desire to keep areas of Britain ‘special’ and protect them from post‑war development ran alongside the establishment of National Parks and AONBs. The same legislation that laid the foundations for our national landscapes also did so for Long Distance Routes (now called National Trails in England). The first National Trail, the Pennine Way, created following lobbying by Tom Stephenson and others from the 1930s, was finally opened in 1965. The latest, the England Coast Path, will be the longest managed and waymarked coastal path in the world when complete. During the last 70 years over 2,200 miles of trails have been created to traverse England’s coast and countryside. All 13 in England run through at least one, and often two or three, National Parks and AONBs. They see 83m day visits per year and visitors spend £533m. Current government spending equates to 3p per visitor, supported by 3,000 volunteer working days each year, valued at £300,000. They estimate that walking and riding on National Trails could save the NHS £167m in health benefits.48 48 National Trails Annual Reports National Trails NORTH Hadrian’s Wall Path Pennine Way Cleveland Way Yorkshire Wolds Way Pennine Bridleway Offa’s Dyke Path Cotswold Way The Ridgeway Thames Path North Downs Way South Downs Way South West Coast Path Peddars Way & Norfolk Coast Path

Proposal 16: Consider expanding open access rights in national landscapes Though it is not a core part of our review, and any look at open access needs a much more in depth investigation, we think there is a case for looking at whether further access rights should be established, or at the very least considered or trialled in our national landscapes. The existing law and its application excludes many different user groups entirely, or favours walking on foot. We do not seek to undermine those rights; indeed we want to see walking further supported by national landscapes taking on rights of way management and the National Landscapes Service supporting National Trails. But it feels wrong that many parts of our most beautiful places are off- limits to horse riders, water users, cavers, wild campers and so on. We hope that as part of the government’s commitment to connect more people with nature, it will look seriously at whether the levels of open access we have in our most special places are adequate. GROW Project: South Downs National Park GROW aims to improve wellbeing and mental health by enabling access to the therapeutic benefits of the natural environment. It was delivered with the South Downs National Park Authority’s (SDNPA) eastern area ranger team, through events and training sessions, as well as guided walks. SDNPA supported GROW in applying to the Sustainable Communities Fund who awarded them a £12,000 grant to fund a minibus lease for three years to enable collection and transport of participants. GROW evaluated outcomes and found 87% of participants reported a significant or great benefit to their mental health. 63% reported GROW had a significant or great benefit to their physical health. 89% said their social interaction had increased. Participants said: “I’m less isolated, more optimistic and connected to others. It’s been so refreshing to learn how to focus on the beauty of the environment rather than my illness.” “In an area which is often neglected – mental health – and where conventional treatment all too often tends to involve sitting in a room processing, GROW stands out for me as something radically different, and a little bit magic too.” GROW learnt that working in collaboration with other projects might enable more sustainability for the project in future, and with that in mind created the Green Wellbeing Network which brings together other projects doing similar work in the local area.

Proposal 17: National landscapes working for vibrant communities The current duty in relation to local communities is vague, leading to wide variation in how National Park Authorities interpret it and some National Park communities feeling disengaged. It is also wrong that it does not apply to AONBs. We therefore think this duty should be upgraded to a purpose, refreshed, and applied to both National Parks and AONBs equally. We think they should have a statutory purpose to: Foster the economic and community vitality of their area in support of the first two purposes Our landscape management teams need to think hard about the various communities in their area: farmers and landowners, businesses, towns and villages and above all, schools. How can they help those various communities really benefit from living and working in a national landscape? How can they ensure that they identify with the brand, and are inspired to take forward the living past into the future? How can they create the long-term partnerships with these communities that will ensure our national landscapes have a sustainable future? Positive action is required here. Our landscapes should encourage the kinds of economic and social activity that promotes renewed purposes of national landscapes. There’s a real future in good jobs in rural areas including growing and processing local food, sustainable tourism, nature recovery and land management; many enterprises connected with their purposes. It is striking for example that the Wales Coast Path, which cost £14m to put in, was, within just a year, generating £33m per annum.61 We also think it essential that communities have a voice in decision-making, which is why we want to keep local authority and parish representation on planning committees, and introduce community seats on boards. We set this out further in the New Ways of Working chapter. 61 Welsh Economy Research Unit, Cardiff Business School (2012) The Economic Impact of Wales Coast Path Visitor Spending on Wales 2012.

Proposal 18: A new National Landscapes Housing Association to build affordable homes There is a clear need for a steady supply of a small number of affordable homes to rent in many national landscapes. More sites are available which could be granted planning permission than there are being utilised to build affordable homes in some areas. Although excellent work is done by rural housing associations, working with local authorities, this is not consistent or enough. As local planning authorities themselves, National Parks have the power to create housing, and we heard how the New Forest National Park has done so. But this is not likely to become a widespread activity, given the pressures on budgets and other demands. We want to see a National Landscapes Affordable Rural Housing Association formed to help meet the need. It should have clear, well-designed purposes and a defined scope (and in particular ‘rural’ should mean ‘rural’) with leadership from the new National Landscapes Service. It should be debt financed (the equity should be publicly owned) and should attract environmental, social and government investment funds. In addition it might in limited circumstances get some ‘public monies for public goods’ as farming support is reformed. National Parks, as local planning authorities, should consider using their powers to set conditions on new housing to ensure it remains affordable. We also recommend that the NPPF is amended to allow National Parks and local authorities more flexibility to deliver affordable homes in national landscapes generally. Infilling should count towards new build targets in AONBs and local planning authorities in AONBs should also make use of the provision that allows them to demand on-site affordable housing contributions on all sites, including developments of five homes or fewer.62 We hope government will work with national landscape bodies and rural housing providers to help them deliver the affordable homes they need. We are not making proposals to tax or restrict second homes. Although they can cause acute problems in some areas. We think local authorities, in consultation with residents, remain best-placed to determine whether to use the powers already open to them to charge increased rates for second homes. 62 Paragraph 63 of the NPPF Affordable homes in National Parks and AONBs New Forest: In July 2016 the New Forest National Park Authority completed two new affordable homes in the village of Bransgore. This is the first time a National Park Authority has built and managed housing for local people. Land on the outskirts of Bransgore was gifted to the Authority in 2013 specifically for affordable housing. Early discussions with a local housing association revealed that they would require the freehold ownership of the site which was not the basis on which the offer of land was made and therefore the Authority chose to take the project forward with the support of the District Council’s housing team. The project was funded by Section 106 agreements and the Authority adopted its own Tenancy Policy, rented out at no more than 80% of the open market value. Two families with a local connection to the village were suggested by the local authority for the properties, which were then let within two weeks of completion The rent is ring-fenced to support future affordable housing provision in the Park. Dorset AONB: Yarlington Housing Group and Lyme Regis Community Land Trust completed 15 affordable homes in February 2018 in Dorset AONB. Yarlington, a non-profit Community Benefit Society and registered housing association, developed and now manages the completed homes, while the Community Land Trust is the long-term steward of the homes, owning the freehold. These homes provide long-term sustainable solutions to local housing needs as they are not open to Right to Buy and the community retains the assets. Designated Landscapes Review

Proposal 19: A new approach to coordinating public transport piloted in the Lake District, and new, more sustainable ways of accessing national landscapes The days when Alfred Wainwright wrote his walking guides to the Lake District setting off from Kendal each morning by bus have long gone. Today, car use is the dominant mode of transport in National Parks and AONBs, as it is in the rest of the country. The 2011 census showed that 88% of households in National Parks owned one or more cars,63 and research by National Parks UK in 2014 suggested that 93% of visitors arrive by car.64 Car dependency and public transport pressures present huge challenges for our national landscapes. Because many people cannot afford to live there, they are forced to commute in, and because public transport information is not widely available people rely on their cars. This creates traffic and pollution, and limits how visitors can access these landscapes. Parking is insufficient, and when people do use public transport the limitations of this mean that they struggle with ways to transport luggage across ‘the final mile’. 72% of large attractions in the UK are over one mile away from a train station.65 Fees from car parking are also a big source of funding for some National Parks (the Lake District National Park charges up to £500 for an annual permit). Those fees may be both a deterrent to car use and an incentive to National Parks to tolerate their continuation. We don’t think all car use is wrong, or that it can be ended. But we do think people should be given a choice and we also think that unlimited car use can spoil the natural beauty of the special places people come to see in the first place. It is not much fun being on the shores of somewhere such as Windermere on a bike or on foot when the A592 is nose to tail, or queuing to get to a beach in Cornwall. Some National Parks told us that they have had to cut back on schemes such as DalesBus in recent years. In the Peak District National Park even though the road along the Derwent Valley is closed to cars at certain times of the year, the bus service which was offered was underused. In 2016 just 1,600 people used the minibus. In 2017, it didn’t run at all. In many places the only simple way to find out what is available is to use the transport planner on Google Maps. And although national landscapes may play a role in encouraging sustainable transport, the duty is held by local authorities, which means different parts of one National Park or AONB can come under different authorities 63 Key statistics for National Parks in England and Wales, Office for National Statistics, 2011 65 VisitBritain/VisitEngland Call for Evidence Response with different structures and levels of support. The 2017 Campaign for National Parks Report National Parks for all: Making car-free travel easier66 identified this complexity. It argues that: “With so many different organisations involved, there is a need for one organisation to take a strategic overview of how best to improve access for visitors. We believe that National Park Authorities should take on this role”. National Parks are well placed to take on an active role in coordinating and promoting transport. They are the bodies best placed to communicate with visitors, and to have a single strategic vision. We think that the pressures and need for strategy is the same in AONBs. For example, in Cannock Chase there is a confusion of parking places and now little alternative public transport. In its submission to our review, the Lake District National Park set out an ambition to be a world leader and test bed for low carbon transport, by 2040. It wants to formalise its influence in regional and sub-regional transport policy, to secure, lead, commission and provide schemes and infrastructure by becoming the Strategic Transport Authority for the Park. Local Transport Sustainable Fund in the Lake District67 The Lake District National Park Authority in partnership with Cumbria County Council was successful in obtaining nearly £5m from the government’s Local Transport Sustainable Fund. Targeted at reducing the carbon impact of the millions of visitors to the central and southern Lake District National Park, the funding will be used to bring about improved passenger transport services, safer and better connected routes for walking, wheelchairs and cycling, new integrated ticketing and the availability of electric bikes and clean vehicles to hire. Projects will be delivered through local businesses and community enterprises to ensure the economic benefits are spread throughout the local economy. We think the Lake District is a suitable area to pilot this proposal. It is heavily congested, it has logical boundaries and a limited number of entry points. More widely, as part of an increased strategic role in transport, national landscapes should encourage ‘total transport’ schemes, which integrate a wide range of government spending on transport into frequent systems open to a range of users. School and NHS transport money can be used to support public bus services, for instance. We strongly encourage interest in this, following on from successful trials funded by the Department for Transport. Making%20car-free%20travel%20easier%20FULL%20REPORT.pdf We should also encourage the Swiss model of Postbuses into rural areas. Visitors are told: “You may take your bicycle with you on Postbuses providing there is sufficient space available and you do not obstruct passengers from getting on or off the vehicle. During the summer season, Postbuses travelling on most tourist routes are equipped with bike racks at the back of the bus”. Increased availability of 4G mobile signals means there is an opportunity for new forms of ride sharing, including on-demand minibus services and private hire vehicles. Finally, in its submission to the review, the Lake District National Park Authority notes that 50% of its carbon budget is made up of emissions from visitors, much of which is from cars. The government has set out plans for the electrification of the vehicle fleet. A glance at maps of electric charging points shows an almost precise inverse correlation between them and National Parks. National landscapes have not come together to push collectively for more charging points, and urban areas have led the way. We suggest all public car parks in national landscapes which have a suitable electricity supply are fitted with e-charging points within the next two years, drawing on central government funding.

Proposal 2: The state of nature and natural capital in our national landscapes should be regularly and robustly assessed, informing the priorities for action Today, not enough is known about the state of nature in our national landscapes. The state of SSSIs is certainly not a sufficient basis for assessing or improving their condition. If we are to restore nature, and make it resilient – and grasp the economic opportunities which come from properly accounting for and protecting nature – we must start by understanding what we have, and have a regular way of checking its health, so we can focus action in the right areas. We support the call in the Colchester Declaration from AONBs for such work and argue that this should form part of the Management Plans for all national landscapes. These assessments should follow a standardised process across landscapes and incorporate a range of data layers. This will enable the identification of specific locations for a range of actions to help improve the ecological resilience of habitats and species. They should describe the extent and location of habitat networks within each national landscape and links beyond their boundaries. They should show not just what is present across the whole of our national landscapes but what is not – i.e. what is not there today, but could be. They should be carried out with and by partners, involving all who are able to contribute. They should follow natural capital principles. The government’s 25 year Environment Plan is underpinned by the natural capital approach and the benefits of this approach are well documented.23 This should include for example an asset register which identifies assets that are at risk of going beyond the point they can renew themselves and hence risk being lost forever, and a set of natural capital accounts. We would like to see national landscapes embark on this approach by learning from those who have already trod the path, and in an enterprising spirit. Digital techniques, from satellite imagery to drones and on the ground data, have revolutionised our ability to understand what we have got and there is much more afoot.24 These assessments and accounts should then form the basis for prioritised, targeted and long-term programmes and projects of action to recover nature to be set out in the 23 Natural Capital Committee: NCC advice on government’s 25 year environment plan. 24 The ‘Living England’ project being developed by Natural England in partnership with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee is producing the next generation of satellite-based priority habitat mapping of England, and intends to produce it as an open dataset under the Open Government Licence, with big opportunities to aid nature recovery efforts. national landscapes’ strengthened Management Plans (see proposal 3 below), and used to support monitoring, evaluation and reporting on progress. These must be developed with the involvement, knowledge and experience of those with an interest, not least farmers and land managers, recreational groups, communities and businesses. We see the collaborative development of these plans – and through them, the articulation of the priorities for landscapes that safeguard beauty, natural capital and public goods for people – as forming the basis on which future farming payments should be made too. It is important to note that the Environment Bill will place the 25 Year Environment Plan on a statutory footing, ensuring that clear plans are developed and progress reported on in a statutory cycle of Environment Improvement Plans. The concept of Local Natural Capital Recovery Plans is being developed at the moment. We think it vital that these plans exist at the national landscape level, ideally through the Management Plan route as set out here, and not just as a collection of individual plans by local authorities in those areas. It makes little sense to develop multiple small-scale plans along administrative lines, when our national landscapes can, and should be, taking a landscape-scale approach in a national context. Towards a Register of Exmoor’s Natural Capital25 In 2017, Professor Dieter Helm, Chairman of the Natural Capital Committee, challenged the Exmoor Society (a group supporting the National Park) to explore how they could use the natural capital concept. The Exmoor Society quickly rose to the challenge, starting with a project to trial a practical toolkit that would help it identify the ecosystem services provided by Exmoor. They’ve tested it in three pilot areas which, between them, cover almost all the landscape types in the National Park. This work has moved forward the natural capital approach in several ways: 1. It proposes a unifying classification describing all elements of natural capital, overcoming the duplication and inconsistencies inherent in existing typologies. 2. It investigates and describes the relationship between natural capital and cultural considerations, a topic that is frequently neglected in other work. 3. It uses landscape character to ensure descriptions of natural capital are place-based, capturing the distinctiveness and special qualities of landform, land cover, management, experiences and perceptions. 4. It shows the importance of involving local knowledge and values to gain the commitment of the people who own, manage or use natural capital. This gives them a personal stake in the concept of natural capital.

Proposal 20: New designated landscapes and a new National Forest The pattern of national landscapes across England has been remarkably static. After a burst of activity in the 1950s the creation of new National Parks slowed to a crawl. Only the Broads, New Forest and the South Downs have been added in recent years (1988, 2005 and 2009 respectively) along with extensions to the Yorkshire Dales and Lake District in 2016. Less work has been done on AONBs. The last new AONB was Tamar Valley in 1995 and the last extension to one, the Dedham Vale, was in 1991, although In July 2019 Natural England submitted legal Orders extending the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB to the Defra Secretary of State for confirmation. Our system remains weighted towards the west against the east, the uplands not the lowlands, the deeply rural against urban fringes and the inland against the coast. There are benefits to stability. National landscapes, especially National Parks, have become a rooted part of the areas they cover. In the Peak District and Lake District, few residents or visitors will now remember a time when they were not in place. They have lasted longer than many local authorities and are better understood as a result. They have earned their place and our respect. But new pressures exist. As a result, we think three of the larger AONBs should be considered for National Park status. It is essential that if any new National Park is created, it is supported with additional funds, as the South Downs National Park was, and that costs are not met by stretching the current budget. The Chilterns In July 2018, the Chilterns Conservation Board submitted a request to Natural England for a review of the designation and requested that National Park status be considered. We see very strong merit in this. Designation as a National Park should not be a block on growth in the wider region, but a natural counterpart to it. The aim should be to enhance natural beauty and nature in an area of high landscape value, while giving due recognition to the importance of the Chilterns for access and enjoyment. It is precisely because the government has made big strategic choices for the region – such as HS2, the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, the Heathrow expansion and new homes – that it should also consider a big strategic choice now in favour of a new National Park for the Chilterns. The Chilterns is an obvious choice for National Park status. It is already designated as an AONB. It more than meets the criterion for recreational opportunity, with 10m people living within an hour’s drive, many just a tube ride away. That number will increase given developments around its boundaries and in the Oxford- Cambridge corridor. It also boasts a 1,200 mile network of rights of way and is easily accessible to the increasing populations around its boundaries. The Oxford-Cambridge Arc mirrors the west and northern boundaries of the AONB and is due to see another 1m more homes – an increase of more than 25% – by 2050. The Oxford-Cambridge Expressway and East West Rail are also planned. People who benefit from these will also benefit from a new National Park, and in turn we think some of these developments should be able to meet many of the costs. Money has been allocated to develop a local natural capital planning approach in the Oxford-Cambridge Arc but this must take in the surrounding areas of importance, including the Chilterns AONB, and work with other projects such as HS2 which is already funding environmental work in the Chilterns. Should the Chilterns remain an AONB there is a strong case for the Conservation Board to be given increased resources, and, if other recommendations are accepted in this report, further powers to address the specific challenges that it faces. Namely, it currently works with 17 local authorities, and a multitude of local plans. A single statutory local plan, as we discuss in the next chapter of this report, could manage some of the pressures. But we think National Park status offers wider benefits and should be pursued as the preference. The Cotswolds and Dorset We received submissions on the case for several other AONBs to become National Parks too. The two that stand out as leading candidates are the Cotswolds AONB and the combined Dorset and East Devon AONBs. The Cotswolds suffers the same challenges of the Conservation Board model as the Chilterns, including a lack of a single strategic local plan with statutory status. The area is world-famous for its natural beauty, hugely popular with visitors from around the world and its landscape and villages are one of the emblems of England. It is a big contributor to the national economy. These things would be better supported by National Park status. Dorset has some of the greatest concentrations of biodiversity in Britain and opportunities for enjoyment. It includes the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site as well as farmed areas inland where development pressures are less strong and support for a change in status may be less established. We heard from opponents as well as supporters of a new status. Both the Cotswolds and the Dorset proposals are strong candidates, alongside the Chilterns, to be considered for National Park status. We suggest Natural England and ministers consider the case for each. Other new national landscapes The Forest of Dean was on the original list in the 1947 Hobhouse report linked with the Wye Valley, which was designated as an AONB on its own in 1971. There have been several attempts since then to fulfil the expectation that the Forest of Dean would be designated. There now appears to be considerable local support that national designation would be good. There is a collaborative National Lottery Heritage Fund‑supported project (the Foresters’ Forest) which would appear to provide an excellent jumping-off point for a new designation. We support it. We have also heard from others who hope to see further areas designated: the Sandstone Ridge in Cheshire, Churnet Valley in Staffordshire, and the Vale of Belvoir on the borders of Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire made persuasive cases to us that deserve further consideration. New national status for Sherwood Forest We did not, in this review, hear as much from people in landscapes close to cities which are not designated, but that is precisely why we need new ideas and action. The success of the National Forest has been huge. This grew out of a competition held by the Countryside Commission in 1987 and has been funded since then. It aimed to link two ancient and degraded forests, Needwood and Charnwood, with new planting in the former coalfields of the East Midlands. “It transformed and literally turned the landscape from black to green”, it argues – and is now aiming for 9m trees. It has done this without statutory powers and with a great effort to involve people including children through initiatives such as Forest Schools and with public financial support. It is a model for the future and the proposed Northern Forest seeks to achieve similar social and environmental benefits. There is room for more. The Committee on Climate Change (CCC)68 is clear that “significant changes to land use are needed now and over the next 80 years to move the sector towards achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions, while protecting natural capital that the land currently represents and which will otherwise degrade as the climate changes”. It calls for substantial changes in land use by 2050 including an increase in the area of new woodland of up to 1.5m ha. Moreover the important role that trees and woodlands have in providing a range of ecosystem services is recognised and supported by many people – this was clear in responses to our call for evidence. We now think there is a strong case for a new national forest taking in areas such as Sherwood Forest, north of Nottingham and south of Worksop. This area contains fine natural areas such as Charnwood, Sherwood and Clipsham. It is close to many urban areas and to transport links. Its name is famous, it has many cultural and heritage sites and parts of it are already protected by various designations and organisations. But it is not joined up as a single landscape and managed with a connected vision. A new national forest in this area shouldn’t involve an elaborate system of new designation, or a big official structure. As with the National Forest in the East Midlands it should work with existing landowners and local people to create a more wooded, more accessible landscape, better for nature, helping to meet national ambitions on climate change. Joining up We make one final point. From many of our current national landscapes you can see others from high ground – the Yorkshire Dales climate-change-CCC-2018-1.pdf and the North York Moors are on each other’s horizons, as are Exmoor and Dartmoor and many others like them. Yet at times, it can feel like each is a separate, special region. There should be much closer working and a lot more joining up, including working in areas that are not formally designated. The South Pennines, for instance, should link the Peak District National Park to the Yorkshire Dales. New connections should be made between others, including the Yorkshire Dales and the North York Moors, Exmoor and Dartmoor, and the North Pennines AONB with its neighbouring areas. This may eventually allow some designations to flow into each other so that in time much of their management becomes one. It should shape wider decisions about future Environmental Land Management Schemes.

Proposal 21: Welcoming new landscape approaches in cities and the coast, and a city park competition Our established network of national landscapes should sit alongside innovative ideas to link people to natural places close to their homes. We hope our existing landscapes, and government, give them energetic support. We have been impressed by two different National Park City models in London and the West Midlands and want to see them thrive. In July 2019 London declared itself a National Park City. This is a fresh way of getting us to see London for what it is: one of the greenest cities anywhere; a place of trees, parks and window boxes as much as skyscrapers. In the West Midlands, with the support of the Mayor of Birmingham, proposals are being developed to link the urban area with parts of its surrounding green belt, and to think of landscape, urban and rural, in new ways. It is exciting and we hope it happens. Neither asked this review to make specific proposals. These are not a threat to the established National Park movement but instead a new way of thinking about people and landscapes which has the power to strengthen the whole family. We also saw impressive work to establish a South Pennines Regional Park, in which local authorities work across boundaries. We hope its two neighbouring National Parks, the Peak District and the Yorkshire Dales, become more involved in supporting it as part of the connected landscapes we would like to see. Limited by time and scope, this review does not assess the many things which should be done to better protect our maritime areas. But protection offshore, and onshore, could be better coordinated and public access put at its heart. We heard the case for a Plymouth Sound National Marine Park, an initiative being developed in part by Plymouth City Council, and we strongly support it in principle. We also welcome steps to complete the 2,795 mile England Coast Path. We would like to see a new National Landscapes Service welcome all such activity into the family. We make one other specific proposal. The National Park City idea should specifically embrace green belts. It should take urban fringe land that is currently given planning protection today but is of mixed ecological value to create much more ambitious, socially and ecologically useful land close to our urban cores. These could be wilder, full of nature, more beautiful and much more accessible. In places, our cities could begin to surround themselves with woodlands and wetlands, alongside well- designed new development. We suggest a national competition supported by government for at least one city or large town to try this out with the aim of making it England’s greenest city.

Proposal 22: A better designations process Many call for evidence responses lamented the complexity and length of the designations process. Few set out how to make it better. Natural England is currently responsible for designating new landscapes including boundary changes to existing designations, which it is then for the Defra Secretary of State to ‘confirm’. It appears to be an overly-technical, legalistic, under-resourced and defensive process but we do not think it is fundamentally flawed. Any system of designation will need to hear evidence, face conflicting views, reach decisions and inevitably disappoint some. In the last 20 years Natural England has designated just the South Downs and New Forest National Parks and extended the Yorkshire Dales and Lake District National Parks, the first two being already mostly designated as AONB. In the 50 years prior to that some 42 landscapes were designated as National Parks or AONBs, covering about 11,120 square miles.69 Natural England’s guidance sets a negative tone for designations, pointing out that they only get out of the starting gate if there is “availability of resources” and are considered of “relative importance against other work priorities”.70 Natural England also has a long list of new areas proposed by others to work through, estimated at over 3,080 square miles, which at the current rate of progress will take them at least 50 years to get through. These are listed at Annex 4. Local groups who campaign for new designations have a minimal role in the process. Consultation has become excessive, with multiple rounds of 12-week consultations. The law does not help, with a requirement to publish legal notices in local papers, not keeping up with modern ways of communicating, and often at a disproportionate cost. Natural England has been working to improve the process that it follows and has helpfully shared some suggestions that we think have merit, including involving local groups more in gathering evidence and exploring the scope for a simplified process for smaller boundary variations. These should be worked up in a way that retains the integrity of the process and continues to give those with an interest an opportunity to input views. Above all, this activity should be properly resourced and given greater priority, as this is the main reason for the long delays. We think that a new National Landscapes Service should be home to this work in the future. 69 Information provided by Natural England. B1DesignationGuidanceMar11_tcm6-26242.pdf

Proposal 23: Stronger purposes in law for our national landscapes As we have set out in previous chapters, we think the purposes for our national landscapes should be updated and apply equally to National Parks and AONBs – there is no reasonable basis for the currently unhelpful distinction and people and nature need more from our landscapes. Our understanding of nature has moved on, and ‘wildlife’ no longer covers the breadth of the biodiversity challenge. We need our landscape bodies to reach out and connect more people to nature. Access and recreation is at the heart of the meaning of national landscapes. And we need to better support the communities that make our landscapes so special. The current duty for this should be upgraded to a purpose. The exact wording will no doubt be subject to debate and legal discussion, but the substance of what they should be aiming to do, we think, can be achieved through the following: 1. Recover, conserve and enhance natural beauty, biodiversity and natural capital, and cultural heritage. 2. Actively connect all parts of society with these special places to support understanding, enjoyment and the nation’s health and wellbeing. 3. Foster the economic and community vitality of their area in support of the first two purposes. Where there is a conflict between any of the three purposes, and the further navigation purpose assigned to the Broads, then greater weight must be given to the first of these purposes under an updated ‘Sandford Principle’ that applies to all our national landscapes and not just to National Parks as it does currently. These strengthened purposes will help underpin consequently stronger Management Plans, which in turn, as we set out in earlier chapters, must be given stronger weight in law. They must be the basis for ambitious targeted actions, with delivery to be driven forward by a new National Landscapes Service (see below). The Sandford Principle “The first purpose of National Parks as stated by Dower and by Parliament – the preservation and enhancement of natural beauty – seems to us to remain entirely valid and appropriate. The second purpose – the promotion of public enjoyment – however needs to be re-interpreted and qualified because it is now evident that excessive or unsuitable use may destroy the very qualities which attract people to the parks. We have no doubt that where the conflict between the two purposes which has always been inherent, becomes acute, the first one must prevail in order that the beauty and ecological qualities of the National Parks may be maintained.”75 75 Report of the National Park Policies Review Committee 1974, Chairman The Rev Rt Hon Lord Sandford. The Sandford Principle was subsequently enshined in law in section 62 of the Environment Act 1995.

Proposal 24: AONBs strengthened with new purposes, powers and resources, renamed as National Landscapes AONBs should be strengthened in law, policy and resources. We are not the first to say so. A 2001 review of AONBs concluded that “a new agenda is required to address their shortcomings and to ensure that AONBs are firmly at the top of the conservation tree, alongside National Parks, as a key part of our national heritage”.76 Nearly 20 years later, this is even more pressing. We think the family of national landscapes should be a varied one, with different powers, funding and names. We should retain differences where they add flexibility and strength. To properly strengthen AONBs, we propose: − −Giving them the same reformed statutory purposes (and ensuring that the ‘Sandford Principle’ also applies) as for National Parks (proposal 23). This reflects the reality that AONBs deliver the same purposes as National Parks. − −Increasing their funding (proposal 27). − −Giving them statutory consultee status to strengthen their role in the planning system (proposal 6). − −Renaming them ‘National Landscapes’. Their national importance should be properly reflected by something much less unwieldy that elevates them alongside National Parks. 76 Landscapes at Risk? The Future for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty” by Edward Holdaway and Professor Gerald Smart, Spons Press 2001.

Proposal 25: A new National Landscapes Service bringing our 44 national landscapes together to achieve more than the sum of their parts A new National Landscapes Service should bring our National Parks and AONBs together: to inspire, join-up and look out, drive action, and hold each other to account. The potential of England’s 44 most beautiful places, sharing their best practices and working together for the nation, can only be delivered through national coordination. A new National Landscapes Service should: − −Set the vision and strategy for England’s 44 national landscapes from which their own Management Plans will evolve. − −Hold national landscapes to account for carrying out these plans. − −Drive national and regional collaboration, internally and with partners. − −Ensure best practices become common everywhere. − −Promote consistent, high- quality standards in our special places, including overseeing a new professional ranger service and visitor experience. − −Represent the 44 bodies with a single strong voice to Whitehall, making ambitious offers to the nation, for example on access and recreation, transport, health, education, and nature, as well as advocating on their behalf. − −Establish national relationships with key partners on all areas of the landscapes’ purposes. − −Learn from and work with designated landscapes elsewhere in the United Kingdom, Europe and beyond. − −Support non-designated landscapes and initiatives to work with national landscapes. − −Provide high-quality, essential services across the 44 bodies, reducing duplication and improving join-up, for example on evidence and research, project development, fundraising, planning support, training and careers. This new National Landscapes Service should be led by a small, high calibre board appointed by Defra. Its members must be successful, inspirational leaders in their own fields, which should reflect the renewed purposes of the national landscapes – nature, culture, economic vitality and people – and fully reflect diversity in our society. We need young voices, people from cities and beyond. It should have a small central staff with expertise in all things relevant to national landscapes (landscape, ecology, land management, planning, cultural heritage, access and recreation, finance and so on). Importantly, the chief executives, lead officers and chairs of national landscapes should report into the National Landscapes Service, which will provide a proper career structure across the country that gives staff opportunities to grow and develop their experience in different landscapes. While a new National Landscapes Service will cost money in the short- term, there will be some immediate efficiencies, as well as a mission to increase the funding base of national landscapes, which, if carried out successfully, has the potential to substantially increase the external money that support our national landscapes. We discuss this further in the finance section below. The two existing bodies representing national landscapes, National Parks England and the National Association of AONBs, should ultimately be subsumed within the new National Landscapes Service. Since both are already taxpayer funded, either directly by Defra or from National Park and AONB contributions, even at current levels, this would see something in the order of at least £170,000 per annum available for the National Landscapes Service. Likewise, efficiencies in the fees paid to members by reducing their numbers (see Annex 5) should support the new body. In time the process for designating new national landscapes or changing boundaries should move from Natural England into the National Landscapes Service. It is vitally important that the overriding priority of the National Landscapes Service is to support the national landscapes to be more ambitious, more action-focused and more collaborative. We believe that the National Landscapes Service should be an entirely new body, not simply an arm of Natural England. But we think the two should work closely together.

Proposal 26: Reformed governance to inspire and secure ambition in our national landscapes and better reflect society Alongside a new National Landscapes Service, we propose an overhaul of how our national landscapes are governed individually. National Parks should be governed by smaller 9-12 person boards, in line with best practice in governance as recommended for charities and companies. The chair should be appointed by the Defra Secretary of State after a process led by the National Landscapes Service. Other members would be appointed by the National Landscapes Service working with the relevant national landscape. The board should be advised by a partnership group, bringing together stakeholders of all kinds, to ensure the board is well informed about a wide range of interests and specialist expertise. We propose: − −Every National Park should have a partnership group that works alongside the main board, as per the model already in place at the Lake District and in some others. These should comprise the voices of those who have a stake in the national landscape and who are fundamental to achieving outcomes. − −The main boards of National Parks should be reduced to between 9 and 12 members, bringing them into line with other models of public sector governance.77 − −Members on boards are selected for their passion, skills and experience including biodiversity, natural beauty, culture, leisure, education, and community. − −Every effort should be made to achieve diversity – of social background, gender, age, ethnicity, (dis)ability. − −The main task of each board would be to prepare and drive ambitious delivery of Management Plans, delivering for nature, people and communities. − −The structure above should apply to AONBs where possible. We recognise that for some smaller ones it may be over- elaborate, or challenging to put in place. For larger ones, it is appropriate. 77 As an example, at 22 July 2019, board sizes were as follows: Natural England 11, Environment Agency 10, Kew Gardens 12, Canal and River Trust 9. − −For National Parks, which will continue to have responsibility for development control, planning issues should continue to involve local authority members. We propose each National Park retains or establishes a Planning Sub- Committee, reduced in size to between 9 and 12 members to correspond with the smaller main board and those typical of local authority planning sub- committees. − −These Planning Sub- Committees should be chaired by a member of the main board, with at least two members from the main board on it, and made up of representatives from the constituent local authorities and parishes, who should agree between themselves who they wish to see on the Sub-Committee. − −AONBs may choose to establish similar Planning Sub- Committees, but, given their role is not to decide planning matters but to comment, hopefully in future as statutory consultees, they should ensure such committees are proportionate in size. − −AONBs may also have on their main board of 9 to 12 one local authority member drawn from the local authorities who contribute funding to the AONB, determined either by the agreement of those local authorities, or if not, by ballot. Finally, we think there is merit in the idea of a citizen service for selecting community representatives for main National Park and AONB boards, and would like to see the new National Landscapes Service work with national landscapes to trial this.

Proposal 27: A new financial model – more money, more secure, more enterprising A new approach to financing is needed. Central government funding should continue, and be both extended and secured across a five-year period. This is justified to redress historical under-funding, to enable landscapes to deliver the new responsibilities we set out and to secure new landscapes for the nation. However the system needs to move away from over-reliance on core grants towards more diverse, larger and more sustainable flows of funds – towards a new funding model. Core funding The current funding formula for our national landscapes is fossilised, complex and reinforces historic anomalies, such as the poor funding of AONBs. This needs to change to a simpler, fairer and dynamic system of funding, overseen directly by the National Landscapes Service, which drives activity and doesn’t reflect historic patterns. We also recommend stopping the complex routing of funds via Defra. Responsibility should pass to the new National Landscapes Service, as was the case prior to creation of Natural England when funds were administered by the Countryside Agency. Other unnecessary complexities, such as the requirement for the Broads Authority to account for income and expenditure from National Park Grant and Navigation separately, or the payment of AONBs in arrears, should also be addressed. The National Landscapes Service should negotiate a multi-annual financial settlement with Defra which both secures existing resources, services and programmes, and also ensures a focus on growth, innovation and efficiencies. The settlement should cover the current grant in aid distributed by a modernised and simplified funding formula to all existing National Parks and AONBs and in future to all national landscapes. When implementing the new formula, no organisation should receive a cut in grant. Any adjustments related to the formula should be in the form of additional grant where the new formula determines additional funds are required. There should be a new and larger settlement for AONBs and this should include new resources to reflect their enhanced purposes, responsibilities and activities. Efficiencies should be made across the system from reduced costs of governance (see Annex 5 for details of current governance spending, a great deal of which could be saved through our recommended governance reforms) and from specialist services being concentrated and shared by the national landscapes working together. We believe that in time, there should be an across-the-board formula for national landscapes using a banding system to reflect the imprecision of a formula, containing a number of elements, the weighting of which would need to be carefully calibrated: − −core democratic, leadership and strategic planning; − −area of land designated for biodiversity value and the number of areas under nature improvement plans; − −size of resident population; − −number of visitors; − −Local Development Framework and development control responsibilities (for National Parks only); and − −number of planning cases (based on a five-year rolling average). − −funding to deliver strategic priorities across the network. This should be phased in over a period of time to ensure they have time to adjust. In the meantime, AONBs need an uplift. We believe their total funding should be doubled from the current £6.7m to £13.4m, with the uplift in funding that would no doubt come from a revised funding formula implemented over a longer period. The local authority funding element for AONBs should continue. Any new national landscapes must be funded with new money. Local financial planning Importantly, alongside central government funding changes, national landscapes should prepare medium to long term financial plans that reflect a more diverse range of income sources to their organisations, complementing core central government grant-aid with growth in philanthropic giving, trading activities and large-scale externally-funded projects. This should draw ambitiously on the potential of natural capital principles. The financial model for national landscapes should be diverse to ensure growth, stability and a greater sense of self-direction. National Landscapes Service’s role in finance The new National Landscapes Service has a key role to play in finance. It should be entrepreneurial: it should understand its brand value, enter into commercially successful partnerships, be skilled at fundraising and achieve efficiencies in operations by encouraging parts of the system to work together. It is surprising to see how little progress has been made in turning the evident public support for our national landscapes into models which can help support them financially. During the course of this review we heard repeatedly of tensions over proposals for a national charity to support National Parks, and of difficulties in developing commercial links. There has been a failure of coordination, ambition and expertise. But the potential is there. There should be an ambitious commercial and philanthropic programme of fundraising. It should learn from best practice across Defra agencies such as the Canal and River Trust, Forestry England and Kew Gardens and established UK charities such as the Woodland and National Trusts and from international experience, for example the US National Parks Foundation. Many such organisations and other great cultural institutions such as museums, galleries and music venues succeed at it – and in doing so have been able to engage better with the people and places they serve. Either a wing of the new National Landscapes Service or a separate but constitutionally-linked charity should be set up with clear charitable aims, strongly commercial and well- connected trustees and a professional team skilled in fundraising. Conclusion Thank you for reading this far. This review is the product of many conversations and meetings and of the hard work of people who care for our countryside and took the time to tell us what they think. We know there are areas where we could have said more – and of course things that people will think we should have addressed differently. But we hope one thing stands out. That working together, people and nature can make our most special countryside happier, healthier, greener, more beautiful and more accessible to everyone. That means seeing conservation and farming as partners, and farming for nature as well as for food. It means a new expanded ranger service, to welcome people in. It means supporting local communities through the planning system when they need homes they can afford and local jobs, while protecting natural beauty. Making our national landscapes something everybody, and especially every child, knows are there for them, reflecting the diversity of our nation. It means bringing our special landscapes together in one diverse but unified family with bigger ambitions. It means better ways of running things, both nationally and locally with secure, sufficient and wider sources of funding and a renewed focus on new areas also deserving of protection. It means protecting what we have and leaving these special places in a better state for the future. We found excitement everywhere for this and optimism about what can be done. This moment matters. Get it right and England’s green and pleasant land will be made better still.

Proposal 3: Strengthened Management Plans should set clear priorities and actions for nature recovery including, but not limited to, wilder areas and the response to climate change (notably tree planting and peatland restoration). Their implementation must be backed up by stronger status in law National Park and AONB Management Plans need to be strengthened to lead natural recovery. They are incredibly important documents which need to be prepared and implemented as such. They should set out (a) an overall vision and (b) detailed and specific ambitions for the entire area. They must be made clearer. We want to see them: − −developed and implemented in partnership; − −set visionary, ambitious and long-term plans to deliver on their strengthened purposes for nature, people and communities; − −set long-term plans to widen funding sources; − −provide targets and actions against which their performance can be measured; − −be used by the National Landscapes Service to hold landscapes to account for delivery, and support with the allocation of central resources; − −become the guiding framework for setting landscape-scale priorities for future payments for public goods and other relevant schemes such as rural development funds. With regards to the much stronger role we want to see our national landscapes playing on nature recovery, we think Management Plans must cover a number of important issues. Underpinned by the assessments and natural capital approach we recommend in Proposal 2, these should include measurable steps towards nature- friendly farming, the potential of natural capital, tree planting, peatland restoration, connections beyond their boundaries and areas where the hand of management should be very light indeed and where more intensive farming and landscape management could give way to wilder approaches. We set these out in detail here. Role of wilder areas National Park and AONB Management Plans should support and encourage efforts to create wilder areas in some places. They should do so while also ensuring the continuation of the cultural traditions which gave our landscapes their natural beauty in the first place. The diversity and distinctiveness of our national landscapes means we can trial different approaches in different places, from ‘letting nature take its course’, to active interventions. In the 1990s the Campaign for national parks published a report, Wild By Design, which said that “creative conservation and wilder area creation have a role to play in National Parks”. It noted that wild areas need not be large, but could be: “a wilderness experience has very special qualities that can be encountered in a range of different scenarios from a small pocket of dense woodland to vast open landscapes of heather moorland. The elements that make an area evoke this experience are diverse but principally include a sense of closeness to nature, freedom, solitude and even a sense of danger and challenge”.26 On a visit to Shenandoah National Park in the United States one member of our panel saw how what was once a farmed landscape has become almost entirely wild, with thick forest and a wide range of species. Wilder areas do not necessarily mean standing back from these areas completely – it is not a choice for example between farming and wilding, or landscape and biodiversity, but a continuum where there is space for all. This could include supporting less grazing or different kinds of grazing, with cattle or ponies in places. In the Lake District, Upper Ennerdale which was largely taken over by the Forestry Commission in the 1930s, and Mardale, which was flooded by the Manchester Corporation at the same time, are unusual in that they are unpopulated – and it is no coincidence that they are now seen as leading examples of wilder areas. Other places may take a similar path. Some Ministry of Defence land is particularly suitable. So are some areas of the Forest England Estate. This can only succeed if it is recognised that our landscapes are lived in, with strong cultural traditions including farming which needs to be sustained. The aim should be a balance – not conflict. 26 Wild by Design, In the National Parks of England and Wales. Council for National Parks (now Campaign for National Parks) 1998. Knepp Wildland Project Knepp is a 3,500 acre estate in West Sussex. Since 2001, the land – once intensively farmed – has been devoted to a pioneering rewilding project. Restoration of the 350 acre Repton park in the middle of the estate provided a chance to look at the land in an entirely different way, suggesting the possibility of rolling out nature conservation across the whole estate. Using grazing animals as the drivers of habitat creation, alongside the restoration of dynamic, natural water courses, has resulted in extraordinary increases in wildlife. Rare species like turtle doves, nightingales, peregrine falcons and purple emperor butterflies are now breeding here, and populations of more common species are rocketing. The vision of the Knepp Wildland Project is radically different to conventional nature conservation in that it is not driven by specific goals or target species. Instead, its driving principle is to establish a functioning ecosystem where nature is given as much freedom as possible. The aim is to show how a ‘process-led’ approach can be a highly effective, low- cost method of ecological restoration – suitable for failing or abandoned farmland – that can work to support established nature reserves and wildlife sites, helping to provide the webbing that will one day connect them together on a landscape scale. The Knepp Wildland project is now a leading light in the conservation movement, supported since 2010 by Higher Level Stewardship funding. It is an experiment that has produced astonishing wildlife successes in a relatively short space of time and offers solutions for some of our most pressing problems like soil restoration, flood mitigation, water and air purification, pollinating insects and carbon sequestration. Response to climate change National landscapes should take a leading role in the response to climate change through their Management Plans. The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has set out ambitious targets for peatland restoration and for afforestation, as part of their Net Zero report, and the government will soon publish an England Peat Strategy and an England Tree Strategy setting out how it will incorporate the new ambitions for England’s afforestation and peatlands. National Parks and AONBs must be clear how they will support these ambitions, securing natural beauty as this happens. Increasing tree cover Trees play a vital role in combatting climate change, acting not only as a carbon sink, but offering myriad other benefits, like habitat connectivity, biodiversity improvement, help with preventing soil erosion, and reducing flood risk. People like them, too. Trees were heavily featured in the almost 1,000 photos people submitted to our call for evidence. But they are under threat. Many isolated field trees are ageing or unwell. Tree diseases, particularly the catastrophe of Ash Dieback, are spreading fast. If nothing is done in some places, such as the White Peak in Derbyshire and Staffordshire, tree cover may diminish not increase. The National Park Authorities and the Forestry Commission published an accord in 201827 to improve joint working in local areas and to develop a more collaborative approach to respond to climate change. This is a good starting point but the pace needs to step up. We found limited ambition in woodland creation and some understandable concern about the landscape impact of doing it badly. There are no specific figures for either tree cover or planting rates in national landscapes but work in this review suggests they have often been slow to support it. This needs to change. The challenge ahead is huge: the CCC target requires 30,000ha of tree planting per year – about 48m trees per year UK-wide. The UK-wide maximum potential is estimated to be around 40,000ha/ year, but planting rates in recent years have been nowhere near this amount. In 2018 it was just 8,900ha across the UK, with only 1,273ha in England.28 We think that the National Forest in the East Midlands is an admirable example of how tree cover can be increased in a way which strengthens natural beauty and works with landowners and local communities. The new Northern Forest has the potential to succeed in the same way. New woodland should make use of appropriate trees, allowed to regenerate naturally, with respect for the landscape and look and traditions of the places in which they grow. For example, there may be certain landscapes, such as open downland slopes, where woodland planting would not be appropriate. But even here, the adjoining river valleys could host more trees. Restoring peatland Peatland makes up about 15% of National Parks and 18% of AONBs, with big variations among them – over 40% of the North Pennines AONB is peatland for example (see table at Annex 6 for full figures). But currently over 70% of England’s peatlands are either drained or in poor condition. The true cost of taking this national asset for granted has only recently begun to emerge. Research recently revealed that degraded peat in England is emitting approximately 11m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents every year. The CCC set ambitious targets for peatland restoration in its Net Zero report, suggesting the area of restored UK peatland could increase from the current 25% to around 55-70% by 2050, with the remaining parks-england Government-supported-new-planting-trees-England-2018-19-.pdf lowland peat area being more sustainably managed. Many national landscapes, such as the Peak District and Northumberland National Parks have been at the forefront of peatland restoration. They have capitalised on the significant benefits that can be gained from rewetting peat, from wildfire mitigation to reduced flooding, but others have been slower to embrace these opportunities. Given the multiple natural capital benefits it provides, peatland restoration should be a priority for all National Parks and AONBs that contain it. All should be involved in the local partnerships that are actively developing peatland restoration plans, whether existing schemes, or new ones being facilitated by Natural England as pilots for the forthcoming England Peat Strategy; a great opportunity to be involved at an early stage and shape the national framework being developed for peat restoration in England. Peatland Restoration in AONBs and National Parks Programmes such as Moors for the Future in the Peak District and the North Pennines AONBs Peatland Programme, have been restoring peatlands since the early 2000s. The Yorkshire Peat Partnership (hosted by Yorkshire Wildlife Trust) includes the North York Moors and Yorkshire Dales National Park Authorities, and Nidderdale and the Forest of Bowland AONB Partnerships, while other restoration programmes have also been active in the Lake District, Northumberland, Exmoor and Dartmoor National Parks and on Bodmin Moor in Cornwall AONB. This work has often been carried out under the umbrella of the IUCN UK Peatland Programme. The restoration work involves re-wetting large areas of blanket bog through grip (drain) and gully blocking, and revegetating bare and eroding peat. This protects the carbon-rich soil, benefits vegetation communities and supports wading birds including curlew, golden plover and dunlin. As well as its importance for biodiversity and climate change mitigation, it can play a vital role in flood-risk management and addressing both sediment load and water colour in our rivers. This work has restored around 110,000ha of peatland, an area around twice the size of Leeds. This equates to 3.3Mt of avoided CO2 losses and enables the sequestration of between 121,000 to 330,000 tCO2 equivalent/year. Willing landowners and tenants, government agencies and water companies have also had a crucial role to play in helping the landscape teams deliver this work; over £50m in funding has been raised from the EU (LIFE and INTERREG funds), Defra, Environment Agency, Water Companies, National Lottery Heritage Fund, Trusts and Foundations. Legal status of Management Plans Improved Management Plans should be given strengthened statutory recognition. National landscapes must carry proper weight when public bodies carry out activities that might affect them. Currently, such public bodies have a duty to have ‘regard’ to their purposes and we have heard in strong terms from very many respondents to our call for evidence that this is too weak. The requirements on public bodies with regards to national landscapes’ Management Plans is even weaker. Management Plans have legal status only in so far as there is a statutory requirement for National Park Authorities, and local authorities in the case of AONBs, to produce and periodically review them.29 There is no legislative requirement for relevant public bodies to commit to their implementation, and this has consequences for the energy put into their implementation, by some of these partners in some locations, limiting their effectiveness. Both need improvement. First, the requirement of ‘regard’ to landscapes’ existing purposes should be strengthened to one of ‘furthering’ the reformed purposes. Second, a requirement should be established in law on relevant bodies to support the development and implementation of national landscapes’ Management Plans. The ultimate aim of both measures is to ensure that public bodies do much more to support the aims and work of our national landscapes and managing bodies, though precise legal wording should be finessed. 29 Section 66 of the Environment Act 1995) requires National Park Authorities to produce Management Plans and to review them every five years. Sections 89 and 90 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (the CRoW Act) creates a statutory responsibility for local authorities and Conservation Boards to produce AONB Management Plans and thereafter to review adopted and published Plans at intervals of not more than five years.

Proposal 4: National landscapes should form the backbone of Nature Recovery Networks – joining things up within and beyond their boundaries The establishment of a national Nature Recovery Network is set out in the 25 Year Environment Plan. The Lawton Review set out the need to move beyond wildlife contained in isolated reserves and towards whole landscapes that are vibrant, wildlife- rich, and ecologically functioning. The aim of policy today reflects this and aims to improve, expand and connect habitats to address wildlife decline while providing wider environmental benefits for people. Our national landscapes could not be better placed to put into effect Nature Recovery Networks. As Sir John Lawton said, “AONBs and National Parks…could be very important for enhancing the resilience of the network by providing large areas of high quality wildlife habitat”. However they are not achieving anything like their potential, as Sir John Lawton also recognised: “the evidence that protected landscapes provide biodiversity benefits over and above those delivered by SSSI or LWS [Local Wildlife Sites] designations outside these areas is mixed”. National landscapes therefore can, and should be playing a major role in enhancing the resilience of the network, by providing large areas of high quality wildlife habitat. They should be at the centre of coordinated action to integrate effective ecological networks with landscape objectives and other uses, including farming, education, recreation, tourism and the provision of other ecosystem services. To do so, however, requires Nature Recovery Networks to be built on a sound foundation of: ∞∞a clear national strategy, closely geared into local delivery ∞∞strong partnerships and the agreement of common goals among diverse actors ∞∞sufficient on the ground advisory staff and other capacity, including accurate data ∞∞being fully aligned with a range of policy tools, such as ELMS and net gain. National landscapes should therefore help to catalyse common plans and visions for their areas and indeed into the landscapes that lay beyond their boundaries. They should work jointly across national landscapes and beyond to offer a strategic view on common biodiversity issues, as well as development, especially in the south east. They should facilitate processes that result in target-based plans, lead in taking steps toward their delivery, convene and encourage others to work in partnership and measure and audit what is being done, always seeking to join things up to create a greater whole. The design and implementation of Nature Recovery Network actions on the ground in national landscapes must take momentum not only from conservation and landscape led policy but also other government priorities, including, for example, the aim of achieving net zero carbon emissions and steps toward more climate change resilient landscapes. As set out above, the on-the-ground delivery of the kinds of goals we speak about will rely on partnerships. The National Landscapes Service should play a central role in ensuring a ‘gold standard’ in partnership is happening everywhere and in fulfilling Lawton’s aspiration for our national landscapes to provide “coherent and resilient ecological networks”. Dorset AONB habitat mapping30 Dorset AONB has completed a pioneering study that identifies areas to prioritise action to arrest biodiversity decline, enhance existing habitats and create new ones. The work covered by this project has been carried out under the auspices of the EU Cordiale project for managing landscape change (http://www.cordialeproject.eu). The AONB has mapped existing high quality (‘core’) habitats and then evaluated the ability of different species to move freely through the landscape. If species can move freely between ‘core’ habitats, then the resulting ecological networks can both protect these habitats, and potentially reverse a decline in biodiversity. Ecological knowledge together with advanced data processing and earth observation expertise enabled the team to establish a rules based classification of the AONB landscape. Through this classification, broad habitat classes were selected to be mapped. ‘Core’ semi-natural habitat, ‘potential’ and ‘permeable’ areas of the woodland, grassland, wetland and heathland were classified and habitat networks created by combining the locations of suitable target areas with the ‘permeability’ of the surrounding landscape. Buffer zones around these core networks representing the distance species could move through the surrounding land cover were also created. Restoration of these buffer areas will have the most benefit by enhancing the existing network. New small fragmented patches of habitat were also identified to provide ‘nodes’ for further network expansion. Poole Harbour catchment initiative31 Dorset AONB is amongst a number of organisations working with Wessex Water to tackle the many challenges facing the water environment, taking an integrated approach to sharing knowledge and delivering long term improvements that will protect the water, land and people in the catchment area. One of these issues is the high level of nitrogen and phosphorus in waterways, undesirable because it encourages excessive growth of algae which smothers native plants and reduces oxygen levels in the water, which can affect fish. A catchment management approach is being used to offset nitrate contained in the effluent discharged from Dorchester’s water recycling centre. The aim is to reduce the amount of nitrogen entering Poole Harbour by 40 tonnes of nitrogen per year by 2020. By working with farmers to reduce agriculturally derived nitrate from the catchment, it is hoped to avoid building an expensive and less sustainable nitrate removal plant. Work is taking place with farmers in a targeted area of the Poole Harbour catchment to: ∞∞identify and raise awareness of water quality issues ∞∞share the results of water, soil, crop and manure testing ∞∞provide advice and information on ways to improve the efficient use of key inputs An example of this is encouraging farmers to grow cover crops to reduce leaching while locking up nutrients that can be utilised by the subsequent crop.

Proposal 5: A central place for national landscapes in new Environmental Land Management Schemes We believe the future ELMS should recognise the special qualities of national landscapes. This is not a review into farming policy. Plans for ELMS will apply to the country as a whole, not just to national landscapes, and are being developed elsewhere in government. But it is obvious that ELMS, if it comes in as proposed, will have a bigger effect on our national landscapes than anything else being planned by government. Individual Management Plans should be the guiding framework for setting landscape-scale priorities for future payments for public goods which support and enhance the value of nature and natural beauty in all its forms. All other forms of environmental payments should be made in line with the Management Plans too, for example, grants for woodland planting or rural development. We want to see ELMS fulfil its promises to make the schemes flexible, long-term and locally adaptable. It should give priority to farmers and land managers who aim to regenerate the natural environment and who collaborate to restore habitats and work across landscapes. It should also give weight to the special status of national landscapes as places for nature and natural beauty. It should support a broad range of public goods including the recovery of biodiversity, but also natural beauty and access. It should support the people and cultural traditions of our national landscapes, too. The case for change is strong. The 2019 RSA Food, Farming and Countryside Commission report, Our Future in the Land, is explicit: “Driven by poor policy and perverse incentives, the food and farming system has become one of the main drivers of human and ecosystem crisis”, it states. “We need leaders who can hold together broad coalitions of interests, unified around a connecting mission, to imagine a better version of our shared future, and to translate shared intention into collective action.”32 At present, we have a system which costs taxpayers huge amounts of money and yet often destroys nature and natural beauty and leaves many farmers in upland areas making losses. It is the definition of unsustainable. We can be optimistic about the possibility of doing far better. Role of farming We should be confident about the positive role farming can play. Repeatedly in this review we have seen outstanding examples of the way good farming practice can restore nature, and more than that we have seen that enthusiasm for this is growing. To spend time in somewhere such as Matterdale, in the northern Lake District, is to see a valley landscape whose local custodians are changing its ecology for the better, on their own initiative, while continuing to farm. And this is not an exception. The work of farm clusters in Cranborne Chase and the South Downs, and of farmers coming together in Exmoor for example, shows the potential. In encouraging this, we also need to see well-managed farming as a good in itself. Especially in the uplands, it is the guardian of the natural beauty and cultural identity of our national landscapes. The Lake District is recognised as a UNESCO World Heritage Site specifically because its landscape was created and is sustained by its upland farming. The tradition of farming on shared common land, too, is a powerful feature of many of our national landscapes; from the Pennines to Dartmoor and Exmoor and, in a different form, it has shaped and conserved the New Forest. In it lie the essentials of landscape-scale working to support natural beauty; 88% of common land carries some kind of environmental designation and almost all of it is open to public access. But commoning is also part of a cultural tradition of a kind that has been lost in many other parts of Europe. Of course there can be tensions between farming and landscapes too. Some places have been farmed badly, over or undergrazed, and not only because the subsidy system has encouraged it. We want to see a coming together of ambition for our natural environment and our farming communities. It is, for instance, the aim of the declaration agreed in April 2019 by farmers, land managers, the Lake District National Park, government agencies and others at a meeting organised by the Foundation for Common Land, attended by the Prince of Wales: “In this time of change we in the Lakes will work collectively to empower and enable thriving farm businesses and communities to create enhanced habitats and networks for nature in this celebrated cultural landscape,” it states. This is a model for greater partnership not just in farming, but in wider land management too, and resonates especially with the issues in some of the upland landscapes. Moors are a feature of many National Parks and AONBs and many are managed for shooting. In the course of this review, we have been left in no doubt about the controversy this causes. This is not the place to set out a firm answer here. We respect the passion on both sides but note that both have one interest at heart: healthy moors, with good biodiversity. Well-managed moors can achieve that and overcome past mistakes such as the draining of uplands, mostly encouraged not by grouse management but by government. We shouldn’t blame all failings on shooting interests, but nor can that excuse owners and managers from bad management or the lack of species which one would expect to see in the upland landscape. A balance is the way forward. Partnership and compromise should allow land to work for nature, without conflict with people. Special significance of national landscapes We want to see the special significance of national landscapes for biodiversity, natural beauty and cultural identity reflected in decisions about ELMS. Four decades of production and area-based support through the CAP has resulted in a catastrophic decline in nature in our national landscapes. We have heard often of centrally dictated conditions which are at odds with nature-sensitive farming. The decision to focus future public money on public goods presents a major opportunity to help our National Parks and AONBs. The majority of public goods in mind – better air and water quality, improved soil health, public access to the countryside, measures to reduce flooding and improve biodiversity – directly support the purposes of enhancing natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage, and helping the public enjoy these special places. We believe the priorities for our landscapes should flow from improved Management Plans which need statutory recognition. These plans should be backed by concrete actions, determined using natural capital approaches, shaped by partners, informed by accurate data and whose delivery is monitored and assessed. We do not propose that national landscapes directly administer the new Environmental Land Management Scheme. Moving the complex business of payments to 44 separate bodies does not make sense. Rather, their Management Plans should set the framework for all ELMS payments within their landscapes. The focus first should be on working with others to set priorities, and supporting farmers with the transition. It may be, however, that over time some landscapes, particularly larger ones take a leading role in creating bespoke schemes. We argue that it is essential that funds should also be payable for wider public benefits such as supporting public access, education, supporting rural communities, and enhancing the beauty of the landscape, for example through features such as stone walls. We think the phrase ‘Environmental Land Management Schemes’, even if it is a temporary title, risks diminishing the importance of these wider public goods a new scheme should support. We also think serious consideration should be given to other, connected public and private funding streams using these re-energised Management Plans to direct their own funds. The obvious ones that align to ELMS would be the Shared Prosperity Funding, which is intended to replace EU structural funding after Brexit, and funds to improve water quality and flood risk within the water industry. Working with farmers and land managers It is essential that farmers and land managers are meaningfully involved in the process of shaping ELMS and this should be done through engagement in the Management Plan. Managing land is not short-term. It is done best working with those who understand it, want to achieve something positive out of it and are involved in making decisions about it as part of a bigger ambition. Relationships in some areas need strengthening. Farmers sometimes feel that conversations with their local National Parks and AONBs are tokenistic. Decisions are taken far away from the farms themselves in offices, with meetings scheduled at times that ignore the realities of the farming calendar. Key to constructive conversations will be all national landscapes having dedicated farm advisers that land managers can trust. Where these are in place now, farmers often work well with them. The transition to new Environmental Land Management Schemes In planning for ELMS we should remember that what happens now matters a lot. The transition from the current agri- environment schemes to a future one has perils as well as benefits. In the history of agri-environment schemes, uptake has peaked and troughed. Even at its peak in 2015, nature failed to benefit as it could have done. Agri-environment scheme take-up is now falling;33 in part, we heard from farmers, because it is complex, inflexible and payments have a reputation for being late and erratic. There is also uncertainty about new schemes becoming available. We have had consistent feedback that current schemes are too prescriptive and date driven, not allowing farmers and land managers to make on the ground decisions for the benefit of nature. There is a risk of farmers falling out of agri-environment schemes altogether. We urge that more attention be given to the transition period to ELMS, to ensure our national landscapes do not suffer harm while a new schemes are being designed. 33 In 2015 80% of total AONB area was in an agri-environment scheme; at end July 2019 this stood at 42%. This is at least in part due to the Environmental Stewardship scheme being phased out and replaced by the Countryside Stewardship scheme. Source: Natural England (available in draft in August 2019) monitoring trends since 2013 in environmental outcomes in protected landscapes, undertaken by the University of Plymouth.

Proposal 6: A strengthened place for national landscapes in the planning system with AONBs given statutory consultee status, encouragement to develop local plans and changes to the National Planning Policy Framework Sympathetic land management for re-energised conservation purposes is at the heart of what national landscapes can offer the nation. But there is more to conservation than land management, and the planning system has long played a critical role in protecting National Parks and AONBs. The ability to control and/or influence development that would have an adverse impact on our national landscapes is crucial. We feel a number of areas of planning need addressing. National Parks Arguably the biggest role National Parks currently play in shaping landscapes and affecting those who live in them is as statutory planning authorities. We don’t suggest this power should change, although we think there are improvements which could be made to separate the planning function from other work they also need to do, which we set out in the New Ways of Working chapter. We think their planning powers are important, the protections they give are essential and we don’t think they hold progress back. There will always be grumblings with regard to individual planning decisions made but we think for the most part they do a difficult job well. AONBs – statutory consultee status AONBs need a stronger voice in planning. The pressures on AONBs are often greater, especially in the south east, and their voice is not always heard. They should not become responsible for day to day decisions on planning as National Parks are. Most AONBs don’t want this power, and very few argued for it in our call for evidence. But AONB bodies should become statutory consultees in the planning system. They need to be formally consulted on planning cases, and have a formal voice in the decision making process. At present, statutory consultee status for AONBs sits solely with Natural England which, as a national body, cannot be expected to know every area in the way a dedicated local AONB team does. We are aware that local planning authorities are already required to prepare policies specific to AONBs. They must meet new rules on a ‘Duty to Co-operate’, and ‘Statements of Common Ground’ are expected to support this. But we heard repeatedly and convincingly in the course of this review that this is not sufficient. Statutory consultee status should encourage developers to consult AONB bodies before making a formal planning application, to facilitate good design and mitigation and – with net gain soon to be mandated – helping secure this. It is better to have a partnership approach than an adversarial one. This does not mean AONBs should become consumed with putting in advice on every single planning application; they don’t do this now, nor would they be expected to. They should agree with their local planning authorities what they should be consulted upon and be free to comment if something of significance appears. Some additional resource and expertise is likely to be necessary too, but the vast majority already employ officers with planning expertise. There is also expertise across the wider family of national landscapes that can be better shared and some additional resource could be provided at a national level through the new National Landscapes Service we propose, reducing duplication across all 44 bodies. AONBs – local plans Single local plans for AONBs do not exist. They are prepared at local authority level so AONBs can be subject to different plans and policies for each of the constituent local authorities they sit within. We heard repeatedly that planning policies and decisions, especially in large AONBs, can vary immensely between authorities. There is often no shared vision for the landscape as a whole, with different local authorities taking different approaches, inconsistent with the AONBs’ purpose and character. This can be done better. We heard in the Arnside and Silverdale AONB how two local authorities came together to support a single Development Plan for the AONB. Arnside and Silverdale AONB Development Plan Document A dedicated Development Plan Document (DPD) for Arnside and Silverdale AONB has been prepared jointly by South Lakeland District Council and Lancaster City Council, with support from Arnside and Silverdale AONB Partnership. The AONB DPD, the first of its kind in the country, is part of both authorities’ local plans and complements the AONB Management Plan. The AONB DPD includes specific development management policies for the AONB and a number of land allocations where housing and employment development has been found to be appropriate. It also designates open spaces within settlements that make a significant contribution to their character as Key Settlement Landscapes, to be protected from development. Public open spaces valued for their recreational importance are also identified and protected. It includes a policy that 50% of all new housing in the AONB on sites of two or more dwellings should be affordable, in order to ensure affordable housing is actually delivered in the area. The overall development strategy is to take a landscape capacity-led approach with the AONB purpose as the central consideration. The AONB DPD sets out a joint planning policy approach to ensure development is planned and managed in a way that conserves and enhances the natural beauty and special qualities of the AONB. Any new development should seek to deliver enhancements to the landscape, biodiversity and settlement character wherever possible. Robust implementation of the AONB DPD will help to enable the local authorities to fulfil their statutory duty to have regard to the AONB purpose in their decision-making with respect to planning matters. The DPD was adopted on 13 March 2019 as part of the Lancaster City local plan and as part of the South Lakeland local plan on 28 March 2019. This is a good model. We want AONBs to work with local authorities to develop local plans and policies which set out a vision, explain how conservation and recreational purposes will be implemented and how the needs and requirements of the local community will be met within the broader context of achieving sustainable development appropriate to these nationally important landscapes. We understand that not all AONBs will have the capacity to produce one soon – but they should work towards one together with their constituent local authorities, and be supported to do so. We also accept that AONBs with especially small planning loads, or single local authorities may not feel this is necessary, and we agree different approaches should be tried. In the case of the Chilterns and the Cotswolds which already have Conservation Board Status and with aspirations to become National Parks, we think a single statutory local plan is required for the entirety of their area. This could also apply to other especially large AONBs which cross multiple local authority boundaries and under particular development pressure, for instance, the High Weald and the Kent Downs. Strategic planning Some of the most controversial developments in national landscapes 34 Paragraph 172 of https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_ are not local issues at all, but subject to national policy and we think there are several areas where the place of all national landscapes needs clarifying in the planning system. We welcome the recent revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which have strengthened the place of National Parks and AONBs. But guidance should make clearer that developments proposed in the areas buffering national landscapes’ boundaries must avoid detrimental impacts on them. National Planning Policy Framework, 2019, paragraph 172 “Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing 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 these issues. The conservation and enhancement of wildlife and cultural heritage are also important considerations in these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads. The scale and extent of development within these designated areas should be limited. Planning permission should be refused for major development other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest.” We think that the NPPF should make a reality of its promise that ‘great weight’ should be given to national landscapes by issuing new advice that will secure confident delivery of this aim by both public and private sector players. In situations where such cases are determined with the expert advice of the National Infrastructure Commission, we urge the government to give the strongest emphasis to its commitment to our national landscapes. They should not be the place for major intrusive developments unless, as is stated in the NPPF,34 they are truly in the national interest without any possible alternative locations being available. Such guidance should also help ensure that our proposed new third purpose (social and economic development which enhances the first two purposes; see the Living in Landscapes chapter for our recommendation on this) will be effectively implemented and that this data/file/810197/NPPF_Feb_2019_revised.pdf applies to all national landscapes and not just National Parks as currently. Guidance should also ensure that care is taken around the boundaries of our national landscapes to prevent a situation where inappropriate developments are tactically sighted on beautiful and important areas just outside. The current Permitted Development Rights (PDR) system should also be reviewed and, if necessary, further PDRs should be added to the list of those currently withdrawn within national landscapes to ensure that the full application process applies before determining planning approval. For example, forestry and agricultural changes allowed under permitted development can have significant impacts on landscape quality, and the South East and East Protected Landscapes forum has made a convincing case that these should be reviewed. We also welcome the development of net gain during the course of this review and hope it is adopted in our national landscapes as soon as possible. Finally, national landscapes should have the flexibility to use funds collected through Section 106 agreements and, where relevant, the New Homes Bonus raised by the constituent authorities, to support locally needed affordable housing, services or community infrastructure.

Proposal 7: A stronger mission to connect all people with our national landscapes, supported and held to account by the new National Landscapes Service We need our national landscape bodies to lead the charge in connecting more people to nature. The purpose we have now needs reinvigorating and applying equally to AONBs and National Parks. We recommend that the second purpose is changed so that it requires our national landscapes to: actively connect all parts of society with these special places to support understanding, enjoyment and the nation’s health and wellbeing We want to see our national landscapes as places for all, where barriers are broken down so everyone can enjoy them, not just ‘the club’. We expect all national landscapes, as part of their Management Plans, to produce ambitious strategies to increase diversity of access for marginalised groups, which should include measurable delivery indicators, against which they will be assessed by the National Landscapes Service. The National Landscapes Service will have a key role in setting levels of ambition, checking local plans align to them, and ensuring local landscapes deliver. It will play a key role in helping the 44 landscapes to embed all the best examples we have seen. We also believe that, long-term, our national landscapes should be playing a much bigger role with others who may be marginalised, such as ex- offenders, looked after children, those suffering addiction. The Sandford Principle should remain in place as discussed earlier, and be extended to AONBs, to ensure the primacy of the first purpose.

Proposal 8: A night under the stars in a national landscape for every child Many of our national landscapes already do wonderful work with schools. We don’t want to disrupt what is already done or think that all contact with the countryside must be regimented, or take place only in national landscapes or arranged through them. But we know how many children could benefit, but don’t. National landscapes could do – and want to do – more for the physical and mental health of children and young people, and give them a chance to experience nature. Each child who comes back with a positive experience after visiting a national landscape is an ambassador for their future. We think there should be a big, bold ambition to change this for everyone. All children should be helped to develop pride in their national landscapes, their environment and its biodiversity. They should learn how landscapes have inspired generations of artists, poets and musicians. They themselves should be inspired by the lives of their forebears, who have forged this countryside and whose very existence is written into the cultural landscape, and above all they should learn how they too can pick up the baton of nurturing and enhancing what they have inherited. With help from a new National Landscapes Service, we would like to see national landscapes work with the many organisations already involved in this area to provide a clear, consistent offer for a meaningful visit that we think should include an overnight stay. It would be a chance for children to meet others from communities they may not normally meet, to learn about the nature that we all rely on, and even enjoy the thrill of a night under the stars. Working with school children in Shropshire AONB Through the John Muir Award, the Shropshire Hills AONB Partnership aims to involve and inspire children with the natural world. The award is run by the John Muir Trust and inspired by one of the founders of the national landscapes movement. It seeks to foster responsibility for wild places through fun and adventure. An AONB staff member has supported primary schools through the award’s four stages: discovering a wild place, exploring it, taking practical action to conserve it, and then sharing the experience. Wild places have included nature reserves and an upland farm. Conservation activities have included hedge planting, heathland restoration, making nest boxes and coppicing. Since 2012, the AONB Partnership has worked with around 500 pupils and teachers from 12 primary schools. “The opportunities which the AONB has brought to our children have developed and grown so much that they have become an integral part of our learning. Presenting children with the opportunity to understand and appreciate the wild places around us has had many benefits, not only from an environmental aspect, but also from a creative and academic one too”, says Les Ball, School Head. Teachers have also completed the award, and training days have been provided for some schools to continue unsupported. Based on the Shropshire Hills experience, the John Muir Trust have developed resources to support delivery in other AONBs. The budget has been around £8,000pa and the programme has been delivered in partnership with Shropshire Wildlife Trust. A project is being developed to upscale delivery across the AONB.

Proposal 9: New long-term programmes to increase the ethnic diversity of visitors We know that specific targets can drive unintended consequences and we don’t want to force them on national landscapes. But we also know that without clear expectations, inaction can follow, as the abandonment of the MOSAIC programmes after funding finished shows. We want to see a new version of MOSAIC developed and brought in as a priority and long-term programme, actively connecting England’s diverse communities to our most special places. The National Landscapes Service would take a view across the national landscapes to ensure ambitions and actions were challenging and credible, and take a central role in reaching out to other organisations and sectors to improve outcomes in our national landscapes. Peak District MOSAIC Peak District MOSAIC provides opportunities for people from black, Asian and minority ethnic and marginalised communities, living around the borders of the Peak District National Park, to engage in activities that develop their capacity, knowledge and skills to take an active role in management, conservation and promotion of the National Park; raise awareness of diversity and shared history in rural areas; and promote understanding between people from diverse backgrounds. Local ‘champions’ do this by organising visits and fun activities. When the Campaign for National Parks’ MOSAIC-led project concluded, the champions, with support from the National Park and Derbyshire Dales Council for the Voluntary Sector, established themselves as a charity in April 2016, to continue their work. In 2017 the group successfully applied for an Awards for All grant of £8,938 that was used to train 15 new champions from Sheffield and Manchester. The champions received a £200 grant to organise group trips in the National Park. A total of 173 visitors participated in different activities of which 92 were first time visitors. The group is currently working with the South West Peak Landscape Partnership project to train 10 champions from the Stoke and Macclesfield areas.