In developing the spatial strategy, the existence of the AONB designation should influence the plan in terms of the strategic location of development. In considering allocations, para 174 of the NPPF states that planning policies should protect and enhance valued landscapes in a manner commensurate with their statutory status. The NPPF also highlights the need for local planning authorities to differentiate between land of the highest environmental quality and that of lesser quality, and to allocate development accordingly to areas of lesser environmental value (paragraph 175).
Decisions on allocating sites within the AONB should be ‘landscape led’. This requires a robust understanding of landscape including the key characteristics, history and settlement patterns of the wider landscape. The PPG advises that “To help assess the type and scale of development that might be able to be accommodated without compromising landscape character, a Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Assessment can be completed. To demonstrate the likely effects of a proposed development on the landscape, a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment can be used” (Paragraph: 037 Reference ID: 8-037-20190721). The Kent Downs AONB Management Plan 2021 to 2026 is a key document to understanding what makes the area special and therefore what qualities need to be conserved and enhanced when deciding the location, scale and design of new development. Medway Council will also need to consider the cumulative impact of any proposed allocations within the Kent Downs AONB.
To comply with the NPPF any allocations within the AONB should be small scale. Paragraph 177 states “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. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of:
a) the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy;
b) the cost of, and scope for, developing outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and
c) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated”.
Whilst paragraph 177 specifically refers to permissions, it has also been considered relevant by Local Plan Inspectors to allocations within Local Plans. Legal advice provided to the South Downs National Park Authority by Landmark Chambers also concluded that “it would arguably amount to an error of law to fail to consider paragraph 116 (now 177) at the site allocations stage of plan making for the National Park. The consequence of doing so would be to risk allocating land for major development that was undeliverable because it was incapable of meeting the major development test in the NPPF”.
Tests a) and b) of paragraph 177 are indeed more appropriate to determine at plan-making stage when the needs for development are established and alternative options for provision fully considered. The scope for this to be done at planning application stage is much more restricted. The starting point of this policy is that major development should only be permitted in an AONB “in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest”. This is a separate requirement to the tests set out at a), b) and c) and set a very high bar. When applied at Local Plan stage test a) should not assume that general housing needs must be met within the AONB. To justify major development on the basis of meeting objectively assessed housing needs for the local planning authority area is a circular argument at plan-making stage because the impact of the scale and distribution of development on the AONB should be taken into account in deciding the level of housing provision. If such levels can only be achieved by allocating major development, which by definition will have “a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which the area has been designated” then this is a good indicator that the impact on the AONB provides “a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area” (NPPF paragraph 11).
The assessment for test a) should rather be based on robust evidence that directly relates to the AONB and relevant settlements within it. This is supported by the findings of the Inspector for the West Oxfordshire Local Plan, who recommended deleting four allocations in the Burford – Charlbury sub-area, which forms part of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) on the basis that there was no housing need figure for this specific sub-area and that that “soundly-based decisions on the balance of the benefits and harms of further housing development in this area can only reasonably be reached based on the detailed evidence submitted as part of specific planning applications” .
Test b) should robustly explore all available options outside the AONB, and whether the need can be met in another way, such as on smaller sites within the AONB. Test c) can be harder to apply at Local Plan stage when the details of the scheme are not known, but sites that are significantly constrained by environmental, landscape or recreational factors should be avoided. Again Landscape Capacity / Sensitivity Studies and Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments carried out in the context of Strategic Environmental Assessments or Sustainability Appraisals can be useful tools to inform this test if used alongside other relevant evidence such as ecological and heritage studies