Policy E6: The leisure and visitor experience
Policy E6: The leisure and visitor experience
We will continue to develop a high quality visitor experience to increase the contribution that tourism, arts, cultural heritage and sport make to our quality of life and social and cultural well-being. To achieve this we will support:
To protect the vitality and viability of our town, district and local centres, proposals for new leisure space which exceed 500sq m and are located outside of these areas, as designated on the proposals map, will be required to submit an impact assessment. All new and enhanced leisure and visitor attractions and facilities should preserve the borough’s special heritage and natural features. The loss of existing visitor, leisure and cultural attractions, including arts and entertainment facilities, hotels and indoor sports venues, will be strongly resisted unless replacement facilities of an equivalent or better standard and provision are proposed in a location equally accessible to the facility’s current catchment area. Alternatively, robust evidence must be provided that demonstrates that the facility causes significant detriment to the amenity of the locality or that:
Tourism and visitors do not depend on new visitor attractions and facilities – and these may undermine the area. Overdevelopment is a risk especially in the countryside.
The importance of tourism and leisure within the borough is acknowledged by GBC, and thus far this policy is welcomed. Thus far, the principles underlying this policy are given measured and qualified support. However, the emphasis however on development in order to facilitate tourism seems fundamentally misguided, and, as in other areas of the plan, seems to regard both the planning function and local government as a whole as the marketing and sourcing department of the building and civil engineering industries. This is inappropriate and therefore this element merits objection on an overall basis.
It should be noted that Tourism is one of the major industries in the country. Visit Britain notes: “Since 2010 tourism has been the fastest growing sector in the UK in employment terms, responsible for one-third of the net increase in UK jobs between 2010 and 2012.
The report forecasts that the tourism economy will be worth around £127 billion this year (2013), equivalent to 9% of the UK’s GDP. It supports over 3.1 million jobs, that’s 9.6% of all jobs and 173,000 more than in 2010. The sector is predicted to grow at an annual rate of 3.8% through to 2025 - significantly faster than the overall UK economy (with a predicted annual rate of 3% per annum) and much faster than sectors such as manufacturing, construction and retail.”
In the context of the importance of the tourism sector, it is deeply shocking that there is so little care attached to this section of the local plan. The part of the local economy is likely to grow more quickly than any other sector of the economy, and the damage to the UK economy that could result from unrestricted promotion of housing estates and warehouses should be calculated before growth is seen as a motivating force for development.
This area of England is important, and it is visited by tourists and visitors, not primarily because of tourist centres nor even because of rural sites of significance such as Hatchlands Park, important though that National Trust sites may be.
The importance to the borough of the countryside qua countryside, embodying rural tourism, rural agriculture and its related impact on the local economy cannot be overstated. The contribution of the outstanding countryside in the borough (which is highly valued by walkers, cyclists and many others) has been disregarded.
In this part of England agriculture is prosperous and prospering; and the importance of the countryside to the country as a whole is enormous.
Set out below are extracts from the submission to the Issues and Options consultation by the Burrows Cross Area Residents’ Association which indicates, just for the villages within the ward of Shere, some of the tourist sites which are of historic, cultural and tourist interest. These are illustrative only, and many other areas within the borough have equivalent points of local and regional interest. This is indicative of the level of information that should be considered for all areas throughout the borough, and that greenfield and Green Belt sites should be avoided wherever possible on these grounds, quite apart from any other environmental factors. It indicates some of the tourist significance of this area. It should be noted that tourism relies heavily on the agricultural and rural qualities of the landscape in the area, not just to visit particular sites but for walking and cycling on a routine basis.
It should also be noted that activities such as Duke of Edinburgh walks rely heavily on the North Downs for schools in most of the South West quadrant of London. These schools would not send parties of teenagers through the countryside every weekend of spring and early summer if the sites were overdeveloped. Walks along the nationally important North Downs Way or Pilgrims’ Way are of enormous popular importance to all sections of the community. These do not need “facilities” except the informal facilities of cafes, pubs and restaurants that exist within the villages.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the cycle trips that are of increasing national importance rely heavily on the Surrey countryside. The Olympic cycle route routed through the Surrey villages, through or past Ripley, Ockham, Clandon, Shere and Gomshall; subsequently followed by Ride Prudential, is regarded as the archetypal illustration of the English countryside at its best for an international audience.
Lack of development is in itself a key element of the attraction to tourists, and this should not be disregarded as a key element of the planning process, which should constrain inappropriate development as much as it should promote development which is socially and environmentally desirable (e.g. in the renovation of brownfield sites).
Extracts from BCARA submission to issues and options consultation as an illustration of the level of tourist activity and areas of interest in rural areas:
NPPF 132 notes an obligation to restrict development in the vicinity of heritage assets. It has already been noted that heritage assets are significant in the villages of Shere (Norman church (1190), mediaeval village buildings (The Old Forge, The Old Prison, Weaver’s House, Wheelwright Cottage), many other listed buildings including the restaurant of Kinghams in a mediaeval building or The White Horse pub, filmed in The Holiday (tourism, local business)) and Gomshall (17th Mill, Tudor houses including the King John House, NT property and land at Netley House). The area also has bronze age hill forts, a Roman temple, High House Shere (1630, Grade 2 listed).
This brief history of Shere (incorporated in full by reference) gives an indication of its historical importance:http://www.sheredelight.com/history.html
This website also gives an indication of the importance of the undamaged nature of the villages and the surroundings to an important local industry, which is filming. See http://www.sheredelight.com/films.html. It should be noted that NPPF enjoins local authorities to consider the impact of development on any existing business, and that if this is adverse, then they should not give permission. The impact on the film industry of any development in this area should not be underrated. This would have a significantly negative impact on the local economy of the borough as a whole.
Gomshall’s history is summarised usefully on the Wikipedia site: (incorporated by reference): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomshall. This notes that the Manor of Gumesele was a Saxon feudal landholding; that Gomshall appears in Domesday Book of 1086 as Gomeselle. It was held by William.
In 1154, Henry II of England divided the Manor of Gumesele into three: West Gomshall (granted to an abbey in Netley so known as Netley after 1240), East Gomshall (granted to an Abbey in Tower Hill in 1376 so now known as Tower Hill) and Somersbury (now Gomshall). This demonstrates that the current boundaries of the village are recognizable from the Domesday book, and that this is in itself of cultural importance. To develop on land adjacent to these boundaries would be wholly inappropriate since that would be to alter the village boundaries that have lasted on a very long term basis as permanent and established features of the landscape, as required by NPPF.
Local industries developed based on the plentiful and constant water supply of the River Tillingbourne. Leather tanning is a historic industry, now gone. Gomshall Mill was the corn mill. Some other businesses based on the Tillingbourne survive, and would be damaged by over development. These include watercress growing (at the Kingfisher Watercress Beds in Abinger) and trout farming (between Abinger and Gomshall, in the area bounded by this study – for both of which clean water is a particular essential ingredient. Damage the water supply and you will kill the business). In addition to these food suppliers, many of the local fields are farmed organically and contribute to the Surrey Hills organic food brands (beef, lamb, pork). The importance of the agricultural industry should not be ignored; it is not reasonable to perceive that building a house is “Growth” or “development” while destroying a farm or an agricultural business (which of course economically is negative growth). Those farms have a hugely positive tourist impact too.
The AA has prepared a walking guide of historical sites associated with Romans and Celts in this parish. http://www.theaa.com/walks/with-the-romans-and-celts-at-farley-421068
The area of Abinger Roughs and Netley Park is listed on the NT website; this link is incorporated into this section by reference:http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/abinger-roughs-and-netley-park/how-to-get-here/?findPlace=Abinger%20Roughs%20and%20Netley%20Park&type=&view=map. The guide to the locality from the NT (see website link, incorporated by reference) is relevant in the context of local wildlife, which are abundant throughout this parish not just in the area identified by the NT. http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1349108282364&ssbinary=true
NPPF 126 notes that local authorities have a duty to recognise that heritage assets (and their setting) are an irreplaceable resource and that they have a duty to conserve them.
NPPF 123 notes that planning decisions should protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason. In this locality the most prevalent noise is that of birdsong. It is not appropriate to consider this as a possible area for development.
NPPF 118 notes that planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats.
The NT guide to Netley Park and the Abinger Roughs notes in the context of local wildlife: “Lots of birds can be seen and heard on the Roughs. Near the rhododendrons is a good spot - look out for: goldcrests, woodpeckers, wrens, treecreepers, song thrushes, chaffinches and dunnocks.” Some of these species, and also the other species noted by the NT such as noctule bats, are of conservation importance and they should not be disturbed. (Source: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/abinger-roughs-and-netley-park/wildlife/).
NPPF 115 notes that “Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty”. It is not acceptable to destroy any part of this area, protected over the last two millennia and substantively unchanged, in order to make a short term developmental profit even for a tourism related project. It further comments that the conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas. NPPF 116 notes that planning permission should be refused in these areas except in exceptional circumstances. This should be incorporated into the local plan.
Overriding force should be given to the Green Belt provisions of NPPF 88 and 89 which generally notes that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt and that the construction of new buildings is generally inappropriate.
GBC should be reminded that the AONB has status equivalent to that of a National Park.
Interestingly in National Parks, the National Park authority has overall responsibility for planning policy. For the South Downs National Park, the guidance is of relevance http://www.southdowns.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/123232/Agenda_Item_8_Appendix_1_20101203.pdf. This states:
“National Parks have two statutory purposes which must be taken into account when considering planning proposals that could have an impact upon a National Park.
To conserve and enhance their natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage
To promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of these special qualities.
If there is a conflict between these two policies then the first must take precedence.”
Other guidance is worth noting. The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 legislated for the designation of AONBs and National Parks. Their purpose was to be similar – to conserve and enhance natural beauty. The Countryside Commission defined the purpose of AONB designation in a statement of 1991.
Purpose of AONB Designation
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty: A policy statement (Countryside Commission, CCP 356, 1991), p5
AONBs and National Parks are recognised in England to be on a par legally because of their nationally important landscapes. The National Planning Policy Framework confirms that AONBs are equivalent to National Parks in terms of their landscape quality, scenic beauty and their planning status.
The statutory duty enjoined upon GBC is not to seek to develop but to protect this area – “to conserve and enhance natural beauty”. GBC appears to have objective seeking growth which is in conflict with the requirements to protect. This is already covered by NPPF in relation to Green Belt status, which is in itself glossed by ministerial guidance, as previously noted (Eric Pickles, Brandon Lewis and others).
Development within the AONB of any form is likely to be damaging. In addition to the overriding restriction on such development under NPPF, the following statement referred to by Natural England is of significance:
“The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has recently drawn attention to studies finding that although developed land covers only a small proportion of North America’s land base, it has a large impact on ecosystem services. For example, roads occupy just 1% of the US land area, but they alter the ecological structures and functions of about 22% or more of the land. In US regions with rapid ‘exurban’ (or extensive residential) growth, species richness and endemism diminish as urban cover increases, threatening biodiversity. The fragmentation of natural habitat threatens more than 500 endangered US wildlife species with extinction. It also provides new entry points for invasive species already introduced through other pathways”. 13.Source: United Nations Environment Programme, Global Environment Outlook GE04 – environment for development , 2007,
p.259 at Box 6.30, itself quoted by Natural England.
In other words, seeking growth of any kind within the AONB is inherently undesirable and in conflict with the overriding principles of biodiversity, and therefore sustainability.