Proposed Main Modifications

In bullet point 3 of the new paragraph summarising the North Herts District Green Infrastructure Plan, the order of "other valued landscapes and the Chilterns AONB" should be reversed to:
"The Chilterns AONB and other valued landscapes"

or alternatively separated into two separate bullets:
"- the Chilterns AONB
- other valued landscapes"

This is because:
1. the current order does not give the "great weight" to the AONB that NPPF para 172 instructs should be given.

2. it does not follow the instruction about hierarchy in the NPPF para 170 that: "Plans should: distinguish between the hierarchy of international, national and
locally designated sites; allocate land with the least environmental or amenity
value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework; take a strategic
approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green
infrastructure; and plan for the enhancement of natural capital at a catchment or
landscape scale across local authority boundaries."

3. it does not make sense grammatically, it starts with "other valued landscapes" without explaining what they are 'other' to. The preceding bullets are about habitats.

Chilterns Conservation Board strongly objects to the weakening of this policy on the Chilterns AONB.

We supported the submission version of this policy in October 2016, noting that "Policy NE3 is based on (with minor variation) joint work by the Chilterns Conservation Board and planners from across the thirteen planning authorities of the Chilterns AONB through the AONB Planning Forum. The AONB Planning Forum developed the model AONB planning policy in 2016 for inclusion across all the local plans of the Chilterns AONB in order to achieve cross-boundary consistency. It is an example of cooperation on the natural environment on a larger than local issue."

There is no justification for the changes which weaken the policy. In particular the addition of the words "where possible" in criterion (b) to read "conserves and where possible enhances the Chilterns AONB's...".

"Where possible" is not consistent with NPPF para 172, nor with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 section 85 which sets a duty to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of AONBs. Both say "conserve and enhance", not "conserve and where possible enhance". This is not a matter of which version of the NPPF you use, this is nothing new, the CRoW Act established "conserving and enhancing" as the statutory duty in the year 2000.

We also object to the changes at to the policy at criteria (d) which weakens the status of the Chilterns AONB Management Plan from a plan that proposals should meet the aims of, to something they should have regard to.

Similarly, we object to the changes at to the policy at criteria (e) which weakens the status of the Chilterns Buildings Design Guide from guidance that proposals should meet the aims of, to something they should have regard to.

The revised NPPF in 2018 has deleted the words "within these designated areas" from the paragraph on major development and AONBs. This introduces a question about whether the major development test is only to be applied in AONB or also in some cases in the setting of AONB, which puts this main mod in doubt.

Old NPPF para 116:
Planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest.

New NPPF para 172
Planning permission should be refused for major development (see footnote 55) other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest.

Footnote 55 goes on to refer to designation purposes, which are set out in the CRoW Act. The legal duty on local authorities set out in section 85 of the CRoW Act 2000 to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of AONB does not just apply within the AONB; the only consideration is whether land in the AONB is affected, not where the effect originates. Similarly, the instruction in the NPPF paragraph 172 to give 'great weight' to conserving landscape and scenic beauty applies regardless of whether a development is inside the AONB or on land outside but affecting it. The NPPG also draws attention to proposals 'which might have an impact on the setting of AONBs'.

The point is that the deletion of "in these designated areas" suggest that major development could in some circumstances be applied to setting. Given this, the main mod is not appropriate.

Also the footnotes to this paragraph need updating as they refer to the previous version of the NPPF. References to NPPF para 116 should read 172.

Paragraph 11.12 could usefully refer to the new sentence added to the NPPF para 172:
"The scale and extent of development within these designated areas should be limited."
and to the new information about how to assess whether a proposal is major development in footnote 55: "For the purposes of paragraphs 172 and 173, whether a proposal is 'major development' is a matter for the decision maker, taking into account its nature, scale and setting, and whether it could have a significant
adverse impact on the purposes for which the area has been designated or defined."