Consultation outcome

Implementing the Landscapes Review: summary of responses

Updated 29 November 2023

Stream in the forest on Dartmoor National Park

Introduction

Our National Parks, National Trails and National Landscapes (the new name for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty or AONBs) are England’s most treasured areas. As individuals, we cherish them as unique places to experience breath-taking views and tranquillity, and their contributions to society go much wider. 

As set out in the Environmental Improvement Plan, Protected Landscapes (National Parks and National Landscapes) cover nearly a quarter of England’s land area and are key to our commitments to halt and reverse the decline in species abundance and the protection of 30% of land for nature by 2030 (30by30). From the Lake District to the Suffolk Coast and Heaths, these special places are home to our most precious wildlife and our rural communities. They are also essential to our nation’s health and wellbeing, and resilience to climate change. For these reasons, the government committed to create new National Landscapes and a National Park, to connect more people with nature. With the process well underway for National Landscapes, Natural England will now begin the search for a new National Park. This comes alongside our action plan to support our existing Protected Landscapes to achieve their full potential through additional funding, greater collaboration across the national network, and strengthened legislation.

The government ran a consultation from 15 January 2022 to 9 April 2022 regarding changes to the legislative framework of Protected Landscapes, their role in environmental land management schemes and the planning system, and the potential for greater enforcement powers to manage visitor pressures. It received 15,112 responses. Below we set out our action plan for Protected Landscapes, based on responses to this consultation.

Action plan for Protected Landscapes

We have developed an ambitious action plan so that Protected Landscapes will play their part in delivering our Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP23).

Strengthen legislative duties 

Since the consultation, the strengthened biodiversity duty in the 2021 Environment Act has come into force. This will help accelerate nature recovery in Protected Landscapes as it places a legal duty on public authorities to consider and take action to conserve and enhance biodiversity. To make full use of this legislation, we have published new guidance that public bodies should consider Protected Landscapes as part of the duty, particularly if they have functions within or close to the designation.  

Through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act, we will also require the management plans of Protected Landscapes to contribute to national environmental targets. In addition, we will require relevant authorities to help deliver these management plans, as well as the statutory purposes for Protected Landscapes. We believe this will improve the quality and consistency of decision making by relevant authorities and ensure that partners work together to deliver better outcomes for nature, climate, people and place. This will also help to ensure that Protected Landscapes are at the heart of our 30by30 commitment. 

Protected Landscapes will also have a key role in the development and delivery of Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRSs). We published statutory guidance on LNRSs earlier this year highlighting Protected Landscapes as being particularly suitable areas for nature recovery. EIP23 committed to giving LNRSs weight across a range of government policies, so we have brought forward amendments to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. These amendments will update existing planning law to require all plan makers to take account of any LNRSs that relate to their area when preparing spatial development strategies, local plans and neighbourhood plans.

Collaborative Partnership for Better Outcomes for People and Nature 

We are establishing a new Protected Landscapes partnership to build on collaboration between National Parks England, the National Landscapes Association, National Trails UK and Natural England, so that they deliver more than the sum of their parts.

The partnership will have two workstreams at the outset. The first workstream of the partnership will identify opportunities for collaboration on nature recovery and climate change leadership through large-scale projects and sharing knowledge and evidence across the landscapes. The second workstream of the partnership will consider how to remove barriers to access and promote respect for nature. This will support local teams to increase the number of people from all parts of society visiting, volunteering, and working in Protected Landscapes and National Trails. 

These workstreams will be informed by a new outcomes framework that supports delivery of national targets (as set out in the EIP23). We expect delivery of the outcomes framework to be embedded within management plans to guide local decision-making and prioritisation. Natural England is also strengthening management plan guidance to support consistency. We believe these measures will give Protected Landscapes and their partners a shared purpose which will drive investment and delivery.

Boosting financial support for Protected Landscapes  

We appreciate our ambitious vision must be matched by equivalent resources, which is why we are investing more in our landscapes than ever before. In the new year, we will provide an additional £10 million to National Landscapes and Parks in recognition of their increasing role for nature and people. We are also targeting additional funding to priority outcomes.

Farming in Protected Landscapes (FiPL)

Our farmers are vital for domestic food production as well as supporting thriving natural environments. It is essential we continue to support them, including through our FiPL programme which we launched in 2021 with over £50 million of funding until March 2024. The programme has supported more than 2,800 projects and engaged around 5,000 farmers with Protected Landscape teams. As well as the benefits for nature, the projects support local economies by enabling businesses to capitalise on the social and financial benefits that visitors can provide and maximises benefits for the wider historic landscape. In recognition of its huge success, we have extended the programme until March 2025 and doubled the total funding to more than £100 million.

Access for All programme

Protected Landscapes will receive £9.3 million for accessibility infrastructure over the next 3 years. This aims to bring more people from all parts of society to our Protected Landscapes. Accessibility improvements include the installation of new gates, the creation of walking routes, and the provision of inclusive cycles and E-trikes, bikes and wheelchairs. It will also fund improvements to our network of National Trails.

Landscape Recovery

Earlier in 2023, we launched a second round of the scheme to fund long-term, large-scale projects to deliver environmental benefits. Round one focused on species recovery and river restoration, and over half of the 22 selected projects involve land within Protected Landscapes. Round two focuses on net zero, protected sites and wildlife-rich habitats. 34 projects have been shortlisted for enrolment and the majority of these involve land in Protected Landscapes.

Water in Protected Landscapes

We are also making a further £5 million available, which Protected Landscapes can apply for this year to improve the water environment in these areas. This is for Protected Landscapes teams to improve rivers and waterways, in acknowledgement that a healthy water environment is essential to delivering outcomes for people and nature.

Long term sustainable funding

We are also investing in National Parks Partnerships and the National Landscapes Association to build the capacity to create a pipeline of projects to generate more private finance in Protected Landscapes. This green finance initiative aims to secure greater long-term sustainable funding for nature recovery projects. 

We will also work collaboratively with Protected Landscapes Teams to review the long-term funding model to ensure that it is fair and transparent. National Landscapes have a different legal status to National Park Authorities with local authorities key to their governance and important for their financing. We will consider how best to unlock their full potential to deliver on local and national priorities.

Consultation responses  

Respondents could submit a return through the online portal Citizen Space, by email, or by post. We received 15,112 responses to the consultation with over 83% of responses coming from members of the public. However, 386 responses were excluded from the analysis because they were from email addresses that had already responded. One response was retained from each email address. Of the responses received via email, 391 were identical and initiated by a campaign. These were counted separately as different individuals submitted them.  

Respondents provided demographic information through questions 1-5, including a list of identities from which to self-select. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the responses received by the respondent category.

Table 1: Number of responses received by type of respondent

Respondent type	Number of respondents	% of respondents
Member of the general public	11,894	83.6%
Resident of a protected landscape	1,092	7.7%
Other	518	3.6%
Local authority	139	1.0%
Business	122	0.9%
Academic	108	0.8%
Environmental NGO	83	0.6%
Other public body	83	0.6%
National Landscapes (AONB) team	58	0.4%
Professional body	55	0.4%
Other NGO	44	0.3%
NPA or the Broads Authority	30	0.2%
Total	14,226	100.0%

In this document, when we refer to a respondent group, we are referencing all respondents who identified as that group. For example, ‘National Landscapes teams’ refers to all respondents who identified as a ‘National Landscapes team’ in question 5 of the consultation rather than all 34 National Landscapes teams in England.  

Defra also hosted or attended 26 stakeholder engagement events during the consultation and we include views from these sessions. Attendees included Protected Landscape teams, local authorities, youth groups, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

Analysis of responses

A stronger mission for nature recovery 

Question 6: Should a strengthened first purpose of Protected Landscapes follow the proposals set out in Chapter 2? 

57% of the 8,757 respondents agreed, 19% disagreed and 24% were unsure. Environmental NGOs, National Park Authorities (NPAs) or the Broads Authority, and National Landscapes teams had the highest proportion of respondents in favour (all greater than 75%). 40% of business and professional bodies agreed.  

Respondents were also allowed to give a free text response explaining the reason for their answer to the first part of the question. The positive impact on nature was the main reason for agreeing with the proposal (86% of the ‘yes’ responses reviewed). Among those that did not agree, the most common concerns were that the proposal would restrict access (34%) or is unnecessary (22%). 

Question 7: Which other priorities should be reflected in a strengthened first purpose for example climate, cultural heritage? 

Respondents were invited to identify other priorities for inclusion in a strengthened first purpose. 6,340 respondents provided an answer. More than half (52%) of responses reviewed indicated that nature should be the main focus. 45% mentioned climate change, 25% access and 24% cultural heritage as other priorities. The most common other priority identified by protected landscape teams was cultural heritage, citing perceived conflicts between the priorities of nature recovery and cultural heritage as an issue. 

Government response 

As home to some of our most important wildlife and habitats, National Parks and National Landscapes should help drive progress towards delivering the EIP 23 and achieving our apex legal target to halt and reverse the decline in species abundance.  

To achieve this, we have: 

• strengthened the duties for Protected Landscapes through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act. This will ensure Protected Landscapes Management Plans reflect national targets, and that relevant authorities contribute to their delivery 
• strengthened the biodiversity duty on public authorities
• published guidance on LNRSs and brought forward amendments to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act to provide more clarity for plan-makers on how they should take account of LNRSs 

We will: 

• establish a new Protected Landscapes Partnership to foster closer collaboration between National Parks, National Landscapes and National Trails on nature improvement
• publish our new Outcomes Framework for Protected Landscapes that will define the contribution that our Protected Landscapes should make to national targets to guide local decision-making and prioritisation

With just seven years to meet our species abundance target and to put plans in place to meet our 30by30 commitment, we must focus on actions. We consider that strengthening the intent of this proposal has instead been delivered by the commencement of the Environment Act biodiversity duty and will be enhanced by additional duties through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act. This will focus relevant authorities on delivery. We will continue to track progress to inform whether additional policies or activities are needed.

Agricultural transition 

Question 8: Do you support any of the following options as we develop the role of Protected Landscapes in the new environmental land management schemes? Tick all that apply. 

The respondents were given the following options: 

Option A: Designing the environmental land management schemes in a way that works for all farmers and land managers, including the specific circumstances for those in Protected Landscapes, recognising that farmers in these areas are well-placed to deliver on our environmental priorities.

Option B: Using LNRSs to identify projects or habitats within Protected Landscapes.

Option C: Monitoring the effectiveness and uptake of the new environmental land management schemes in Protected Landscapes. Using this to inform whether further interventions are needed to ensure we are on track for wider nature recovery ambitions.

Option D: Creating a clear role for protected landscape organisations in the preparation of LNRSs. Our recent LNRS consultation specifically asks for views on the role of different organisations in the preparation of LNRSs, including Protected Landscapes.

Option E: Building on FiPL, empowering Protected Landscapes to support decision-making and delivery against agreed priorities, including through dedicated project coordinators and advisers.

As shown in Table 2, the most popular overall approach was to design environmental land management schemes in a way that works for all farmers and land managers, including the specific circumstances for those in Protected Landscapes. We expect the option for building on the FiPL programme was less popular due to a lack of familiarity of the programme amongst the public. Analysis of respondent type showed that the most popular choice with National Landscapes teams was creating a clear role for protected landscape organisations in the preparation of LNRSs. This was also the joint most popular proposal for NPAs or the Broads Authority – alongside building on FiPL.

Table 2: Responses to question 8

Response	All respondents	National Landscapes (AONB) team	NPA or Broads Authority	Residents
Option A	4,876	38	17	575
Option B	4,853	37	15	554
Option C	4,694	36	16	558
Option D	4,084	44	18	471
Option E	2,968	42	18	368

Question 9: Do you have any views or supporting evidence you would like to input as we develop the role of Protected Landscapes in the new environmental land management schemes? 

Respondents were also asked if they had any views on the role Protected Landscapes should have in new environmental land management schemes (ELMS). 56% of the 3,485 responses reviewed called for better outcomes for nature, 25% highlighted the need for financial support and 21% wanted better outcomes for access. National Landscapes teams, NPAs or the Broads Authority primarily highlighted the need for local expertise to support the creation of new schemes.  

Government response 

We are designing the environmental land management schemes in a way that works for many different types of farmers and land managers. This is in acknowledgement of the vital importance of domestic food production. The new schemes will aid the delivery of a diverse range of outcomes for nature and access supported by local expertise. 

We want to build on the success of FiPL and see those farmers who are already engaged with it continue to benefit from our agri-environment schemes, where it makes sense for their business. We are therefore continuing to explore how we can incorporate farmer and land manager choices of ELMS options and the role played by National Parks and National Landscapes to best serve outcomes within Protected Landscapes. Local Protected Landscape teams worked closely with Defra to design FiPL and this collaboration continues. By extending FIPL until March 2025, we can review the best concepts of FiPL, such as the role of assessment panels, local advisers and the flexibility the programme offers, and how these can be considered within environmental land management schemes within Protected Landscapes.

We are additionally developing an extra incentive in ELMS, through Countryside Stewardship Plus, for land managers to join up across local areas to deliver bigger and better results. We are considering how this can benefit actions in Protected Landscapes.

A stronger mission for connecting people and places

Sunrise over the Malvern Hills

Question 10: Should National Landscapes (AONB) have a second purpose relating to connecting people and places, equivalent to that of National Parks? 

55% of the 7,492 respondents to this question agreed, 18% disagreed and 27% were unsure. National Landscapes teams, NGOs, NPAs or the Broads Authority, and local authorities had the highest proportion of respondents in favour (all greater than 75%). In contrast, just under half of businesses supported this proposal (47%).  

Among those that did not agree with the proposal, the most common concern was that it would negatively impact nature (30% of the ‘no’ or ‘unsure’ responses reviewed). 28% thought the proposal was unnecessary and 27% raised concerns about increasing visitor pressures. The main reasons for agreeing with the proposal were that it will increase engagement with nature (31% of ‘yes’ responses reviewed), raise the status of National Landscapes (29%), and improve the diversity of visitors (28%).  

Other themes raised in consultation responses and engagement were the need for additional resources to address any increased burdens as a result of any change to the second purpose, and the need for better access to sustainable transport. 

Question 11: Should a strengthened second purpose of Protected Landscapes follow the proposals set out in Chapter 3 to improve connections to all parts of society with our protected landscapes? 

Over half (54%) of the 7,568 respondents agreed, 16% disagreed and 30% were unsure. National Landscapes teams, NPAs or the Broads Authority, local authorities, and eNGOs had the highest proportion of respondents in favour (all greater than 70%). Businesses (49% yes) and professional bodies (48% yes) were the only cohorts without a majority of respondents in support of the proposal.  

Of those that agreed, half of responses reviewed (50%) mentioned benefits to health and wellbeing. 31% felt we should improve the diversity of visitors. Concerns about increasing visitor pressures were the main reason for choosing ‘no’ or ‘unsure’ (22% of responses reviewed). Other themes included the need for additional resources, increased education of visitors, and more action to support local communities. 

Question 12: Are there any other priorities that should be reflected in a strengthened second purpose? 

Respondents could list other priorities for inclusion in a strengthened second purpose. 39% of responses reviewed highlighted accessibility and 37% called for improved engagement. Suggestions for improved engagement included increasing education via the Countryside Code and promoting increased diversity of visitors. NPAs and National Landscapes teams highlighted the importance of retaining the phrase ‘special qualities’ in the current purpose and suggested the inclusion of ‘health and wellbeing’. Other themes raised in consultation responses and engagement included the need to reflect cultural heritage and open-air recreation in any strengthened purpose.  

Government response 

We recognise the important benefits access to nature has for mental and physical health, and Protected Landscapes are uniquely placed to improve the nation’s wellbeing and reduce health inequalities. We do not believe that amending the statutory purposes is the appropriate tool at this time. Instead, we have: 

• provided Protected Landscapes with £9.3 million through our ‘Access for All’ programme
• published the ‘Increasing Children’s Engagement with Protected Landscapes’ report which will inform the work of the Protected Landscapes Partnership
• funded over 150 FiPL projects which benefit visitors by providing opportunities for people to discover, enjoy and understand the landscape and its cultural heritage
• asked Natural England to begin the process to identify areas for consideration of a new National Park designation to ensure more people can connect with England’s Protected Landscapes. This is an expansion to the existing designation programme which includes the consideration of 2 new National Landscapes, and 2 extensions
• supported England’s Community Forests Network, funded by Defra’s Nature for Climate Fund, which is creating over 7,000 hectares of new woodland, by 2025, in and around some of our largest towns and cities. The network covers 20% of England, where almost 50% of the population live. More than two-thirds of this new woodland will be accessible to local communities, and, already, over half a million more people across the country are now within 500 metres of a woodland thanks to delivery by the work of the Community Forests

We will:

• work across government to fulfil a new and ambitious commitment that everyone should live within 15 minutes’ walk of a green or blue space and reduce barriers to access
• invest £2.5m to connect under-represented children and young people with nature, building on the success of the Generation Green project
• launch a competition for a National Forest to encourage the development of new and different models to deliver landscape scale change and investment in people and nature, as per the original Landscapes Review recommendation

Managing visitor pressures 

Question 13: Do you support any of the following options to grant National Park Authorities and the Broads Authority greater enforcement powers to manage visitor pressures? Tick all that apply.  

6,757 respondents supported issuing fixed penalty noticed for bylaw infringements, 4,570 supported issuing traffic regulation orders (TROs) to control the amount and type of traffic on roads, and 3,984 supported making Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs). 

Respondents could also give a reason for their answer to the closed part of the question. 37% of responses reviewed gave support for the options presented to either reduce disruption or protect nature, however 18% found additional enforcement powers unnecessary. 

Feedback from stakeholders at policy development workshops indicated that providing NPAs and the Broads Authority with enforcement powers such as the above would disincentivise people to work as rangers. Rangers work hard to engage with the public and explain how best to behave in natural spaces, and enforcement powers are seen as an unnecessary addition to this role.  

Government response 

While the consultation responses and feedback from stakeholders indicate giving these could have unintended consequences, we consider that these powers could be used at the discretion of NPAs. As such, we agree in principle that we should introduce these powers.  

We recognise the views on managing visitor pressures while retaining recreational access. These will inform the development of proposals that balance the needs of visitors, communities, and the environment. The government wants to boost visitor numbers in a safe and manageable way for local areas, allowing people, communities and businesses to reap the benefits of tourism whilst preserving heritage and natural assets.  

This is in line with our EIP23 commitment to encourage managed access, so that everyone can enjoy our beautiful landscapes both now and for every generation to come. Our refreshed Countryside Code gives useful guidance for both visitors and land managers on how best to respect and conserve nature while enjoying its benefits. 

Question 14: Should we give National Parks Authorities and the Broads Authority and local highway authorities additional powers to restrict recreational motor vehicle use on unsealed routes?  

58% of the 13,244 respondents disagreed that NPAs and the Broads Authority should have additional powers to restrict recreational motor vehicle use on unsealed routes. 39% agreed and 3% were unsure. However, there were significant differences between different respondent types as demonstrated in Figure 1. 

Figure 1 shows professional bodies, businesses and the general public had the highest proportion of respondents opposing the proposal (all greater than 60%). Conversely, 87% of environmental NGOs, 72% of National Landscapes teams, and 71% of other public bodies agreed there should be additional powers. For NPAs or the Broads Authority, 50% agreed, 29% disagreed and 21% were unsure. Local authorities were more in favour, with 80% agreeing with the proposal, 11% disagreeing and 9% unsure.

Figure 1: Breakdown of responses to Question 14 by identity

Respondent Type	No (%)	Yes (%)	Unsure (%)	Total (%)
Professional body	71.4	26.5	2.0	100
Business	66.7	32.5	0.9	100
Member of the general public	62.3	35.5	2.2	100
Other	42.8	50.6	6.6	100
Academic	41.9	55.2	2.9	100
Resident of a protected landscape	36.2	59.6	4.2	100
Other NGO	33.3	57.6	9.1	100
National Park or Broads Authority	29.2	50.0	20.8	100
Other public body	23.1	70.5	6.4	100
Local authority	11.3	79.8	8.9	100
National Landscapes (AONB) team	6.3	71.9	21.9	100
Environmental NGO	4.5	86.6	9.0	100

Among those that did not agree with the additional powers, the most common concern was that access would be restricted (64% of ‘no’ or ‘unsure’ responses reviewed) which would negatively impact personal freedom or result in access inequalities. In particular, the argument was made that motor vehicle users have access to a very small percentage of routes off the general roads network. In addition, removing motor vehicle rights may restrict access to the outdoors for people who are unable to ride horses or bicycles due to disability. The main reasons for agreeing were reducing damage (72%) and nuisance (46%). 

Question 15: For which reasons should National Parks Authorities, the Broads Authority and local authorities exercise this power? (select all that apply) 

Respondents were invited to select all the options they supported. The options are displayed in Figure 2 in order of decreasing popularity.

Figure 2: Number of responses to question 15

Reason	Number of responses
Prevention of damage	6,048
Environment protection	5,985
Nuisance	5,361
Other	4,186
Amenity	3,392

Respondents could choose ‘Other’ as well as, or in place of, the other options. Of the ‘Other’ reasons reviewed, the majority (64%) felt that the NPAs should not have any additional powers to restrict recreational motor vehicle use on unsealed routes and disagreed with all the options presented. 

Question 16: Should we legislate to restrict the use of motor vehicles on unsealed, unclassified roads for recreational use, subject to appropriate exemptions?  

58% of the 13,334 respondents disagreed with legislation to restrict recreational motor vehicle use on unsealed routes. 29% agreed that there should be legislation everywhere and 10% felt the legislation should be in National Parks and National Landscapes only. Again, this varied significantly by respondent type as demonstrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Breakdown of responses to Question 16 by identity

Respondent type	No (%)	Yes - everywhere (%)	Yes - in National Parks and National Landscapes (AONB) only (%)	Unsure%	Yes - in National Parks only (%)	Total (%)
Business	67.2	23.3	6.9	2.6	0.0	100
Professional body	64.0	18.0	12.0	2.0	4.0	100
Member of the general public	62.5	26.3	8.8	1.5	0.8	100
Other	43.4	37.4	13.2	5.3	0.6	100
Academic	39.0	43.8	13.3	1.9	1.9	100
Resident of a protected landscape	36.4	39.7	19.6	3.1	1.2	100
Other NGO	27.3	45.5	9.1	15.2	3.0	100
Other public body	21.5	50.6	19.0	7.6	1.3	100
National Park or Broads Authority	20.0	40.0	20.0	16.0	4.0	100
Local authority	11.8	53.5	18.1	11.8	4.7	100
Environmental NGO	5.8	55.1	26.1	11.6	1.4	100
National Landscapes (AONB) team	5.1	51.3	25.6	17.9	0.0	100

The most frequent reasons for selecting ‘no’ or ‘unsure’ were concerns relating to restricted freedom (56% of ‘no’ and ‘unsure’ responses reviewed). Other significant reasons for disagreement were that the proposal was unnecessary (26%), would have unintended effects (20%) and/or would lead to access inequality (19%).  

Among those that agreed, the reasons reviewed were primarily categorised as reducing damage (59% of ‘yes’ responses reviewed) and nuisance (37%). 

Question 17: What exemptions do you think would be required to protect the rights and enjoyment of other users for example, residents, businesses etc?  

8,043 respondents provided an answer to this question. Business access (30% of responses reviewed) and resident access (27%) were the exemptions that received the most support from respondents (including NPAs or the Broads Authority and National Landscapes teams). In policy development workshops, concerns were raised about the complexity of the necessary exemptions, and the potential for groups who should have exemptions to be missed or the exemptions to be open to abuse.  

Government response 

The consultation shows many people feel strongly about protecting green lanes, but it did not identify clear support for removing vehicular rights. Therefore, we will not proceed with this proposal. We believe that the current Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process is legally robust enough to protect green lanes with carefully targeted local action to protect sensitive areas, while allowing vehicle users to responsibly enjoy the countryside.

The role of National Landscapes (AONB) teams in planning  

Question 18: What roles should National Landscapes (AONB) teams play in the plan-making process to achieve better outcomes? 

There was strong support for more National Landscapes engagement in plan making processes. Of the 3,093 responses reviewed, 57% indicated National Landscapes teams should have a stronger role in the plan-making process. Only 5% of responses reviewed stated that National Landscapes teams should not have a role in the plan making process.  

Question 19: Should National Landscapes (AONB) teams be made statutory consultees for development management? 

There was also strong support for National Landscapes teams to be made statutory consultees for development management. 7,241 respondents provided an answer to this question, with 57% agreeing, 20% disagreed and 23% were unsure. Of the reasons for agreement reviewed, the majority suggested that suggested that National Landscapes teams add value to development management (47%) while around one third (34%) felt that the proposal would give National Landscapes more protection from development pressures.

Figure 4: Breakdown of responses to Question 19 by identity

Respondent Type	Yes (%)	Unsure (%)	No (%)	Total (%)
National Landscapes (AONB) team	95.7	4.3	0.0	100
Environmental NGO	87.0	11.6	1.4	100
Local authority	74.3	13.3	12.4	100
Other public body	74.1	20.7	5.2	100
Resident of a protected landscape	70.7	17.6	11.7	100
National Park or Broads Authority	66.7	20.0	13.3	100
Academic	66.2	9.1	24.7	100
Other	64.8	21.2	13.9	100
Other NGO	56.0	28.0	16.0	100
Member of the general public	53.2	24.6	22.3	100
Professional body	50.0	17.9	32.1	100
Business	32.0	29.3	38.7	100

Question 20: If yes, what type of planning applications should National Landscapes teams be consulted on? 

Of the 5,124 respondents who answered Question 20, 62% selected the option that ‘National Landscapes teams should be consulted on all planning applications that require an Environmental Impact Assessment and are categorised as ‘major development as well as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects’.  

Government response 

We agree National Landscapes teams should have a strong voice in the plan-making process, however, given their legal status we will not be giving National Landscapes Partnerships statutory consultee status at this time. We will continue to work across government, and with key stakeholders, to understand the implications. Government is committed to reforming the planning system, to give local communities more control over what is built where, creating a positive incentive to welcome development provided it meets the standards set. We will engage with National Landscapes teams to explore how they might support LPAs during the production of design codes and better contribute to local plan making.

Local governance  

Question 21: Which of the following measures would you support to improve local governance? Tick all that apply 

The options respondents selected are ranked in order of decreasing popularity in Table 3.

Table 3: responses to Question 21

Responses	Number of responses
Improved training and materials	4,629
Merit-based criteria for local authority appointments	4,072
Streamlined review process for removing underperforming members	4,023
Greater use of advisory panels	3,207
Greater flexibility over the proportion of national, parish and local	2,452
Reduced board size	2,384
Other	1,354
Secretary of State appointed chair	1,256

When giving reasons, 47% of responses reviewed indicated that members should be selected on skills, 44% highlighted the need for nature expertise and 41% prioritised local input.  

The importance of local input was also highlighted during consultation workshops, and concerns were raised that applying a selection process to local authority and parish appointees would undermine the democratic accountability that they provide. There was support for smaller boards to improve efficiency, as long as local and national representation are carefully balanced.  

Government response 

Having considered the range of responses, we will make changes that balance relevant skills with local input and democratic accountability. We will not impose merit-based criteria for local authority appointments as these members are democratically elected to provide local accountability. We will: 

• update guidance and support training to boost relevant skills and an understanding of priorities such as nature recovery and inclusive access 
• continue to reduce board size on a case-by-case basis using existing powers, following discussions with NPAs and relevant local authorities
• increase the proportion of national appointments to secure the diverse skills highlighted by consultation responses and engagement
• encourage local authorities to appoint their best members to the board, carry out skills audits and provide member training to address gaps

A clearer role for public bodies  

Question 22: Should statutory duties be strengthened so that they are given greater weight when exercising public functions? 

Around half (51%) of the 7,250 respondents agreed that that we should strengthen the statutory duties on public bodies. 23% disagreed and 26% were unsure. National Landscapes teams, environmental NGOs, and NPAs or the Broads Authority had the highest proportion of respondents in favour (all greater than 85%). Businesses (30% yes) and professional bodies (44% yes) had the lowest proportion in agreement. Improvements to delivery was the main reason for agreeing with the proposal (83% of the ‘yes’ responses reviewed). Among those that did not agree, the most common substantive reason was that the proposal was unnecessary (7% of ‘no’ or ‘unsure’ reasons reviewed).  

Question 23: Should statutory duties be made clearer with regards to the role of public bodies in preparing and implementing management plans? 

71% of the 7,091 respondents agreed that statutory duties around management plans should be made clearer. 10% disagreed and 19% were unsure. For all identity types, most respondents were in favour of the proposal but those identifying as National Landscapes teams, environmental NGOs, NPAs or the Broads Authority, other public bodies, and other NGOs all had more than 80% of respondents in favour. Businesses (59% yes) had the lowest proportion of respondents in agreement. 

Of those respondents that gave reasons for answering ‘yes’, 61% of those reviewed referred to ‘Improves governance’. 

Government response 

Considering the support for these measures, we are taking action to clarify the role of public bodies in the preparation and implementation of management plans. We have: 

• strengthened the duties on relevant authorities through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act. This will encourage partnership working to help further the purposes of protected landscapes and improve delivery of management plans
• strengthened the biodiversity duty on public authorities and issued new guidance on its interpretation

We will: 

• publish new guidance on the duty on relevant authorities to give regard to Protected Landscapes’ purposes. This will clarify the expectations on public bodies, helping to avoid disputes and reduce damaging practices
• make Protected Landscapes guidance easier to find to ensure relevant bodies have clear instructions, improve public understanding, and highlight the importance of Protected Landscapes to government priorities

General power of competence  

Question 24: Should National Parks Authorities and the Broads Authority have a general power of competence? 

Just under half (48%) of the 7,109 respondents agreed that NPAs and the Broads Authority should have a general power of competence. 19% disagreed and 33% were unsure. Those identifying as NPAs or the Broads Authority, local authorities and other public bodies had the highest proportion of respondents in favour (all greater than 60%). Only businesses had a higher proportion of respondents who disagreed (37%) than agreed (30%). Of the reasons reviewed, the most common category for agreeing with the proposal was that it would provide more clarity (32% of ‘yes’ responses reviewed). Among those that did not agree, the most common substantive reason was that the proposal was unnecessary (26% of ‘no’ or ‘unsure’ reasons reviewed). 

Government response 

Having considered the responses to this section, we agree in principle and will grant NPAs and the Broads Authority a more general power of competence, as and when parliamentary time allows. We believe this will provide them with greater certainty as to what activities they can legally undertake.

Overall  

Question 25: If you have any further comments on any of the proposals in this document, please include them here. 

5,293 respondents provided further comments on the proposals in the consultation. Common themes included resourcing, access and more action for nature and biodiversity. 

Government response 

We agree that Protected Landscapes will play a key role in delivering our ambitions to improve nature, tackle climate change, support rural communities, and access to nature. The steps laid out in this action plan, EIP23, are an important part of supporting protected landscapes to fulfil that potential. This is in addition to our recently published paper on Unleashing Rural Opportunity, which sets out the initiatives we are so that those living and working in rural communities can thrive. We will work in partnership with local people to deliver our action plan so that future generations inherit a national network of beautiful, nature-rich spaces that everyone can enjoy.