The consultation period is now over and I took part in three responses: the District Council submission; a response by the Liberal Democrat Group on the District Council and my own personal response.
In all three we argued that the whole of Farringdon should be inside the park and recommended that the boundary should be changed to take in the rising land to the west of the A32, up to the edge of Four Marks. This proposal had the support of many groups and we argued that it was justified because the land was of outstanding beauty and that it was essential not to split the single settlement of Farringdon. I made the additional point that the land to the West of the A32 offered exceptional recreational opportunities, especially for horse riding, and this was accepted by the full Council.
In my own and the Lib Dem response we welcomed the proposed park, but thought its management should be as close to the people as possible, building on structures like our Area Committees to make sure local views were heard. We argued that responsibility for most planning control should be delegated by the National Park Authority (NPA) to the District Council. I personally argued that it would be best if planning responsibilities were transferred to the District Council with the NPA having the right to call in and possibly reverse key decisions. That would keep decisions in the hands of elected representatives but it may not be practical because it would require special legislation.
If responsibility for planning decisions is not delegated to the District Council there is a great danger that new housing will be concentrated around the edge of the park.
Chawton was already included in the proposed boundary and we supported that.