New Forest Local Plan sustainability appraisal

SA for the New Forest National Park Reg 18 SA Report

Local Plan Review

Prepared for: New Forest National Park Authority AECOM

Quality Information

Revision History

© 2025 AECOM Limited. All Rights Reserved.

This document has been prepared by AECOM Limited (“AECOM”) for sole use of our client (the “Client”) in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM.

Cover Image: Disused Brockenhurst to Ringwood railway, northeast of Holmsley Inclosure

SA for the New Forest National Park Reg 18 SA Report

Local Plan Review

Prepared for: New Forest National Park Authority AECOM

Table of Contents

• Non-technical summary ..........................................................................1
• 1. Introduction .........................................................................................1
• 2. What is the Scope of the SA?..............................................................9
• 3. Vision and Strategic Objectives for the Local Plan Review................16
• 4. Consideration of Reasonable Alternatives through the SA ................18
• 5. Appraisal of growth strategy options..................................................32
• 6. Appraisal of the Regulation 18 Version of the Local Plan Review......59
• 7. Next Steps ........................................................................................90
• Appendix A : Scoping Report Consultation Responses .........................91

SA for the New Forest National Park Reg 18 SA Report

Local Plan Review

Prepared for: New Forest National Park Authority AECOM

This page is intentionally blank.

SA for the New Forest National Park Reg 18 SA Report

Local Plan Review

Prepared for: New Forest National Park Authority AECOM

NTS 1

Non-technical summary

The New Forest Local Plan Review

AECOM has been commissioned to undertake an independent Sustainability Appraisal (SA) in support of the New Forest National Park Authority’s Local Plan Review.

The Local Plan Review for the New Forest National Park will include planning policies that address the strategic priorities for the area, covering a diverse range of topics including climate change, housing, economy, infrastructure, biodiversity, and transport.

The Local Plan Review, which will replace the existing and adopted policies set out in the current adopted Local Plan (2016-2036) (adopted August 2019), will be prepared to complement and reinforce the New Forest National Park Partnership Plan. It will also be prepared in recognition of the statutory purposes and duty as applied to National Park Authorities.

What is Sustainability Appraisal?

SA is a mechanism for assessing and communicating the likely effects of an emerging plan, and reasonable alternatives, with a view to avoiding and mitigating adverse effects and maximising its contribution to sustainable development.

SA of Local Plans is a legal requirement and is undertaken in line with the procedures prescribed by the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (the ‘SEA Regulations’).

This SA Report

This SA Report accompanies the current version of the draft Local Plan Review for consultation (New Forest National Park Local Plan Review 2024 - 2043: Regulation 18 (Part 2) Consultation).

It presents:

• An overview of the stages undertaken to date for the SA, including scoping
• An assessment of a series of growth strategy options, which have been assessed as reasonable alternatives
• An assessment of the latest version of the draft Local Plan Review
• Next steps for the SA process.

SA for the New Forest National Park Reg 18 SA Report

Local Plan Review

Prepared for: New Forest National Park Authority AECOM

NTS 2

What is the scope of the SA?

The scope of the SA was established in mid-2025 and provides the basis for the SA process. It was presented in a Scoping Report which underwent consultation with the Environment Agency, Historic England and Natural England in August 2025 for a period of five weeks.

The Scoping Report presented the following information:

• A context review of the key environmental and sustainability objectives of national, regional, and local plans and strategies relevant to the Local Plan Review
• Baseline data against which the Local Plan Review can be assessed
• The key sustainability issues for the Local Plan Review
• An ‘SA Framework’ of objectives and assessment questions against which the Local Plan Review can be assessed.

Following the receipt of the responses received at scoping consultation, the Scoping Report was reviewed and updated. The scoping responses (along with comments on how these have been considered and addressed through the SA process) are presented in Appendix A in the main body of the SA Report.

The scope of the SA is summarised by a series of SA objectives that form the structure for the assessment, under nine SA ‘themes’. These are accompanied by a series of assessment questions. Each option and proposal in the plan identified for SA has been assessed against each of these SA objectives/assessment questions. The SA Themes and SA Objectives are presented below. The main body of the SA Report (Chapter 2) includes the full SA framework including the assessment questions.

Table NTS1: SA Themes and SA Objectives

Appraisal of reasonable alternatives

A key requirement of the SEA Regulations is the appraisal of ‘reasonable alternatives’.

To support the development of the preferred approach for the emerging Local Plan Review (i.e., the spatial strategy), the SA process has considered a range of growth strategy options as reasonable alternatives. This is with a view to understanding the relative sustainability merits of different potential spatial strategies for the Local Plan Review. These growth strategy options have been developed based on strategic variables associated with the following two components:

• Different scales of growth; and
• Different locations of growth.

A discussion of these strategic variables is set out within Chapter 4 of the main body of the SA Report.

Growth strategy options

An overview of the growth strategy options considered through the SA process is presented in Table NTS1 below. A more detailed breakdown of the spatial distribution of housing represented by each option, including in relation to key locations in the National Park, is presented in Table 4-2 and subsequently mapped in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 in the main body of the SA Report.

NTS 4

Table NTS2: Growth strategy options considered as reasonable alternatives

Appraisal of growth strategy options

Summary appraisal findings for the established growth strategy options are presented below by SA Theme. The detailed narrative explaining these findings is presented in Chapter 5 of the SA Report.

Air, Soil and Water Resources

The most favourable option for the Air, Soil and Water Resources SA theme is Option A, which delivers the lowest level of growth and concentrates development around existing defined villages. This approach minimises land disturbance, reduces risks of water pollution, and helps maintain air quality by limiting traffic increases and avoiding sensitive or remote locations. Option F also performs well, focusing growth on the periphery of the National Park in accessible locations with existing infrastructure. Options B and C introduce a broader footprint, which increases risks but can be mitigated through careful site selection. In contrast, Option D and Option G perform least favourably. Option D disperses development across the National Park without spatial control, increasing risks to soil profiles, watercourses, and air quality. Option G, which includes a major new or expanded settlement, poses significant risks due to the scale of land clearance, infrastructure development, and long-term emissions.

Biodiversity and Geodiversity

In relation to the Biodiversity and Geodiversity SA theme, the most favourable options are Option A and Option F, which deliver the lowest rates of housing growth. Option F avoids development within the central areas of the National Park and benefits from strategic planning near its periphery, while Option A limits land take and recreational pressure through a low delivery rate and delivering houses near to the main settlements. Options B, C, and E introduce greater housing numbers, and more spatial spread, increasing risks of habitat fragmentation and disturbance, particularly in the smaller settlements (associated with Options C and E) or ecologically linked areas. Option D and Option G perform least favourably. Option D disperses development without a guiding hierarchy, increasing the likelihood of encroachment into areas with significant biodiversity sensitivities. Option G, due to its scale and intensity, poses the greatest risk of harm to ecological networks and designated sites.

Climate Change (Including Flood Risk)

The most favourable option for the Climate Change (Including Flood Risk) SA theme is Option A, which supports compact growth, lower emissions, and better alignment with existing infrastructure and flood risk mapping. Option F also ranks favourably due to its strategic focus towards areas on the National Park’s boundary and alignment with commuting patterns. Option B perform moderately, while Options C and E spread impacts more widely. Option G offers potential for climate-positive design but carries high risks due to its scale. Option D performs least favourably due to its lack of spatial control and reduced capacity for coordinated adaptation.

Communities, Health and Wellbeing

The most favourable option for the Communities, Health and Wellbeing SA theme is Option E, which supports both the National Park’s communities and adjacent communities, whilst helping to deliver housing provision across a wider area. Option B offers moderate benefits by supporting housing in main settlements and additional villages. Option C delivers slightly more housing but faces challenges integrating development in hamlets, which may affect cohesion and access to services. Option F performs well in some respects, providing modest growth near the National Park boundary with good connectivity to external services, helping reduce isolation and improve access to facilities. Option G offers the highest level of housing delivery and the potential to support significant new infrastructure. However, the scale of growth proposed by the option has the potential to undermine health and wellbeing, including through undermining the second statutory purpose of the National Park. Option A, while reinforcing existing communities and supporting walkability, ranks lower due to its limited housing delivery and reduced capacity to meet future needs. Option D performs least favourably, with its dispersed approach risking inefficient service provision and weakening community cohesion.

Economy and Employment

The most favourable option for the Economy and Employment SA theme is Option E, which offers strong potential for economic growth by combining development in main settlements, additional villages, and sites near the National Park boundary. This approach supports local economies while improving access to regional employment hubs and enabling more efficient infrastructure investment. Options B and C also rank favourably, as they reinforce existing settlements and extend benefits to smaller communities. Option G performs well in terms of economic potential due to its scale and ability to deliver infrastructure and employment opportunities, but also has the potential for adverse effects on the rural and visitor economy through impacts on the National Park’s special qualities. Option F performs moderately well by improving access to regional employment hubs but offers limited benefits to the main settlements in the National Park. Option A supports local services in main settlements but limits opportunities for broader economic expansion. Option D performs least favourably due to its lack of strategic focus and potential to undermine infrastructure investment.

Historic Environment

The most favourable option for the Historic Environment SA theme is Option A, which delivers the lowest growth and benefits from existing conservation protections in the main settlements where heritage constraints can be managed. Option F also ranks favourably, with a low rate of delivery, focused in areas by the National Park’s boundary. Options B and C follow, introducing greater risk to historic assets from the higher levels of growth. Option D performs least favourably due to its lack of spatial control and increased likelihood of encroachment into sensitive historic landscapes. Option G carries significant risk due to its scale, although mitigation may be possible through sensitive design. In this respect Option G has the potential to enhance local historic assets, if designed and located appropriately.

Housing

The most favourable option for Housing SA theme is Option G, which delivers the highest level of housing and has the largest potential to meet local needs, including affordable and family housing. Options E, C, and B also rank favourably, offering higher delivery and better access to services. Option F performs moderately, with good connectivity but lower overall delivery. Option A performs less well due to limited housing provision, and Option D ranks least favourably due to inefficiency and lack of strategic focus.

Landscape

The most favourable option for the Landscape SA theme is Option A, which concentrates development around existing settlements, minimising intrusion into open countryside and preserving the National Park’s visual coherence. This approach helps safeguard the special qualities of the National Park, including its sense of tranquillity and scenic beauty. Option B also ranks favourably, though it introduces greater risks of visual intrusion. Options C and D increase fragmentation and loss of tranquillity due to their dispersed nature, with potential adverse effects on the National Park’s special qualities. Option E creates cumulative impacts across broad areas of the National Park. Option F avoids direct impacts on central landscapes but requires careful design to protect transitional views and ensure the integrity of the National Park’s special qualities is maintained. Option G performs least favourably due to its scale and transformative impacts on landscape character, which could significantly undermine the special qualities that define the National Park.

Transport

The more favourable options for the Transport SA theme are Options A and F. In this respect Option A supports compact growth and sustainable travel through proximity to existing infrastructure and services, and Option F also ranks favourably, benefiting from good access to regional transport networks and reduced car dependency. Options B and C perform moderately, with increased reliance on private vehicles in smaller settlements. Option E spreads impacts more widely, increasing overall traffic movements. Option D performs least favourably due to its dispersed nature and lack of support for sustainable transport. While Option G is likely to result in the highest increase in traffic flows due to its overall scale of growth, it also presents increased opportunities to deliver new transport infrastructure that could help manage movement and support more sustainable travel patterns.

Appraisal of growth strategy options: conclusions

Overall, the appraisal indicates that each spatial option presents a distinct set of strengths and weaknesses across the SA themes.

Option A generally performs well for environmental themes, including air, soil, and water resources, due to its restrained level of growth and concentration around existing defined villages. However, its limited growth and distribution have the potential to limit opportunities for meeting localised housing needs and supporting community vitality across the National Park.

Option B offers a broader spatial footprint and performs well across most themes. While this approach introduces some additional risks to soil and water resources compared to Option A, its focus on service-based settlements helps support accessibility and infrastructure provision, with benefits in relation to social and economic objectives. Option C performs similarly but includes additional housing delivery in smaller hamlets, which may increase infrastructure requirements and reduce efficiency in service delivery.

Option D disperses development without a settlement hierarchy, which increases infrastructure demands and environmental risks while offering limited strategic benefits. Option D performs poorly across all the SA themes.

Option E extends development to a wider range of settlements, including peripheral areas adjoining the National Park boundary. This provides flexibility for housing delivery but amplifies environmental risks and may increase reliance on private vehicles.

Option F performs well for environmental protection by focusing growth on the National Park’s boundary, where existing infrastructure reduces potential impacts. Development under this option would also avoid some key sensitive areas in the National Park; however, it would place additional environmental pressures on the fringes of the National Park. In addition, more limited housing delivery through this option may limit economic benefits, including in key ‘core’ parts of the National Park.

Option G, which includes a major new or expanded settlement, and increases growth across the National Park, poses significant challenges due to the scale of land clearance, infrastructure development, and long-term emissions, although it could deliver substantial housing numbers and associated economic benefits.

Overall taking forward the options would be likely to significantly undermine the purposes, duty and special qualities of the National Park.

Choice of approach taken forward for the Local Plan Review’s growth strategy

The National Park Authority have chosen to proceed with Option B as the preferred spatial strategy for the Local Plan. This decision reflects a careful balance between meeting housing and community needs and protecting the New Forest’s nationally important landscape and habitats.

Option B focuses the majority of planned new development around the larger villages of the National Park, allowing for modest, managed growth that respects the National Park’s sensitive environment and reinforces established communities. This approach is considered the most appropriate in light of the National Park’s statutory purposes and its responsibility to conserve and enhance the area’s natural beauty, wildlife, and cultural heritage, while promoting public understanding and enjoyment of its special qualities. It also reflects the Authority’s statutory duty to foster the socio-economic well-being of local communities within the National Park. Option B broadens the number of existing ‘defined villages’ from 4 villages to 7 and will allow more of the identified housing arising from communities within the National Park to be met, while ensuring that development is spatially focused towards the most sustainable villages.

By avoiding the options that includes more dispersed or larger-scale development, Option B helps minimise impacts on biodiversity, landscape character, tranquillity, and the historic environment. It also supports sustainable transport and infrastructure planning, while maintaining the integrity of the National Park’s ecological networks and cultural traditions. Option B scores reasonably well across the broad range of SA themes, compared to other options that are less balanced in terms of impacts.

In choosing Option B, the Authority have prioritised a strategy that is locally responsive, environmentally responsible, and consistent with the long-term stewardship of the New Forest National Park. Option B reinforces the role of existing ‘defined’ settlements and extends the benefits to other villages that have a basic range of services. The alternative option of more dispersed development would have greater landscape impacts; and the option of focusing development to the periphery of the National Park would not support the socio-economic well-being of communities within the National Park.

Appraisal of the current version of the Local Plan Review

Chapter 6 of the SA Report presents an appraisal of the latest version of the draft Local Plan Review, as currently consulted on under Regulation 18 of the Planning Regulations. A series of narratives are presented under each SA theme, providing a commentary on the National Park-wide policy provisions, cumulative effects, and overall conclusions. The appraisal identifies and evaluates ‘likely significant effects’ of the plan on the baseline, drawing on the SA objectives identified through scoping as a methodological framework.

Prior to sending across the final Local Plan Review Regulation 18 draft, New Forest National Park Authority provided a full set of draft policies for the SA to review. These policies formed the basis for an iterative appraisal process, through which initial assessments informed feedback on potential sustainability issues. Following the appraisal of these draft policies, a series of recommendations were suggested for the purposes of informing the ongoing development of the draft policies. This feedback supported the refinement of policies, ensuring that sustainability considerations were embedded throughout the preparation of the Local Plan Review. The draft plan as consulted on was then appraised. The following overview summaries the appraisal findings.

Air, Soil and Water Resources

Overall, mixed effects are anticipated from the Local Plan Review in relation to the Air, Soil and Water Resources SA theme. Moderate (significant) medium-to-long-term beneficial effects are anticipated through integrated sustainable design principles, nature-based solutions, and strong environmental safeguards. However, there remains potential for minor localised short-to-long-term adverse effects where development increases pressure on sensitive water catchments or leads to increased emissions during construction and operation.

Biodiversity and Geodiversity

Overall, mixed effects are anticipated from the Local Plan Review in relation to the Biodiversity and Geodiversity SA theme. Significant long-term beneficial effects are anticipated through biodiversity net gain requirements, protection and enhancement of designated sites, and promotion of green infrastructure. Potential minor localised short-to-long-term adverse effects from development pressure and recreational impacts remain, but these are generally well mitigated through policy safeguards and strategic mitigation schemes.

Climate Change

Overall, mixed effects are anticipated from the Local Plan Review in relation to the Climate Change SA theme. Major (significant) long-term positive effects are anticipated by supporting sustainable construction, provision of renewable energy, management of flood risk, and encouragement of sustainable transport. Some minor localised short-to-long-term moderate adverse effects may arise from new development; however, these are expected to be effectively managed through embedded mitigation measures and strategic policy safeguards.

Communities, Health, and Wellbeing

Overall, mixed effects are anticipated from the Local Plan Review in relation to the Communities, Health, and Wellbeing SA theme. Major (significant) long-term beneficial effects are anticipated through the delivery of housing, transport infrastructure, green infrastructure, and community facility policies. However, there is potential for minor adverse effects from cumulative pressures resulting from housing growth and tourism, which will require careful monitoring and mitigation.

Economy and Employment

Overall, the Local Plan Review is expected to deliver moderate (not significant) beneficial effects in relation to the Economy and Employment SA theme. This is achieved by supporting a diverse and resilient rural economy through policies that enable appropriately scaled development, protect traditional land-based practices, and promote sustainable tourism and retail.

Historic Environment

Overall, significant medium-to-long-term beneficial effects are anticipated from the Local Plan Review in relation to the Historic Environment SA theme. This is achieved through strong heritage and design policies, site-specific requirements, and measures supporting landscape and local distinctiveness.

Housing

Overall, major (significant) long-term beneficial effects are anticipated from the Local Plan Review in relation to the Housing SA theme. This is achieved by providing dwellings that address local housing needs (including affordable and specialist provision), while ensuring high-quality design and sustainable construction. Policies also direct housing to appropriate locations, avoid areas at risk, and apply strict controls on size and extensions, helping to safeguard the National Park’s special qualities.

Landscape

Overall, mixed effects are anticipated from the Local Plan Review in relation to the Landscape SA theme. Major (significant) long-term beneficial effects are anticipated through strong landscape protection policies, design principles, and spatial policy that is sensitive to the National Park’s scenic beauty and character. Localised minor adverse effects are likely from rom site allocations and small-scale development, but these should be mitigated through strict controls on scale, siting, and design.

Transport

Overall, mixed effects are anticipated from the Local Plan Review in relation to the Transport SA theme. Major (significant) medium-to-long-term beneficial effects on transport in the National Park through the promotion of active travel, public transport, and appropriately locating development close to existing transport links. Some minor medium-to-long-term adverse effects are also anticipated, particularly where development may increase traffic in sensitive areas, although these are expected to be mitigated through transport assessments, sustainable design measures, and limits on the scale of development.

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects occur from the combined impacts of policies and proposals on specific areas or sensitive receptors. In the context of the SA, cumulative effects can arise as a result of the in-combination effects of a plan’s policies and proposals and can also result from the combined impacts of a plan with impacts of another plan, or the ‘inter-plan’ effects.

For the Local Plan Review, cross-boundary effects are particularly relevant in relation to water and biodiversity. The National Park shares hydrological catchments and ecological networks with neighbouring areas, and development within its boundaries can have wider hydrological impacts. Such effects are mitigated by requiring developments to align with regional plans in Policy DP8.

Recreational pressures on internationally designated sites (SACs, SPAs, Ramsar) also require strategic mitigation. Through SP11, the Local Plan Review aligns with the New Forest Habitat Mitigation Scheme and Bird Aware Solent, which will ensure compliance with the Habitats Regulations and help to manage cumulative visitor impacts.

The Local Plan Review also complements the New Forest National Park Partnership Plan, particularly in its focus on tranquillity, landscape character, and sustainable tourism. Sub-regional transport strategies and national frameworks such as the NPPF and Environment Act 2021 further reinforce the Local Plan Review’s direction, especially in relation to climate change and biodiversity net gain.

In the wider area surrounding the National Park, neighbouring authorities such as New Forest District Council are progressing new Local Plans that include higher levels of housing growth than those proposed in the Local Plan Review. The adopted Local Plan (2016-2036) for the New Forest District (outside the National Park) sets a target of 10,420 dwellings, with stepped delivery increasing to 700 dwellings per annum from 2026 onwards. However, recent updates to national planning policy have increased the standard method housing need to 1,511 dwellings per annum, indicating that delivery figures for the district will rise in future.

These proposals, alongside other strategic plans such as neighbourhood plans and infrastructure improvements, have the potential to interact with development in the National Park. In particular, cross-boundary pressures may arise in relation to water resources, biodiversity, transport, and recreational impacts. The Local Plan Review addresses these through alignment with regional strategies (for example, DP8), strategic mitigation (for example, SP11), and cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

Local Plans currently being prepared by councils bordering the National Park (including Test Valley, Wiltshire, Dorset, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, and Southampton) are expected to propose significant levels of housing and employment growth. These plans may interact with development in the National Park, particularly through shared ecological networks, transport corridors, and recreational destinations.

Strategic infrastructure projects in the wider region also have potential in-combination effects. These include the New Forest Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP), which proposes expanded active travel networks across the National Park and surrounding areas.

Ongoing cooperation with neighbouring authorities will be important to manage housing need, infrastructure, and ecological networks. Provided these relationships are maintained, no significant adverse in-combination effects are anticipated from the Local Plan Review.

Next steps

This SA Report accompanies the current Regulation 18 consultation on the Local Plan Review (‘New Forest National Park Local Plan Review 2024 - 2043: Regulation 18 (Part 2) Consultation’).

Following the receipt of responses on this Regulation 18 consultation, the Local Plan Review will be updated and released by the New Forest National Park Authority for Regulation 19 consultation with a full SA Report.

Regulation 19 consultation on the proposed submission version of the Local Plan Review is anticipated to take place in Summer 2026.

Once the period for representations on the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan Review document / SA Report has finished, the main issues raised will be identified and summarised by the National Park Authority, which will then consider whether, in light of representations received, the plan can still be deemed ‘sound’. If this is the case, the Local Plan Review will be submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination, alongside a statement setting out the main issues raised during the consultation. The National Park Authority will also submit the SA Report alongside it. This is anticipated to take place in December 2026.

At Examination, the Inspector(s) will consider representations (alongside the SA Report) before then reporting back. If the Inspector identifies the need for modifications to the Local Plan, these will be prepared (and undergo SA) and will then be subject to consultation (with an SA Report Addendum published alongside).

Once found to be ‘sound’, the Local Plan Review will be formally adopted by the New Forest National Park Authority. At the time of adoption, an SA ‘Adoption Statement’ must be published that sets out (amongst other elements) ‘the measures decided concerning monitoring the Plan’.

SA for the New Forest National Park Reg 18 SA Report

Local Plan Review

Prepared for: New Forest National Park Authority AECOM

1

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

1.1.1. AECOM has been commissioned to undertake an independent Sustainability Appraisal (SA) in support of New Forest National Park Authority’s Local Plan Review (henceforth known as the ‘Local Plan Review’).

1.1.2. The Local Plan Review is being prepared under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004¹, the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012,² and the Environment Act 1995.³ These acts and regulations provide the legal framework for local planning authorities covering National Parks in England to develop and implement their local plans.

1.1.3. New Forest National Park Authority is the planning authority for the National Park. This is a separate planning authority to New Forest District Council, who are the planning authority for the parts of New Forest district that fall outside of the National Park.

1.2. New Forest National Park

1.2.1. New Forest National Park (henceforth known as ‘the National Park’), located in south-west Hampshire and a small part of Wiltshire, is one of 15 National Parks in the UK. The National Park boundary is depicted in Figure 1-1.

1.2.2. National Parks are designated to protect and celebrate areas of outstanding natural beauty, wildlife, and cultural heritage. Their ‘special qualities’ are the unique features and characteristics that make each National Park distinctive and valuable.

¹ UK Government (2004). ‘Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004’ can be accessed through this link.

² UK Government (2012). ‘Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012’ can be accessed through this link.

³ UK Government (1995). ‘Environment Act 2005’ can be accessed through this link.

1.2.3. The New Forest’s special qualities include:

• Its outstanding natural beauty;
• The extraordinary diversity of plants and animals;
• A unique historic, cultural and archaeological heritage;
• An historic commoning system;
• The iconic New Forest pony;
• Tranquillity;
• Strong and distinctive local communities;
• Opportunities for quiet recreation, learning and discovery; and
• A healthy environment.

1.2.4. The National Park’s population is distributed across four larger villages (Lyndhurst, Brockenhurst, Sway, and Ashurst) as well as numerous smaller settlements and large areas of countryside.

1.2.5. In close proximity to the National Park are several larger towns and cities (including Southampton, Salisbury, Bournemouth, Poole, Lymington, Ringwood, Totton, and Christchurch) which have significant social, economic, and environmental influences on the National Park.

1.2.6. The National Park and the surrounding areas of New Forest District are covered by separate planning authorities, each with their own Local Plan. The New Forest National Park Authority is responsible for planning within the National Park boundary, while New Forest District Council covers the adjoining areas outside the National Park. Although each authority prepares its own Local Plan, there is ongoing collaboration to ensure that policies on cross-boundary issues are coordinated.

3

Figure 1-1: New Forest National Park

1.3. The Local Plan Review

1.3.1. The Local Plan Review will replace the existing and adopted policies set out in the current adopted Local Plan (2016-2036) (adopted August 2019).⁴

1.3.2. The Local Plan Review will include policies that address the strategic priorities for the area, covering a diverse range of topics including climate change, housing (to reflect the 2024 update to the National Planning Policy Framework), economy, infrastructure, biodiversity, and transport.

1.3.3. The Local Plan Review will be prepared to complement and reinforce the New Forest National Park Partnership Plan.⁵ The Partnership Plan provides the overarching strategic framework for the long-term care, conservation, and enjoyment of the National Park; however, unlike the Local Plan Review, it is not a statutory planning document forming part of the ‘development plan’. It is prepared jointly with a range of partners and sets out shared priorities for the National Park beyond land use planning, including cultural heritage, biodiversity, climate action, and community engagement. The Local Plan Review supports the delivery of many of the objectives within the Partnership Plan, but the two documents have distinct roles.

⁴ New Forest National Park Authority (2019). ‘New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016 – 2036’ can be accessed through this link.

⁵ New Forest National Park Authority (2019). ‘Re:New Forest – Partnership Plan 2022-2027’ can be accessed through this link.

1.4. Planning Policy Context for the Local Plan Review

1.4.1. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides an overarching framework for development in England. It sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It is supported by planning practice guidance, which is a suite of policy papers covering a broad range of topics, including SEA.

1.4.2. The revised NPPF was published in December 2024. The new framework includes significant reforms aimed at boosting housing supply and supporting sustainable growth. One of the key changes is the reintroduction of the Government's standard methodology for calculating housing need for local authorities in England.

1.4.3. The Local Plan Review should though be seen in the context of the statutory purposes and duty as applied to National Park Authorities. As specified by the Environment Act 1995, the New Forest National Park Authority has two statutory purposes:

• To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area; and
• To promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Park by the public.

1.4.4. Where it appears that there is a conflict between the National Park purposes, greater weight will be attached to the first of those purposes.

1.4.5. In pursuit of these purposes, the National Park Authority will pay due regard to its duty to seek to foster the social and economic well-being of the local communities within the National Park. This was further reinforced by Section 245 (Protected Landscapes) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which amended the duty on relevant authorities in respect of their functions which affect land in National Parks, National Landscapes, and the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads (collectively referred to as Protected Landscapes) in England. This requires relevant authorities to ‘seek to further’ the statutory purposes of Protected Landscapes, replacing the previous duty on relevant authorities to ‘have regard to’ their statutory purposes.

1.4.6. In this context, the Local Plan Review is being prepared within a distinct planning policy framework which is shaped by the purposes and duty of the National Park Authority and its special qualities.

1.5. SA Explained

1.5.1. SA is a mechanism for assessing and communicating the likely effects of an emerging plan, and reasonable alternatives, with a view to achieving sustainable development, fulfilling the requirements for Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).

1.5.2. The aim of the SA will be to inform plan-making both directly (i.e. through structured, systematic and evidence-based analysis), and indirectly (through providing stakeholders with information on potential plan impacts and so facilitating effective consultation).

1.5.3. The use of an SA approach will help ensure consistency in the development and evaluation of the Local Plan Review, and is considered best practice.

Requirements associated with the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Regulations

1.5.4. Sustainability Appraisal for Local Plans is undertaken to address the procedures prescribed by the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (‘the SEA Regulations’).⁶ The SEA Regulations only formally apply to plans and programmes for which there is a statutory requirement; this includes Local Plans.

1.5.5. Two key procedural requirements of the SEA Regulations are that:

• When deciding on ‘the scope and level of detail of the information’ which must be included in the Environmental Report there is a consultation with nationally designated authorities concerned with environmental issues; and
• A report (the ‘Environmental Report’) is published for consultation alongside the draft plan for consultation that presents an assessment of the draft plan (i.e. discusses ‘likely significant effects’ that would result from plan implementation) and reasonable alternatives. In SA, the Environmental Report is referred to the SA Report.

⁶ UK Government (2004). ‘The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004’ can be accessed through this link.

1.6. Structure of this SA Report

1.6.1. This SA Report incorporates the information required for Environmental Reports by the SEA Regulations. The information presented in this SA Report is outlined in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1: Questions that Must be Answered by the SA Report to Meet the Regulatory⁷ Requirements

⁷ Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004

⁸ NB this column does not quote directly from Schedule II of the Regulations. Rather, it reflects a degree of interpretation.

SA for the New Forest National Park Reg 18 SA Report

Local Plan Review

Prepared for: New Forest National Park Authority AECOM

9

2. What is the Scope of the SA?

2.1. Summary of SA Scoping

2.1.1. A Scoping Report was prepared for the SA in August 2025. The purpose of this report was to outline the ‘scope’ of the SA through setting out the following information:

• A context review of the key environmental and sustainability objectives of national, regional, and local plans and strategies relevant to the Local Plan Review;
• Baseline data against which the Local Plan Review can be assessed;
• The key sustainability issues for the Local Plan Review; and
• An ‘SA Framework’ of objectives against which the Local Plan Review can be assessed.

2.1.2. Baseline information (including the context review and baseline data) is available to view in the SA Scoping Report, which is available on the National Park Local Plan Review webpage.⁹

2.1.3. The SEA Regulations require that: ‘When deciding on the scope and level of detail of the information that must be included in the report, the responsible authority shall consult the consultation bodies’. In England, the consultation bodies are Natural England, the Environment Agency, and Historic England.¹⁰ These authorities were consulted on the scope of the SA in August 2025.

2.1.4. Responses received on the Scoping Report, and how they were addressed, have been summarised in Appendix A.

SA Framework

2.1.5. The SA framework provides a way in which environmental effects can be defined and subsequently analysed based on standard ‘tests’. The reasonable alternatives and each proposal within the current version (i.e., the Regulation 18 version) of the Local Plan Review will be assessed consistently using the framework.

2.1.6. The updated SA framework (including amendments following statutory consultation) is presented in Table 2-1.

⁹ https://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/planning/local-plan/new-forest-national-park-local-plan-review-2025/

¹⁰ In-line with Article 6(3) of the SEA Directive, these consultation bodies were selected because ‘by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities, [they] are likely to be concerned by the environmental effects of implementing plans and programme’.

Table 2-1: SA Framework for the Local Plan Review

SA for the New Forest National Park Reg 18 SA Report

Local Plan Review

Prepared for: New Forest National Park Authority AECOM

16

3. Vision and Strategic Objectives for the Local Plan Review

3.1. Purpose of the Vision and Strategic Objectives

3.1.1. The Vision and Strategic Objectives for the Local Plan Review capture the New Forest National Park Authority’s aspirations for the New Forest National Park as expressed through the Local Plan Review.

3.2. Vision for the New Forest National Park for 2043

3.2.1. The Vision for the Local Plan Review is as follows:

In 2043 the New Forest’s outstanding natural beauty has been safeguarded and enhanced. Nature recovery has enabled sites of international, national and local importance for nature conservation and the National Park as a whole to continue to host an extraordinary diversity of plants and animals. The New Forest remains an area with a unique and immediately recognisable sense of place, with a mosaic of distinctive landscapes and habitats including lowland heath, mire, ancient woodland, the Solent coastline and farmed landscapes. Tranquillity and a feeling of naturalness pervade large parts of the National Park.

At the same time it is a place where people can enjoy the wonderful opportunities for quiet recreation, learning and discovery, to support their health and well-being. Recreation and visitor pressures have been successfully managed through a shared understanding of the issues. Traditional land management practices, particularly commoning, are supported and continue to thrive and shape the Forest’s landscape and strong cultural identity. The impacts of climate change are being actively addressed through adaptation and change through nature-based solutions consistent with the special qualities of the New Forest. People live and work sustainably, and everyone contributes in appropriate ways to keeping the New Forest a special place for present and future generations.

The limited development that has taken place within the National Park has been focused on catering for the socio-economic needs of local people rather than meeting external demand, to create strong and distinctive communities…

…Small scale housing development on allocated sites, within the Larger Villages of Ashurst, Brockenhurst, Lyndhurst and Sway and the Smaller Villages of Cadnam/Bartley, Landford and Redlynch has provided a mix of appropriate new housing to meet local needs arising within the National Park. Rural exception schemes and new dwellings focused on the needs of New Forest Commoners and Estate workers have helped deliver appropriate housing in the rest of the National Park.

The cultural heritage and historic environment is better understood and appreciated through its continued protection and enhancement. The inherent characteristics and local distinctiveness of the individual villages have been retained and enhanced through the highest standards of design that respect the natural and built heritage of the Park. The rural economy has been supported by small scale employment development that does not conflict with the special qualities of the National Park.

3.3. Strategic Objectives

3.3.1. With a view to implementing the vision, the Strategic Objectives for the Local Plan Review are as follows:

1. Protect and enhance the natural capital and environment of the National Park, including the natural beauty of the landscape and the diverse range of habitats and species.
2. Conserve and enhance the cultural heritage and historic environment of the National Park, especially the wealth of individual characteristics that contribute to its local distinctiveness.
3. Plan for and adapt to the likely impacts of climate change on the special qualities and communities of the New Forest.
4. Strengthen the health and well-being, identity and sustainability of rural communities and the pride of local people in their area.
5. Promote appropriate housing to meet local needs and maintain the vibrant communities of the National Park.
6. Develop a diverse and sustainable economy that contributes to the well-being of local communities throughout the National Park.
7. Encourage land management that sustains the special qualities of the National Park.
8. Support development which encourages sustainable tourism and recreation, and provides opportunities for enjoying the National Park’s special qualities.
9. Reduce the impacts of traffic on the special qualities of the National Park and support a range of sustainable transport alternatives within the Park.

SA for the New Forest National Park Reg 18 SA Report

Local Plan Review

Prepared for: New Forest National Park Authority AECOM

18

4. Consideration of Reasonable Alternatives through the SA

4.1. Introduction

4.1.1. A key element of the SA process is the appraisal of ‘reasonable alternatives’ for the Local Plan Review.

4.1.2. In accordance with the SEA Regulations the SA Report must include…

• An outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with; and
• The likely significant effects on the environment associated with alternatives / an outline of the reasons for selecting the preferred approach in light of alternatives appraised.

4.1.3. The SEA Regulations are not prescriptive as to what constitutes a reasonable alternative, stating only that the Environmental Report (or SA Report) should present an appraisal of the “plan and reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and geographical scope of the plan”.

4.2. Defining Reasonable Alternatives

4.2.1. In line with regulatory requirements, there is a need to explain how work has been undertaken to develop and then appraise reasonable alternatives.

4.2.2. A key component of the Local Plan Review will be to present an overall spatial strategy for the National Park during the plan period to 2043.

4.2.3. To support the development of the preferred approach for the Local Plan Review (i.e., the spatial strategy), the SA process has considered a number of options which evaluate different scales and distributions of growth in the National Park. This is with a view to understanding the relative sustainability merits of different potential spatial strategies for the Local Plan Review.

4.2.4. These growth strategy options have been developed based on strategic variables associated with the following two components:

• different scales of growth; and
• different locations of growth.

4.2.5. A discussion of these strategic variables is set out below.

4.3. Different scales of growth to consider through the growth strategy options

4.3.1. In terms of housing numbers, a number of variables can be considered for the purposes of establishing growth strategy options. The two key variables are as follows.

Standard method figure for housing need

4.3.2. The Government’s standard method for calculating housing¹¹ needs generates figures for ‘local authority’ areas, rather than ‘local planning authority’ areas. The New Forest National Park Authority does not therefore receive a housing need figure generated through the Government’s standard methodology.

4.3.3. However, the current national standard method figure for housing needs sets a figure of 1,511 dwellings per annum (dpa) for New Forest District (which includes circa 94% of the New Forest National Park). The Strategic Housing Market Assessment¹² output indicates the housing need for the District Council’s plan area is 1,254 dpa, which is 83% of the overall New Forest-wide figure. The difference between the overall New Forest District need and the District Plan area indicates an unconstrained need of about 250 - 300 dpa in the National Park, or a total 4,750 - 5,700 dwellings over the Local Plan Review period.

Current delivery

4.3.4. The adopted New Forest National Park Local Plan (2019) makes provision for 40 net new dwellings per annum. This figure, if projected forward, equates to 760 over the new plan period from 2024 - 2043.

¹¹ Housing need is an unconstrained assessment of the minimum number of homes needed in an area. The NPPF expects strategic policy-making authorities to follow the standard method for assessing local housing need. The standard method uses a formula that incorporates a baseline of local housing stock which is then adjusted upwards to reflect local affordability pressures to identify the minimum number of homes expected to be planned for. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-and-economic-development-needs-assessments

¹² The report will be published on New Forest National Park Authority’s website in due course

Delivery of housing in the context of the National Park’s Purposes and Duty

4.3.5. As specified by the Environment Act 1995, the NFNPA has two statutory purposes:

• To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area.
• To promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Park by the public.

4.3.6. This is framed by the National Park Authority’s duty to foster the social and economic wellbeing of local communities in pursuit of the National Park’s purposes.

4.3.7. This was further reinforced by Section 245 (Protected Landscapes) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which amended the duty on relevant authorities in respect of their functions which affect land in National Parks, National Landscapes, and the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads (collectively referred to as Protected Landscapes) in England. This requires relevant authorities to ‘seek to further’ the statutory purposes of Protected Landscapes, replacing the previous duty on relevant authorities to ‘have regard to’ their statutory purposes.

4.3.8. In relation to housing delivery through the Local Plan Review, Defra’s National Parks Vision and Circular¹³ states that National Parks are not suitable locations for unrestricted housing development but that national park authorities have an important role to play as planning authorities in the delivery of affordable housing. This was reinforced by the latest NPPF (December 2024, paragraph 11, footnote 7 and paragraph 189) which identifies national parks as areas where the scale and extent of development should be limited. As such, the expectation is that new housing will be focused on meeting affordable housing requirements in the National Park and that the NFNPA should work with local housing authorities and others to ensure that the needs of local communities are met.

4.3.9. The scales of growth addressed through the SA’s growth strategy options should therefore be framed in the context of these considerations. In this respect the consideration of an option which meets full unrestricted housing needs is not appropriate or reasonable in the context of a National Park Local Plan. For the purposes of the Local Plan Review, it is instead appropriate to consider options which range from a level of housing delivery which broadly mirrors existing growth rates, to higher growth options which double the existing rate of delivery. This has been discussed in more detail below.

¹³ Defra (March 2010). ‘English National Parks and the Broads: UK Government Vision and Circular 2010’ can be accessed through this link.

4.4. Different locations of growth to consider through the growth strategy options

4.4.1. The following broad locations have been considered through the growth strategy options.

Four defined villages

4.4.2. Ashurst, Brockenhurst, Lyndhurst and Sway are identified in the current Local Plan as ‘Defined Villages’. This is due to their character, population and the range of facilities and services they provide. These settlements have the broadest range of community facilities, local employment opportunities and transport links in the National Park and offer a good range of other services for residents and visitors.

Additional villages

4.4.3. There are a number of additional settlements, which whilst not villages with defined settlement boundaries, have the potential to be considered for some limited growth. They are accessible locations with some services and facilities.

4.4.4. They include:

• Landford/Nomansland;
• Redlynch
• Bartley/Cadnam

Other smaller villages and hamlets

4.4.5. These comprise other locations outside of the four defined villages and additional villages set out above.

Land adjoining settlements outside of the National Park

4.4.6. This comprises land adjacent to the larger settlements that adjoin the National Park boundary, including, for example, in the vicinities of Lymington, New Milton, Ringwood, Totton and Hythe. This recognises that these locations may be considered accessible in terms of access to services and facilities and public transport nodes such as railway stations and bus routes.

New or expanded settlement

4.4.7. There is the potential to deliver a new or extended settlement in the National Park, which would be of sufficient size to support and deliver new services and amenities. Potential locations include the village of Calshot in the south east of the National Park.

4.5. Establishing growth strategy options for the SA

4.5.1. In relation to the strategic variables set out above, there are a number of key components that can provide the building blocks for developing the growth strategy options. These comprise:

• Growth scenario components which are ‘constants’: These are the components which would be similar across all the growth strategy options.
• Growth scenario components which are ‘variables’: These comprise the components which can vary across the growth strategy options.

4.5.2. The following components can therefore be considered constants and variables in the context of the growth strategy options.

Constants

4.5.3. The following components can be considered ‘constants’ for the purposes of the assessment of the growth strategy options

Commitments and completions

4.5.4. These comprise extant planning permissions and completions in the period from 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025. This amounts to a total of 281 net new dwellings with either extant consent or completed within this period.

Windfall sites in Defined Villages of National Park

4.5.5. Paragraph 75 of the NPPF allows local authorities to make an allowance for windfall sites as part of anticipated supply in their Local Plan. An allowance therefore has been made of the delivery of c 20 dpa over the 19 year time period. This allowance also includes rural exception sites and housing for New Forest Commoners, Estate Workers and tied agricultural and forestry worker dwellings.

Variables

4.5.6. The key variables relate to the following components, as discussed under section 4.4 above:

• Existing defined villages with settlement boundaries:
  • Ashurst
  • Brockenhurst
  • Lyndhurst
  • Sway
• Additional villages, comprising:
  • Landford/Nomansland
  • Redlynch
  • Bartley/Cadnam
• Other smaller villages and hamlets
• Land adjoining settlements outside of the National Park
• New or expanded settlement

4.6. Growth strategy options

4.6.1. Utilising these ‘constants’ and ‘variables’, a number of options have been developed for the purpose of exploring alternative spatial strategies for growth in the National Park.

4.6.2. An overview of the growth strategy options considered through the SA process is presented in Table 4-1. These are in addition to the completions, extant consents and windfall allowance, which are applied across each of the options. A more detailed breakdown of the spatial distribution of housing represented by each option, including in relation to key locations in the National Park, is presented in Table 4-2. Options A and B have been mapped (see Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2). Options C to G have not been mapped due to their lack of defined spatial extents.

4.6.3. It should be noted that the appraisal represents a high-level review of strategic growth options rather than an assessment of individual site proposals.

Table 4-1: Growth strategy options considered as reasonable alternatives

Table 4-2: Growth strategy options considered as reasonable alternatives (indicative figures)

Figure 4-1: Option A

Figure included in source PDF (not reproduced here).

Figure 4-2: Option B

Figure included in source PDF (not reproduced here).

4.7. Other potential options

4.7.1. It should be noted that there are, in theory, numerous other growth strategy alternatives comprising different combinations of location and site options that could be considered through the SA process. However, it is important that the alternatives considered are suitably distinct in order to allow a meaningful appraisal to be carried out. In this respect the appraisal of the identified options above has enabled the relative sustainability merits of key variables with regards to the Local Plan Review’s spatial strategy to be effectively explored.

4.7.2. A further element to note is that the SA Report is a vehicle for consultation. Its central purpose is to provide stakeholders (including the general public) with an understanding of the relative merits of different approaches.¹⁴ As such, whilst there is an almost limitless number of combinations of location and site options which could be appraised, there is a need to ensure that the assessment of reasonable alternatives remains accessible, coherent and understandable.

4.7.3. This is particularly important given the need to simplify the plan making process to ensure it is accessible to all.

4.7.4. Taking these considerations into account, the options identified above for the SA are viewed to provide an appropriate vehicle for robustly appraising the key variables that can be considered with regards to the Local Plan Review’s spatial strategy, including within the context of the NFNPA’s statutory purposes and duty.

¹⁴ Regulation 13 of the SEA Regulations

SA for the New Forest National Park Reg 18 SA Report

Local Plan Review

Prepared for: New Forest National Park Authority AECOM

32

5. Appraisal of growth strategy options

5.1. Introduction

5.1.1. Utilising the SA Framework of objectives and assessment questions developed during the earlier scoping stage of the SA, the appraisal has been presented through nine SA Themes, as follows:

• Air, Soil and Water Resources;
• Biodiversity and Geodiversity;
• Climatic Change;
• Communities, Health and Wellbeing;
• Economy and Employment;
• Historic Environment;
• Housing;
• Landscape; and
• Transport.

5.1.2. The appraisal considers the relative sustainability merits of each of the seven growth strategy options. Findings are presented as a commentary on effects. To support the appraisal findings, the options have been ranked in terms of their sustainability performance against the relevant SA Theme. It is anticipated that this will provide the reader with a likely indication of the relative performance of the seven growth strategy options in relation to each theme considered.

5.2. Appraisal

5.2.1. Table 5-1 to Table 5-9 below present the findings of the appraisal of the seven growth strategy options for each of the SA Themes.

5.2.2. Table 5-10 summarises the rankings of the options with regards to their relative performance in relation to each SA Theme.

Table 5-1: Appraisal Findings (Air, Soil and Water Resources)

Discussion of Potential Effects and Relative Merits of Options

Option A, which proposes the most restrained level of growth, focuses development around four existing defined villages. A more limited and focused approach helps to minimise land take and soil disturbance, as new housing would be located around existing settlement boundaries where some infrastructure is already in place. The limited scale of growth also reduces risks of water pollution (by avoiding more remote locations which may lack necessary infrastructure) and helps maintain air quality by limiting traffic.

Options B and C introduce a broader spatial footprint by including newly defined villages and smaller hamlets, respectively, while Option D proposes full dispersal without a settlement hierarchy. While housing increases are moderate, the wider distribution raises risks to soil and water resources. Development in sensitive or poorly connected areas will likely require additional infrastructure (such as roads and drainage systems) to deliver new housing. The deliver of this infrastructure and housing could disrupt soil profiles, increase sedimentation in watercourses, and reduce air quality through construction emissions and car use. Air quality could be affected by greater reliance on private vehicles, although directing growth to service-based settlements (for Options B and C) offers some mitigation.

Option E directs growth to a wider range of settlements within the National Park, including land around its periphery where neighbouring settlements adjoin the National Park boundary. The higher housing delivery amplifies risks compared to Options B and C.

Option F focuses sites on the National Park’s boundary, offering notable advantages. These locations are generally more accessible and benefit from existing transport links, helping limit air quality impacts from car dependency leading to increased traffic flows. Housing delivery is relatively low, reducing cumulative pressures. Most importantly, this approach avoids development within the National Park’s most sensitive areas, reducing risks to soils and water systems. The combination of lower scale, better infrastructure, and avoidance of centrally located sensitive areas (including watercourses running through the New Forest Special Area of Conservation [SAC] and Special Protection Area [SPA]) makes this option one of the better-performing scenarios.

Option G, which proposes the highest level of housing growth, includes a major new or expanded settlement. This scale of development poses the greatest risk to air, soil, and water resources. Dispersed development throughout the National Park, and the creation of a new settlement would involve significant land clearance, increased impermeable surfaces, and substantial infrastructure development, all of which could disrupt hydrology and soil integrity. Air quality impacts would be pronounced due to construction emissions, long-term traffic generation, and concentration of development in one location.

Table 5-2: Appraisal Findings (Biodiversity and Geodiversity)

Discussion of Potential Effects and Relative Merits of Options

Option A concentrates development around four existing defined villages. While these settlements are adjacent to internationally designated sites such as New Forest SAC and SPA, the overall low level of growth proposed under this option helps to minimise ecological disturbance compared to other options (all of which, except Option F, also involve development near these designations). Focusing development in the main settlements only also reduces the need to allocate housing in smaller settlements that are more sensitive to change. The modest scale of growth helps limit land take and reduces risks of cumulative disturbance, including light and noise pollution and recreational pressure.

Options B and C expand the settlement hierarchy to include additional villages and smaller hamlets, increasing the spatial footprint and raising risks of edge effects and habitat fragmentation at the additional locations where growth would be delivered. The additional settlements are also close to sensitive habitats (including the SAC and SPA), and increased development could lead to greater recreational access and disturbance.

Option D disperses development across the National Park without a guiding settlement hierarchy, presenting significant risks to biodiversity and geodiversity. Scattered development could occur near designated sites or ecologically valuable landscapes, undermining ecological networks and increasing pressure on habitats already under stress. The dispersed nature of growth may also make it more challenging to deliver coordinated avoidance and mitigation measures, increasing the risk of cumulative impacts on sensitive environments.

Option E directs growth to a wider range of settlements within the National Park, including land around its periphery where neighbouring settlements adjoin the National Park boundary. This option has the second highest rate of growth, increasing the potential for cumulative impacts on habitats and designated sites within and adjacent to the National Park.

Option F focuses sites on the National Park’s boundary and delivers relatively low housing numbers, reducing direct pressure on the National Park’s most sensitive habitats and designated sites (including the Special Area of Conservation and Special Protection Area), though impacts on buffer zones and migratory routes remain possible.

Option G, which includes a major new or expanded settlement, poses the greatest risk. The scale of development could result in significant land clearance, habitat loss, and disruption of ecological networks. For example, Calshot (one potential location under consideration) is situated close to the Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site, increasing the likelihood of impacts on internationally important habitats and species. Even if development avoids designated sites, the abundance of sensitive ecological designations and habitats across the New Forest mean that indirect impacts (such as increased traffic, recreational pressure, and pollution) could still be significant.

Table 5-3: Appraisal Findings (Climate Change [Including Flood Risk])

Discussion of Potential Effects and Relative Merits of Options

Option A performs well in terms of climate mitigation. Concentrating development around existing villages supports compact growth, reduces the need for new infrastructure, and enables better access to public transport and active travel routes. The modest scale of development also limits the overall carbon footprint. Adaptation is more feasible in these locations due to existing flood risk mapping and infrastructure capacity.

Options B and C introduce a wider spatial spread, which may increase car dependency and reduce opportunities for low-carbon travel. Smaller settlements may lack the infrastructure needed to support climate-resilient development, and the cumulative impact of dispersed growth could increase emissions. However, if allocations are focused on service-based settlements and incorporate sustainable design, these options could still support climate objectives.

Option D, with no settlement hierarchy, performs least favourably. Dispersed development across the National Park increases reliance on private vehicles, complicates infrastructure delivery, and makes coordinated climate adaptation difficult. Development may occur in areas with limited resilience to flooding or heat stress, increasing long-term vulnerability.

Option E directs growth to a wider range of settlements within the National Park, including land around its periphery where neighbouring settlements adjoin the National Park boundary. This increases the carbon footprint and complicates adaptation efforts, as infrastructure and energy planning would need to cover a larger area. Higher housing numbers amplify these risks, and strong mitigation measures would be essential.

Option F focuses on sites close to the National Park’s boundary and delivers relatively low housing numbers. This approach may allow for more strategic infrastructure planning. It also aligns with existing commuting patterns and benefits from good transport links, helping to limit emissions compared to dispersed growth. While commuting distances remain a concern, placing housing in these locations could reduce the overall need to travel for many residents.

Option G, which delivers the highest housing figures, presents both risks and opportunities. A new or expanded settlement could be designed to high environmental standards, incorporating renewable energy, sustainable drainage, and low-carbon transport. However, the overall scale of development, both with the new settlement area, and elsewhere across the National Park, carries a significant carbon cost, and poor siting could exacerbate climate vulnerabilities.

Table 5-4: Appraisal Findings (Communities, Health and Wellbeing)

Discussion of Potential Effects and Relative Merits of Options

Option A focuses growth around existing defined villages, supporting community cohesion by reinforcing established settlement patterns. The modest scale of development is less likely to overwhelm local services and may help sustain village facilities such as shops, schools, and health centres. Concentrated growth also supports walkability and access to green space, contributing positively to physical and mental wellbeing. However, limited housing delivery may constrain opportunities for younger residents or those in housing need, potentially affecting long-term community sustainability.

Options B and C expand the settlement hierarchy to include additional villages and hamlets. This broader distribution may help address housing need across a wider area, supporting smaller communities and potentially revitalising underused services. However, increased development in smaller settlements could place strains on limited infrastructure, particularly if not accompanied by investment in community facilities. The spread of development may also reduce opportunities for active travel and increase car dependency, with implications for health and social inclusion.

Option D disperses development across the National Park without a guiding hierarchy. While this may offer flexibility and address housing need in smaller settlements, it risks undermining community cohesion and placing pressure on settlements with limited services. The lack of spatial focus may lead to inefficient infrastructure provision and reduced access to health, education, and social facilities. This could exacerbate inequalities and reduce overall wellbeing, particularly for vulnerable groups.

Option E directs growth to a wider range of settlements within the National Park, including land around its periphery where neighbouring settlements adjoin the National Park boundary, with the second-highest delivery figure. This has the potential to support both National Park and adjacent communities, helping to address housing need and improve access to services. However, the wider spread of development may dilute benefits, reducing opportunities for enhancing social inclusion.

Option F focuses sites close to the National Park’s boundary, which may reduce pressure on National Park communities while offering better access to transport and facilities outside the National Park. These advantages can support health and wellbeing by improving connectivity and reducing isolation. Housing delivery is relatively modest, limiting infrastructure strain, but careful planning is needed to ensure new development integrates with existing social networks.

Option G includes a major new or expanded settlement, offering potential to deliver significant new infrastructure such as schools, health centres, and community spaces. If well-designed, this could support high levels of wellbeing and social inclusion. However, concentrating higher levels of growth in these locations may also risk placing pressure on existing communities and infrastructure, for example, from increased traffic and pollution. A further consideration relates to the impact of significant growth on the special qualities of the National Park, and the associated impact on health and wellbeing and opportunities for recreation and enjoyment. This may undermine the National Park’s role relating to the second statutory purpose of the National Park, including associated with the health and wellbeing of residents and visitors.

Table 5-5: Appraisal Findings (Economy and Employment)

Discussion of Potential Effects and Relative Merits of Options

Option A supports the local economy by reinforcing existing settlements, helping sustain village centres, local services, and small businesses. Modest growth may help retain working-age residents and support employment in sectors such as retail, hospitality, and care. However, the limited scale of development may constrain opportunities for economic expansion or diversification, particularly if housing affordability remains a barrier for younger workers and families.

Options B and C extend development to additional villages and hamlets, potentially supporting a wider range of local economies. In addition to the benefits within the main settlements, these options may help revitalise the National Park’s smaller communities, enabling home-based businesses and supporting rural services. Employment benefits may still vary by location, depending on the capacity of smaller settlements to absorb and support growth.

Option D, with its fully dispersed approach, may offer flexibility for economic activity across the National Park, including in smaller settlements. However, the lack of spatial focus risks diluting investment and making it harder to support infrastructure improvements that underpin employment, such as broadband, transport, and workspace provision. This option may also increase commuting distances and reduce the viability of local services, undermining economic resilience.

Option E directs growth to a wider range of settlements within the National Park, including land around its periphery where neighbouring settlements adjoin the National Park boundary. This approach could strengthen links to regional employment hubs while continuing to support economies within the National Park. By combining growth in main settlements and additional villages with sites near the boundary, Option E offers greater potential for infrastructure investment and economic diversification.

Option F focuses on the National Park’s boundary, which may strengthen links to regional employment hubs and improve access to jobs for residents. However, this approach risks disconnecting housing from the National Park’s rural economy, limiting benefits for local businesses and services.

Option G includes a major new or expanded settlement, offering the greatest potential for economic growth and diversification. A new settlement could support significant employment opportunities, attract investment, and enable infrastructure provision at scale. If well-designed, it could include mixed-use development, workspace, and transport links. However, the scale of development also carries risks of overdevelopment, impacts on the National Park’s special qualities, and disruption to the National Park’s rural and visitor economy.

Table 5-6: Appraisal Findings (Historic Environment)

Discussion of Potential Effects and Relative Merits of Options

Option A performs well in relation to the historic environment. The main settlements are generally well understood in terms of heritage constraints, and development can be guided by existing conservation policies. The modest scale of growth also limits cumulative impacts and allows for better integration with existing built form.

Option B expands development to additional villages, which are located near heritage assets. While the overall number of designated heritage features in the additional settlements is relatively low, there are specific sensitivities to consider (for example, Landford contains scheduled monuments, and Bartley lies adjacent to a conservation area). This increases the potential for adverse impacts on the setting of listed buildings, conservation areas, and archaeological sites.

Option C introduces smaller hamlets alongside defined villages, further increasing the spatial footprint and the risk of impacts on historic landscapes and undesignated heritage assets. Managing heritage sensitivities in these locations may be more challenging due to limited capacity for change.

Option D disperses development across the National Park without a guiding hierarchy, presenting the greatest risk to the historic environment. Scattered development increases the likelihood of affecting undesignated heritage assets and historic landscapes, particularly in areas not previously subject to detailed heritage assessment. The lack of spatial management makes it difficult to avoid sensitive locations and undermines the ability to manage cumulative impacts on historic character.

Option E directs growth to a wider range of settlements within the National Park, including land around its periphery where neighbouring settlements adjoin the National Park boundary. This option has the second highest rate of growth, which, along with the dispersed nature of the option, increases the overall development footprint and adds complexity to heritage management.

Like Option A, Option F performs well in relation to the historic environment due to the low housing delivery number. Many areas on the National Park’s also boundary benefit from conservation designations (including areas by Ringwood, Fordingbridge Lymington, and Totton), which provide strong safeguards against inappropriate development. While these areas may still contain historic features, the ability to plan strategically and apply robust heritage protections makes this option the least disruptive overall.

Option G includes a major new or expanded settlement, carrying significant risk to the historic environment. The scale of development could result in substantial change to the landscape setting of heritage assets, particularly if located near historic villages or within areas of archaeological interest. If located at Calshot, one potential location under consideration, development could affect the setting of Calshot Castle (a scheduled monument) and other heritage assets linked to the area's military history. While the area currently has a poor-quality public realm, there may be opportunities for heritage-led regeneration. Although heritage-sensitive design principles could be incorporated, the potential for harm (whether at Calshot or another location) remains considerable and would require detailed assessment and mitigation.

Table 5-7: Appraisal Findings (Housing)

Discussion of Potential Effects and Relative Merits of Options

Option A delivers the lowest level of housing and focuses growth around existing defined villages. The limited scale of development may constrain opportunities for younger residents and those in housing need, potentially exacerbating demographic challenges and affordability pressures.

Option B increases housing delivery and expands the settlement hierarchy to include additional villages. This offers a more balanced approach, improving housing availability across a wider area and supporting demographic sustainability. However, the broader spatial footprint introduces risks of infrastructure strain, which must be managed to ensure delivery is effective and sustainable.

Option C builds on Option B by including smaller hamlets, further increasing housing delivery and spreading provision more widely. This could help meet local needs in smaller communities but may also introduce challenges for infrastructure and service access, particularly for specialist housing linked to health facilities.

Option D disperses development across the National Park without a guiding hierarchy, delivering a relatively high level of housing but lacking strategic focus. Homes may be located in areas poorly served by infrastructure or services, reducing the effectiveness of housing provision and risking unsustainable patterns of growth.

Option E directs growth to a wider range of settlements within the National Park, including land around its periphery where neighbouring settlements adjoin the National Park boundary, delivering a higher level of housing and helping meet local demand. This approach could support affordable housing delivery at scale and improve access to services in adjacent urban areas, though careful integration is needed to ensure local needs are met.

Option F focuses sites on the National Park’s boundary, offering good connectivity to external services and employment hubs. While housing delivery is moderate compared to other options, this approach may reduce pressure on the National Park’s main settlements and provide opportunities for affordable housing near accessible locations. Despite the relatively low overall delivery figures, this option has good potential to deliver larger allocations, which can unlock affordable housing and specialist provision near accessible services (which dispersed approached may lack).

Option G includes a major new or expanded settlement, delivering the highest level of housing. This option has the greatest potential to meet housing need comprehensively, including affordable and family housing, and could support infrastructure provision at scale.

Table 5-8: Appraisal Findings (Landscape)

Discussion of Potential Effects and Relative Merits of Options

Option A performs most favourably. Focusing growth around existing defined villages avoids intrusion into open countryside and protects the National Park’s special qualities. The modest scale of growth helps preserve tranquillity and maintain the National Park’s rural character.

Option B expands the settlement hierarchy to include additional villages. This broader distribution increases the development footprint and introduces risks of visual intrusion, particularly in settlements with looser built form and stronger landscape integration. While careful siting and design could mitigate some impacts, these areas are more sensitive to change and may affect the special qualities of the National Park..

Option C adds smaller hamlets, further increasing visibility and fragmentation of landscape character. Hamlets typically lack containment and have strong connections to open countryside, making integration challenging and eroding the sense of openness and remoteness that contributes to the National Park’s special qualities.

Option D disperses development without a guiding hierarchy, introducing built form into previously undeveloped areas. This risks significant harm to the special qualities of the National Park and makes it difficult to avoid sensitive views and cultural landscape features.

Option E directs higher levels of growth to a wider range of settlements within the National Park, including land around its periphery where neighbouring settlements adjoin the National Park boundary, creating cumulative effects on both the National Park’s character and its setting. Areas on the National Park’s boundary often contribute to gateway views, so impacts may extend beyond the boundary and affect the experience of entering the National Park.

Option F focuses new housing on the National Park’s boundary, avoiding direct impacts on landscapes in the centre of the National Park. However, development at these locations may still heavily influence the National Park’s setting and transitional views, requiring careful design and screening to maintain landscape integrity and protect its special qualities.

Option G performs least favourably. A major new or expanded settlement has the potential to cause significant visual change and loss of tranquillity, with indirect effects such as traffic, lighting, and urbanisation altering the National Park’s character. In addition to the new settlement, Option G proposes the highest overall level of housing delivery, with potential sites distributed across the National Park. This wider pattern of growth extends the potential for landscape and visual impacts, including cumulative effects. It should be noted though that a well designed new settlement in an appropriate location has the potential to enhance existing areas of poor public realm, if done in a way that respects and reinforces the National Park’s special qualities.

Table 5-9: Appraisal Findings (Transport)

Discussion of Potential Effects and Relative Merits of Options

Option A performs well in transport terms. Concentrating development around existing defined villages supports compact growth patterns that encourage walking, cycling, and public transport use. These settlements are generally served by existing transport infrastructure, reducing the need for new roads and limiting traffic growth. The modest scale of development also helps avoid significant congestion or pressure on sensitive routes.

Option B expands the hierarchy to include additional villages, some of which have reasonable service provision. This broader distribution may still allow for sustainable travel in certain locations, but smaller settlements often have weaker transport links, increasing reliance on private vehicles. While impacts can be mitigated where growth is directed to better-connected villages, overall car dependency is likely to rise.

Option C adds smaller hamlets, many of which lack public transport and active travel opportunities. This increases the spatial footprint and risk of traffic growth across the National Park, affecting tranquillity and contributing to emissions. The dispersed nature of these locations makes sustainable transport provision challenging.

Option D performs least favourably. Dispersing development without a guiding hierarchy undermines opportunities for public transport and active travel, creating reliance on private vehicles. This could lead to widespread traffic growth across sensitive areas.

Option E directs growth to a wider range of settlements within the National Park, including land around its periphery where neighbouring settlements adjoin the National Park boundary. This option has the second highest rate of growth, which increases overall traffic movements both within and around the National Park. Without strong sustainable transport measures, this option risks cumulative impacts on congestion and air quality.

Option F focuses new housing provision on the National Park’s boundary. These locations generally have good transport links and access to regional networks (including via rail stations such as New Milton, Hinton Admiral, Lymington or Totton), reducing car dependency compared to dispersed growth. While the roads close to the National Park’s boundaries may experience some congestion, the potential for sustainable travel is higher than most other options, and overall delivery numbers are relatively low.

Option G includes a major new or expanded settlement, presenting both risks and opportunities. If well-designed, it could incorporate sustainable transport infrastructure such as bus services and cycle routes, reducing car dependency. However, the scale of development carries a high risk of traffic growth if not appropriately located (for example, near to existing major road networks or public transport links), particularly during construction and early occupation phases.

Table 5-10: Appraisal Rankings (Compiled)

*Significant beneficial effects are denoted by a ‘+’, while significant adverse effects are denoted by a ‘-’

5.3. Summary of appraisal findings

Air, Soil and Water Resources

5.3.1. The most favourable option for the Air, Soil and Water Resources SA theme is Option A, which delivers the lowest level of growth and concentrates development around existing defined villages. This approach minimises land disturbance, reduces risks of water pollution, and helps maintain air quality by limiting traffic increases and avoiding sensitive or remote locations. Option F also performs well, focusing growth on the periphery of the National Park in accessible locations with existing infrastructure. Options B and C introduce a broader footprint, which increases risks but can be mitigated through careful site selection. In contrast, Option D and Option G perform least favourably. Option D disperses development across the National Park without spatial control, increasing risks to soil profiles, watercourses, and air quality. Option G, which includes a major new or expanded settlement, poses significant risks due to the scale of land clearance, infrastructure development, and long-term emissions.

Biodiversity and Geodiversity

5.3.2. In relation to the Biodiversity and Geodiversity SA theme, the most favourable options are Option A and Option F, which deliver the lowest rates of housing growth. Option F avoids development within the central areas of the National Park and benefits from strategic planning near its periphery, while Option A limits land take and recreational pressure through a low delivery rate and delivering houses near to the main settlements. Options B, C, and E introduce greater housing numbers, and more spatial spread, increasing risks of habitat fragmentation and disturbance, particularly in the smaller settlements (associated with Options C and E) or ecologically linked areas. Option D and Option G perform least favourably. Option D disperses development without a guiding hierarchy, increasing the likelihood of encroachment into areas with significant biodiversity sensitivities. Option G, due to its scale and intensity, poses the greatest risk of harm to ecological networks and designated sites.

Climate Change (Including Flood Risk)

5.3.3. The most favourable option for the Climate Change (Including Flood Risk) SA theme is Option A, which supports compact growth, lower emissions, and better alignment with existing infrastructure and flood risk mapping. Option F also ranks favourably due to its strategic focus towards areas on the National Park’s boundary and alignment with commuting patterns. Option B perform moderately, while Options C and E spread impacts more widely. Option G offers potential for climate-positive design but carries high risks due to its scale. Option D performs least favourably due to its lack of spatial control and reduced capacity for coordinated adaptation.

Communities, Health and Wellbeing

5.3.4. The most favourable option for the Communities, Health and Wellbeing SA theme is Option E, which supports both the National Park’s communities and adjacent communities, whilst helping to deliver housing provision across a wider area. Option B offers moderate benefits by supporting housing in main settlements and additional villages. Option C delivers slightly more housing but faces challenges integrating development in hamlets, which may affect cohesion and access to services. Option F performs well in some respects, providing modest growth near the National Park boundary with good connectivity to external services, helping reduce isolation and improve access to facilities. Option G offers the highest level of housing delivery and the potential to support significant new infrastructure. However, the scale of growth proposed by the option has the potential to undermine health and wellbeing, including through undermining the second statutory purpose of the National Park. Option A, while reinforcing existing communities and supporting walkability, ranks lower due to its limited housing delivery and reduced capacity to meet future needs. Option D performs least favourably, with its dispersed approach risking inefficient service provision and weakening community cohesion.

Economy and Employment

5.3.5. The most favourable option for the Economy and Employment SA theme is Option E, which offers strong potential for economic growth by combining development in main settlements, additional villages, and sites near the National Park boundary. This approach supports local economies while improving access to regional employment hubs and enabling more efficient infrastructure investment. Options B and C also rank favourably, as they reinforce existing settlements and extend benefits to smaller communities. Option G performs well in terms of economic potential due to its scale and ability to deliver infrastructure and employment opportunities, but also has the potential for adverse effects on the rural and visitor economy through impacts on the National Park’s special qualities. Option F performs moderately well by improving access to regional employment hubs but offers limited benefits to the main settlements in the National Park. Option A supports local services in main settlements but limits opportunities for broader economic expansion. Option D performs least favourably due to its lack of strategic focus and potential to undermine infrastructure investment.

Historic Environment

5.3.6. The most favourable option for the Historic Environment SA theme is Option A, which delivers the lowest growth and benefits from existing conservation protections in the main settlements where heritage constraints can be managed. Option F also ranks favourably, with a low rate of delivery, focused in areas by the National Park’s boundary. Options B and C follow, introducing greater risk to historic assets from the higher levels of growth. Option D performs least favourably due to its lack of spatial control and increased likelihood of encroachment into sensitive historic landscapes. Option G carries significant risk due to its scale, although mitigation may be possible through sensitive design. In this respect Option G has the potential to enhance local historic assets, if designed and located appropriately.

Housing

5.3.7. The most favourable option for Housing SA theme is Option G, which delivers the highest level of housing and has the greatest potential to meet local needs, including affordable and family housing. Options E, C, and B also rank favourably, offering higher delivery and better access to services. Option F performs moderately, with good connectivity but lower overall delivery. Option A performs less well due to limited housing provision, and Option D ranks least favourably due to inefficiency and lack of strategic focus.

Landscape

5.3.8. The most favourable option for the Landscape SA theme is Option A, which concentrates development around existing settlements, minimising intrusion into open countryside and preserving the National Park’s visual coherence. This approach helps safeguard the special qualities of the National Park, including its sense of tranquillity and scenic beauty. Option B also ranks favourably, though it introduces greater risks of visual intrusion. Options C and D increase fragmentation and loss of tranquillity due to their dispersed nature, with potential adverse effects on the National Park’s special qualities. Option E creates cumulative impacts across broad areas of the National Park. Option F avoids direct impacts on central landscapes but requires careful design to protect transitional views and ensure the integrity of the National Park’s special qualities is maintained. Option G performs least favourably due to its scale and transformative impacts on landscape character, which could significantly undermine the special qualities that define the National Park.

Transport

5.3.9. The most favourable option for the Transport SA theme is Option A, which supports compact growth and sustainable travel through proximity to existing infrastructure and services. Option F also ranks favourably, benefiting from good access to regional transport networks and reduced car dependency. Options B and C perform moderately, with increased reliance on private vehicles in smaller settlements. Option E spreads impacts more widely, increasing overall traffic movements. Option D performs least favourably due to its dispersed nature and lack of support for sustainable transport. While Option G is likely to result in the greatest increase in traffic flows due to its overall scale of growth, it also presents the greatest opportunity to deliver new transport infrastructure that could help manage movement and support more sustainable travel patterns.

5.4. Conclusions

5.4.1. Overall, the appraisal indicates that each spatial option presents a distinct set of strengths and weaknesses across the SA themes. Option A generally performs well for environmental themes, including air, soil, and water resources, due to its restrained level of growth and concentration around existing defined villages. However, its limited growth and distribution may constrain opportunities for meeting housing needs and supporting community vitality.

5.4.2. Option B offers a broader spatial footprint and performs moderately across most themes. While this approach introduces some additional risks to soil and water resources compared to Option A, its focus on service-based settlements helps support accessibility and infrastructure provision, which benefits social and economic objectives. Option C performs similarly but includes additional housing delivery in smaller hamlets, which may increase infrastructure requirements and reduce efficiency in service delivery.

5.4.3. Option D disperses development without a settlement hierarchy, which increases infrastructure demands and environmental risks while offering limited strategic benefits. Option D performs poorly across all the SA themes.

5.4.4. Option E extends development to a wider range of settlements, including peripheral areas adjoining the National Park boundary. This provides flexibility for housing delivery but amplifies environmental risks and may increase reliance on private vehicles.

5.4.5. Option F performs well for environmental protection by focusing growth on the National Park’s boundary, where existing infrastructure reduces potential impacts. Development under this option would also avoid some key sensitive areas in the National Park; however, it would place additional environmental pressures on the fringes of the National Park. In addition, more limited housing delivery through this option may limit economic benefits, including in key ‘core’ parts of the National Park.

5.4.6. Option G, which includes a major