Natural England

Minutes of the 10th Meeting of the NCAF

Chair: Pam Warhurst (Countryside Agency (CA))

Ms Pam Ashton (Cyclists Touring Club (CTC))

Dr William Bird (Independent Member)

Air Cdr Simon Bostock (Moorland Association (MA))

Mr Jo Burgon, (National Trust (NT))

Mr Bob Cartwright (Association of National Park Authorities (ANPA))

Mr Andrew Clark (National Farmers Union (NFU))

Mr Barry Leathwood (Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU))

Mr Tim Marshall (Independent Member)

Mr Iain McMorrin (British Mountaineering Council (BMC))

Ms Kate Parminter (Council for the Protection of Rural Britain (CPRE))

Mr Jerry Pearlman (Ramblers Association (RA))

Mrs Stephanie Wheeler (British Horse Society (BHS))

Mr Gwyn Williams (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB))

Dr Alan Woods (Country Land and Business Association (CLA))

Bishop Alan Chesters (Countryside Agency (CA))

Observers

Graham Bathe (English Nature)

Richard Pullen (DETR)

Stephen Cane (MAFF)

Gail Dyson (DETR)

Peter Hodgson (Defence Estates)

Robin King (National Assembly for Wales)

Richard Ninnes (CCW)

Chris Probert (Forestry Commission)

Countryside Agency Staff

Bob Roberts

Paul Johnson 

Kirsty Shaw

Roger Ward 

Susanna Perkins

(about 40 members of the public attended the meeting)

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE were received from Ian Mercer (ANPA), Sir Edward Greenwell (CLA) and Tim Bennett (NFU); and from the following observers: Susan Carter (DETR), David Payne (SE), Eileen McKeever (EA), John Mackay (SNH), John Osmond (MAFF), Gareth Roberts (CCW), Stephen Trow (EH), Margaret Clark (CA), Jon Tomlinson (CA).

Chair's Introduction

1. Pam Warhurst welcomed everyone to the meeting. She extended a special welcome to those attending for the first time - Bob Cartwright (ANPA) as a member, and Peter Hodgson (DE) as an observer. 

Minutes of the Last Meeting

2. The RA representative asked it be recorded that he had submitted a paper detailing the RA's response to the paper NCAF 9/3 - Local Restrictions on Access Land at the meeting on 13 December. He accepted that the contents of this paper could not be reflected in the minutes and would raise relevant issues contained in it during discussion of the NCAF 10/2 paper.

3. The BMC representative asked it be clarified that at para 25.g he had requested that the Forum be given time for further discussion of the issues raised in paper NCAF 9/3. At para 36 he had asked the Duke of Edinburgh Award organisers to approach MoD about management of the Ten Tors Race.

4. The minutes were approved, subject to the above changes being made.

Matters Arising

5. Referring to para 12e, the CLA representative asked what progress had been made to set up a Steering Group for the mapping process. Bob Roberts replied that arrangements are in hand to establish an advisory group to add expertise on technical matters. This group would provide regular progress reports to the Forum.

CA to provide regular progress reports to the Forum on progress with mapping.

NCAF 10/1 - DEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF ACCESS LAND IN ENGLAND - PRESENTATION BY BINNIE, BLACK & VEATCH

6. Roger Ward introduced a short paper and added that the draft mapping methodology would soon be ready for consultation. He introduced Ian Bush from Binnie, Black & Veatch (BB&V), who gave a detailed presentation on the mapping methodology and process. 

7. Ian Bush gave a presentation 'Drawing the Boundaries', the content of which is given in the paper attached to these minutes. He emphasised the following points:

• existing data sets will be used to identify open country;
• draft maps will be prepared for each of the 8 mapping areas; and 
• non-statutory overlays will be added showing, for example, land with long-term restrictions to protect nature conservation interests, and land subject to military byelaws from which access is excluded. These overlays are intended to give the public a clearer view of what land will be accessible.  

8. He explained that Digital National Format (DNF) Mapping (slide 17) was a process under which each unit of land (e.g. field, house and garden) would be treated as an individual polygon. To this could be attached details such as its history of consultation, whether restrictions are in force etc. 

9. He asked the Forum for comments on:

• the criteria proposed to identify mountain, moor, heath and down;
• interpretation of the word 'predominantly', to guide the extent to which land is mapped as open country where it is not wholly mountain, moor, heath or down (slide 10);
• the extent to which discretion should be used when mapping the boundaries of open country to align with physical features (slide 11);
• the extent to which small or isolated parcels of land should be included (slide 11); and
• other criteria to consider (slide 12).  

10. Forum members complimented BB&V on an excellent and informative presentation.

11. The RA representative commented that difficulties could arise from adopting different approaches to mapping in England from those in Wales.

12. Bob Roberts responded that the outcome would be consistent. The mapping techniques adopted in England and Wales both use the best data available. England does not have the complete Phase I Habitat survey data which is available in Wales and therefore needs to draw on additional data sets. The CCW representative added that CA and CCW are committed to producing the same result, though this will be achieved by different means. CCW will review information in the Countryside Survey 2000 to identify any changes since Phase I Habitat data were collected. CA and CCW aim to complete the process at similar times. Ian Bush added that BB&V were liaising with CCW to develop a common methodology. Mapping of the Wales/England border area would be undertaken simultaneously. 

13. Commenting on the 'Exercising Discretion' slides (10, 11 and 12) the BMC representative said:

• mapping of parcels of land would help to clarify the extent of access land;
• where natural features (e.g. cliffs) are considered as a boundary, these features should be included as access land. Where there is uncertainty the relevant user group should be consulted; and
• small areas of open country may be important for different users. The criteria for assessing if a piece of open country is too small to serve a useful purpose should include an assessment of features on the site, such as an ancient monument or cliff edge.  

14. Ian Bush responded it was likely that cliffs would be considered amongst other hard features for use as a boundary. He undertook to examine some examples.

15. Bob Roberts added that CA and CCW would use a number of criteria (such as size, context, location) to decide whether to exclude small areas of land. The BMC representative's comments would be borne in mind.

16. The NFU representative said:

• NFU was concerned that the reasons behind decisions reached by BB&V on boundaries might not be transparent. The information underlying decisions reached following public consultation should be available to landowners to assist them in deciding whether an appeal to the Secretary of State was necessary;
• he was concerned that the proposed timetable did not allow adequate time to process the quantity of responses that may be received following consultation on draft maps;
• he asked what provision would be made for the consultants to talk to local groups in each region to explain the mapping process; and
• with reference to 'predominantly', he asked whether the term would be applied to individual parcels only or to a group of parcels together where open country was likely to be fragmented (e.g. on downland).  

17. Bob Roberts replied

• Transparency - CA will publish and consult widely on the mapping methodology and process, and information will be made readily available to the public at a local level. Every response would be recorded, and this could be re-examined on appeal.
• Timetable - he agreed that the timetable would be tight. Ministers may decide to implement the right of access region by region if delays in the process are experienced.
• Consultation - Regulations will set out the requirements for the consultation process. In addition to the statutory requirements CA would be holding meetings with key groups, both nationally and in the regions. A video will be available for small groups which CA cannot meet directly. A website will be opened from which information may be viewed or downloaded.
• Land parcels - comments from the Forum are sought on this. Firm conclusions have not yet been reached.  

18. Ian Bush added that the form the consultation process takes will be guided by Regulations. Local groups and Local Access Forums will be consulted prior to the production of draft maps. He also stated that a report will accompany the issue of provisional maps to explain how decisions have been reached.

19. The CTC representative asked for an explanation of Topographic Object Identifiers (TOIDs), and asked in which mapping unit Bradford would be included.

20. Ian Bush replied that a TOID is a unique reference given to each land parcel area defined by the OS mapped features. Bradford would be included within Region 2.

21. The CLA representative commented that the last four bullet points in slide 10 could be more appropriate to slide 11, but he agreed with their relevance. He asked on what scale maps would be issued, and he requested that additional copies of the presentation slides be made available for circulation to organisations' members.

22. Bob Roberts explained that the scale of maps would be determined in Regulations which have not yet been confirmed. He said that clearer copies of the presentation material would be circulated to Forum members and made available on the Agency's website. The mapping methodology would be put out to consultation at the end of March.

23. Ian Bush advised that the primary scale for maps was likely to be 1:25,000. Where more detail is required maps would be produced at appropriate scales (i.e. 1:10,000 or 1:2,500). 

24. The NT representative asked for clarification of the additional information that was sought for non-statutory overlays to draft maps. 

25. Bob Roberts asked for as much relevant information as could be provided. The intention was not to mislead the public by showing as accessible substantial areas of land which would be excepted. Also, more information on section 15 land (land subject to access rights under other enactments) was sought.

26. The MA representative asked that the consultation following production of draft maps be two-stage, to give landowners an opportunity to comment on provisional maps before the appeal stage. He said that the overlays should give details of estate boundaries, and he offered the assistance of the MA in collating this information. He asked that more information on mapping be made available to Forum members and on the Agency's website.

27. Bob Roberts replied that it was necessary to ensure the consultation process does not become unnecessarily protracted. The process to be followed through to the production of conclusive maps would be guided by what was laid down in the Act. 

28. The RSPB representative commented that:

• 'non-statutory' overlays may have a statutory basis where they must meet the requirements of other legislation e.g. on SSSIs. This should be made apparent to the public; and 
• the boundaries of some areas of common land do not follow physical features on the ground, but these cannot be legally extended by the mapping process. He suggested that landowners should be encouraged to dedicate small areas of land to facilitate the mapping of boundaries to physical features.  

29. Ian Bush confirmed that there is no power under the Act to move common land boundaries from those specified in the register.

30. The RA representative added that the boundaries of common land should not be reduced in order to align with a physical feature. He said that in exercising its discretion on mapping, CA's philosophy should be to ensure that the public received as much access as possible.

31. Ian Bush drew attention to the 'Frequently Asked Questions' available on the Agency's website, which contain detailed information on the mapping process.

32. Bob Roberts concluded the debate by emphasising that the three areas in which CA may exercise discretion on mapping would be used to maximise the clarity of the extent of access land. This discretion would not be used to significantly reduce or extend the boundaries of access land beyond what is reasonable.

33. Roger Ward asked Forum members to submit by 23 March any additional comments which they wished to be considered before CA's consultation on the process.

NCAF 10/2 - local restrictions on access land

34. Paul Johnson introduced this paper, which developed further issues debated at the December NCAF meeting. He explained that Annex 1 of the paper contained 17 issues, each with a provisional conclusion on which Forum members' comments were sought. He added that CA would be consulting publicly on its draft guidance on restrictions in June 2001.

35. The MA representative congratulated the Agency on its excellent work on the paper.

36. The RSPB representative commended para 6 of the covering paper and stressed the importance of a network of local advisers in drawing attention to the role of information and informal management, as opposed to legal restriction, in mitigating access impacts. 

Issue 1 

37. The NFU representative asked how farmers with grazing rights on part of a large area of moorland would be able to identify discrete units to pre-register. He also sought clarification of the method of pre-registration for commoners. 

38. Paul Johnson replied that the mapping units used would be drawn from the DNF parcels identified by Ordnance Survey. These would not necessarily reflect ownership of that land. Landowners would be encouraged to pre-register parcels of land for which they are legally responsible to facilitate notification of restrictions. He added that pre-registration was encouraged where use of discretionary restrictions was anticipated. Discretionary restrictions would not be available to commoners, who would have to apply for additional restrictions subject to any regulations under section 32 (1)(f). 

39. The RA representative commented that at the NCAF 9 meeting he had understood that the majority of Forum members were in favour of pre-registration. He recalled there was agreement between RA and MA that pre-registration was the only way to achieve certainty and clarity for walkers. He questioned the provisional conclusion that there should be no requirement on entitled persons to pre-register.

40. The NT representative commented that the approach taken with regard to pre-registration should reflect not only the interests of large estate owners but should accommodate the needs of tenants who manage smaller holdings on the estate. 

41. Bob Roberts commented that most users of the restriction system would be small landowners and tenants rather than large estate owners. To require pre-registration would place a greater burden on the small landowner. Paul Johnson added that some landowners will never need to use the restrictions system. It would be unnecessary, therefore, to require everyone to pre-register.

42. The MA representative emphasised the advantages of pre-registration and felt that most of his members would do it, but agreed that it should not be made compulsory. The guidance should stress the benefits to owners of pre-registering. He agreed that those who wished to take advantage of short-notice notification procedures would need to pre-register.

43. The RA representative said his recollection was that the majority of Forum members had felt that pre-registration was beneficial. He suggested that regulations should specify that this is generally required, though exceptions may be allowed.

44. The CLA representative said Ministers had emphasised that the Act would place no additional burdens on landowners. To require pre-registration was therefore against the spirit of the legislation.

45. The NFU representative drew attention to the minutes of the last meeting which recorded comments from himself and other Forum members that pre-registration should not be a requirement.

46. The ANPA representative stressed the role and importance of encouraging good practice.

47. In summary, the Chairman stated that there was general agreement on the provisional conclusion reached at Issue 1 subject to strengthening the second bullet point regarding the benefits to owners.

Issue 2 

48. With reference to the last sentence of the provisional conclusion, the CLA representative felt that the regulations and guidance should not fetter the relevant authority's discretion as to possible rejection of a notification.

49. The MA representative commented that clarification would be needed over the "minimum size" in respect of a parcel of land. This should not be over prescriptive as there were both advantages and disadvantages in smaller parcels. Paul Johnson asked Forum members for any further views on this.

Issue 3

50. The RA representative stated that the minutes recording debate on NCAF 9/3 had mis-recorded his comment, which should state that "If registration of parcels had not been undertaken by the landowner, then any closure should apply to all the land in that unit". 

51. The ANPA representative agreed with the provisional conclusion but asked how landowners would be able to obtain maps showing the boundaries of land. He stressed that landowners should not be required to pay for these.

52. Bob Roberts replied that Regulations would specify this process and that maps would be readily available wherever possible.

Issue 4

53. The NT representative asked whether CA would ensure that notices advising the public of a short notice restriction would be consistent. Paul Johnson replied that it was envisaged that standard notices would be provided, with the date and place details to be inserted locally.

54. The MA representative welcomed the implication that the only notification required of the landowner in respect of short notice closures would be to inform the relevant authority and post notices. However, he was concerned that not all users would be properly informed unless entry onto access land through access points be made mandatory.

Issues 5 and 6

55. The CLA representative commented on the criteria governing the use of short-notice notification of discretionary restrictions. He believed that the third bullet point in Annex 3 to the paper should be qualified to reflect that restrictions should only apply where this is practicable. The different holders of access land in an area would often not have any contact with each other.

56. Tim Marshall commented that the need to close parcels of land could be triggered by external reasons, and this would require flexibility. Also, tenants and others with a legal interest might need to close adjacent parcels of land for different reasons at the same time, and they should not be prevented from doing so.

Issue 7

57. No comments

Issue 8

58. In relation to para 2 of the provisional conclusion, the MA representative argued that different uses of land required flexibility in apportioning the discretionary allowance between two or more entitled persons. The regulations must not be over prescriptive. 

59. Paul Johnson replied that regulations would determine how the 28 day allowance would be divided between different legal interests. The option would be a default numerical apportionment, with scope for local variation of this by agreement.

60. The NFU representative also asked that as much flexibility as possible be given in Regulations.

61. The MA representative argued that, in the first instance, those with discretionary rights should be allowed to resolve the division of the 28 days themselves. In the event of disagreement, arbitration should be used. 

Issue 9

62. The RA representative said that the relevant authority's assessment of whether the 28 days had been appropriately used should be made in the context of the interest which users had in gaining access to that area. How this is achieved could not be laid out in regulations but guidance should be given in advisory codes. 

63. The RSPB representative queried the extent to which restrictions under section 24 could be used to support visitor management on nature reserves, where use of section 26 would be inappropriate. For example, he foresaw circumstances under which nature reserve managers would wish to divert visitors away from parts of a reserve rich in bird life to enable the birds to be viewed without disturbance. 

Issue 10

64. The RA representative reiterated his suggestion that landowners should provide a management plan. At the NCAF 9 meeting, some Forum members had responded that to require this would be unreasonable, but he believed it would be in the interests of the public and should be specified. 

65. Paul Johnson replied that, in common with a number of similar issues discussed in this paper, the proposal stopped short of legally requiring such a plan. Where one could be produced, that would be welcome but it was not essential.

Issue 11

66. The BMC representative commended the first sentence of para 1 of the provisional conclusion, setting out the principle that users should in general be responsible for their own safety. There should be no requirement for the placement of notices to warn the public of hazards, such as cliff edges.

Issue 12

67. The MA representative expressed concern that the absence of formal restrictions might in some instances increase the liability of the landowner.

Issue 13

68. No comments.

Issue 14

69. Paul Johnson commented that the content of criteria tables was being developed. The consultation this summer would explain the proposed approach.

Issue 15

70. The RA representative drew attention to the RA's four-point plan which he had presented to CA at the December NCAF meeting. He reiterated his believed that there should be a statutory requirement on landowners to provide a management plan, and that this would be in the long-term interests of the public. 

Issues 16 and 17

71. No comments.

General comments

72. The RA representative asked for copies of the overheads from the restrictions workshop at the National Access Conference to be circulated.

73. Bob Roberts thanked the Forum for their comments and invited any further points from members in writing. He commented that, whilst CA remained in close contact with DETR concerning the content of regulations, DETR had authority for their drafting. The content of regulations would to some extent determine the final guidance on restrictions.

NCAF 10/3 - PROVISION OF LOCAL ACCESS ADVICE

74. Bob Roberts introduced this paper, commenting that many members of the Forum had highlighted the need for access management advice to be made available.

75. William Bird said he anticipated advice would be necessary on many aspects of the new access provisions. He also saw the need for a structure which would arbitrate where contentious issues arose.

76. The CTC representative said that many different agencies have a role in the provision of access. To introduce a further layer of advice-giving bodies might be undesirable. However, there was a need for advice on the scope for providing higher rights of access. She suggested that Local Access Forums (LAFs) had an appropriate remit and could undertake that role. With reference to para 9 of the paper, she hoped that the CA's discussions on the provision of advice would extend to other agencies in addition to MAFF.

77. The RSPB representative felt that the provision of advice was very important and that CA should ensure this is delivered. This could also be tied in with the provision of grant aid. Referring to para 6.a, he said that habitat restoration should be considered in access management plans - this would increase the extent and continuity of land on which access could be enjoyed. He believed that the best way to deliver advice was through a 'one-stop shop' approach. 

78. The ANPA representative expressed doubt that LAFs would be an appropriate mechanism through which to advise landowners on access management. He believed that landowners would need detailed advice in person, on a level which could not be provided in paper format.

79. The CTC representative was concerned at the quality of advice that was currently available about the needs of higher rights users. Experience had shown that inappropriate facilities can be created where the quality of advice is poor. She said that CTC and BHS can provide technical manuals and practical experience. A mechanism to facilitate dissemination of this information should be promoted.

80. The BHS representative endorsed the comments of the CTC representative. She said that provision of a further 'agency' would not be beneficial. She expressed concern that the provision of access management advice would largely be for the benefit of farmers at the expense of others and suggested that the consultation should extend to agencies other than MAFF.

81. The ANPA representative said that land managers have a vital role both in facilitation of access and in providing added value. Referring to para 6, he suggested that provision of advice, grants and training would be required, and that there should be long-term continuity in these. He suggested adding 'interpretation' to the list of items for inclusion in access management plans. At para 7, he agreed that many organisations already exist to offer advice and the aim should be to integrate these. The National Park Authorities could fulfil such a role in those areas.

82. The NT representative felt that LAFs should be the focus for the provision of local access advice through their role in bringing together different interest groups. Mechanisms already exist to provide advice, and organisations such as NT would provide advice to their tenants. Wardens could assist with the provision of advice even before new access rights are in place. He did not see a need for a separate advisory service.

83. The CLA representative expressed CLA's interest in working with CA to provide advice and promote good practice. He emphasised the role of bodies such as FWAG and ADAS in providing advice and suggested CA should put in place a structure to inform and co-ordinate the information which they provide. It should be possible to develop the access assessment manual produced several years ago by the CLA with Agency grant aid.

84. The BMC representative said experience suggested that land managers know how to obtain advice on the management of activities such as mountaineering. In BMC's experience it was possible to provide a contact number and a single representative for each area where local advice is required. 

85. The MA representative felt that CA should be proactive in providing advice on access management. Provision of grant aid would be particularly important. He was concerned at the expense that would be incurred by landowners in the provision of signs etc.

86. The RA representative offered the RA's help in testing different approaches to the delivery of access advice (para 10.b).

87. Bob Roberts explained that the reference to MAFF in para 9 had arisen because MAFF was currently undertaking research into the effectiveness of advisory services. Talks with FWAG and other relevant bodies were also in hand. He added that a telephone hotline will be opened to assist with queries arising from the mapping process, and that this may be extended to assist with other issues. From the discussion he saw a need for provision of a local advice service at estate level, possibly through an existing organisation. This advice was different from the more strategic advice that Local Access Forums would provide.

NCAF 10/4 - PERMANENT ACCESS DEDICATIONS UNDER THE CROW ACT

88. Paul Johnson introduced the paper and asked for the Forum's views on how to promote effective use of the voluntary dedication power.

89. William Bird welcomed the option in the Act to dedicate land, which he saw as very important in creating opportunities for access near areas of demand. With the move towards new rural housing, he saw a possibility to link planning consent with the dedication of land for access. This would increase availability of access land near to where people live.

90. The NFU representative, referring to para 9, felt that the Forestry Commission should consult with the freeholder before dedicating leasehold land with, say, 99 years rather that 999 years of the lease left to run. The Forestry Commission representative replied that the Commission, in discussion with DETR and CA, was already considering this issue. 

91. The BHS representative welcomed the paper. She felt that the prospect of dedication was exciting, and there should be an obligation on owners of public or quasi-public land to dedicate it both for walking and for higher rights. The latter could be achieved through dedication of linear access rights for riders etc.

92. The RSPB representative suggested that CA could proactively encourage the use of dedication to extend the boundaries of registered common land to physical features where there was no such correlation at present. He was concerned that dedication of land of nature conservation importance could adversely affect its conservation value. EN should be consulted where dedication of land with conservation status (e.g. SSSIs, SPAs, SACs) was considered.

93. The CTC representative raised the need for cash incentives for private owners to dedicate land. 

94. The Chairman said that CA would like to encourage public and semi-public bodies, including local authorities and statutory undertakers, to use the dedication powers. The Agency believed that the Government should advocate a 'stocktaking' approach by all such bodies to identify land they hold that is suitable for dedication. Once the dedication regulations were made, the Agency would proactively promote such an approach. 

NCAF 10/5 - COUNTRYSIDE AND RIGHTS OF WAY ACT - COMMENCEMENT

95. Bob Roberts introduced this paper, which was prepared in response to Forum members' requests for further information on commencement. He stressed that the eventual date of commencement would be determined by the Secretary of State and would be influenced by the regulations drawn up on mapping and restrictions.

96. The Chairman asked Forum members to write to CA with any comments on commencement. 

REVIEW OF NCAF MEMBERSHIP

97. The Chairman said that the advice CA has received from Forum members over the two years since NCAF was established had been extremely valuable, and CA would not like to see the quality of this advice diminish in any way. CA was looking for ways to make the Forum more inclusive as its role develops. There were two vacancies for independent members for which nominations were sought, and she suggested that an appointee could be from an educational background. She invited Forum members' comments on the scope of NCAF's discussions and for any nominations.

98. The BHS representative expressed regret that there had been so little consideration of rights of way issues by the Forum and asked whether these could be given greater priority.

99. The CTC representative endorsed this view. She said that cycling is promoted by the Government under its policies on health and transport, and the Forum should broaden its agendas to consider more issues related to cycling for those reasons.

100. The CLA representative commented on the value of the Forum and hoped that over time its approach to access would become more integrated. There would become a need for more technical advice, and a role may emerge for specialist working groups. He suggested that a representative from a farming advisory body, such as FWAG, should be invited onto the Forum.

101. The NT representative felt that the Forum should develop a broader perspective on access. It should consider more strategic access issues, such as the CA's role in initiatives in the Rural White Paper. 

102. The RA representative commented that the approach to open access and to rights of way issues require different philosophies and expertise and should be treated separately. The philosophy behind access was one of politics and management, whereas rights of way issues tended to focus on complex areas of law. He felt that the Forum should not try to tackle these contrasting issues.

103. William Bird commented on the value of the Forum's strategic approach to access, and hoped that this could be extended to rights of way issues. He warned against the Forum itself becoming too deeply concerned with technical legal issues on rights of way.

104. Bishop Alan Chesters commented that access will in time become a matter for law and may ultimately require technical working groups, as has become the role of the Rights of Way Review Committee. He added that access and rights of way issues were closely related but remained concerned that NCAF meetings would have greater relevance to some members than others if the agenda tackled issues not of broad interest. He saw a continuing need for a visionary body to address policy related to all aspects of public access to the countryside.

105. The Chairman thanked members for their comments and suggested that the Forum move on to discuss the recent outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease.

FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE 

106. The BMC representative opened the debate by stating that the BMC, together with other organisations from the outdoor education sector on whose behalf he was speaking, were proactively encouraging the observance of good practice guidance. He expressed sympathy with the problems facing the farming community but also wished to draw to the Forum's attention the impact that the restrictions on access were having on tourism and other business interests in the countryside. He presented the following figures:

• 80% of outdoor education centres were now closed and the remaining 20% were operating a reduced programme.
• Closures were costing the outdoor education sector approximately £5 million per week
• The National Mountain Centre at Plas y Brenin was closed at the cost of 40 casual staff jobs, and 65 permanent staff were on a reduced working week. This was costing the centre £30,000 per week. £750,000 per week was being lost to centres across Wales.  

107. He supported the Government's suggestion of a series of zones, which would allow business activities to continue where this is appropriate.

108. The TGWU representative commented that in addition to farmers many business associated with farming industry were severely affected. 

• 150,000 of their members were employed in industries connected with the food chain 
• 19,000 people had been laid off so far  

His concern was for the many people who were suffering financially who would not be eligible to received Government support.

109. The CTC representative commented that CTC has distributed good practice advice to its members. She commented that there appeared to be a lack of scientific knowledge on how the disease spreads. She felt strongly that evidence-based advice on the measures required to halt spread of the disease was required by non-Departmental Government agencies and that, once eradicated, ways should be sought to ensure that the virus cannot be re-introduced.

110. The ANPA representative commented on the magnitude of the problems faced by those living in National Parks, particularly those with hill flocks. He felt that the message should be emphasised that many tourist activities could continue. Experience had shown that visitors had been very responsible in adhering to the constraints. However, recently some visitors and tourism operators were becoming aggressive in their demand for some access to be permitted, particularly those organisations which were suffering financial loss.

111. The CLA representative welcomed the supportive action taken by the public and others, and he stressed the need to consider ways to relax restrictions in locations far from areas affected by the disease. A rural relief programme was being developed by the CLA, and there remained a need to invest in supporting the rural economy. In the long-term, he believed that consideration should be given to the management of the food chain. 

112. The NT representative commented on evidence of the frustration of those seeking access to the countryside. He hoped that restrictions could be relaxed in areas with a minimum risk. He emphasised the need to segregate people from livestock, and added that the NT was working in consultation with other professional bodies to develop criteria to guide the relaxation of restrictions.

113. The Chairman thanked Forum members for their comments. She mentioned that this would be Bishop Alan Chesters's last NCAF meeting, as his term as a CA Board member would soon be completed. She thanked him for all his help and advice during the passage of the CROW Act.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

114. There was no further business.

ARRANGEMENTS FOR NEXT MEETING

115. The next NCAF meeting will be held on Wednesday 6 June - venue to be confirmed.