Minutes of the 11th Meeting of the NCAF
Chairman: Pam Warhurst (Countryside Agency (CA))
Mr Tim Bennett (National Farmers Union (NFU))
Air Cdr Simon Bostock (Moorland Association (MA))
Mr Richard Brown (Local Government Association (LGA))
Mr Hugo Blomfield (National Trust (NT))
Sir Edward Greenwell (Country Land and Business Association (CLA))
Mr Tim Marshall (Independent Member)
Mr Ian Mercer (Association of National Park Authorities (ANPA))
Mr Iain McMorrin (British Mountaineering Council (BMC))
Mr Jerry Pearlman (Ramblers Association (RA))
Mrs Stephanie Wheeler (British Horse Society (BHS))
Mr Gwyn Williams (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB))
Observers
Graham Bathe (English Nature)
Hugh Craddock (DETR)
Peter Hodgson (Defence Estates)
Chris Probert (Forestry Commission)
Gareth Roberts (CCW)
Dominic Rowland (MAFF)
Roger Smith (DETR)
Countryside Agency Staff
Bob Roberts
Nadia Little
Kirsty Shaw
Susanna Perkins
(about 50 members of the public attended the meeting)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE were received from: Pam Ashton (CTC), Jo Burgon (NT), Barry Leathwood (TGWU), Kate Parminter (CPRE), William Bird (Independent Member);
and from the following observers: Stephen Cane (MAFF), Susan Carter (DETR), Robin King (NAW), Eileen McKeever (EA), Stephen Trow (EH), Jon Tomlinson (CA).
Chair's Introduction
1. The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. She extended a special welcome to those attending for the first time -
Richard Brown - who has taken over representation of the Local Government AssociationHugo Blomfield - representing the National Trust in place of Jo Burgon2. The Chairman noted with regret that this would be Simon Bostock's last meeting as the Moorland Association's nominated representative, and she thanked Simon for his commitment and valuable contribution over the past two years.
Minutes of the Last Meeting
3. The MA representative asked that para 54 be amended to record his concern that walkers would not be aware of short notice restrictions on access unless entry onto the land through access points be made mandatory.
4. The minutes were approved, subject to the above change being made.
Matters Arising
5. The CLA representative expressed concern that inconsistencies would result between mapping in England and Wales because of differences in the definitions of mountain, moor, heath and down, and differences in the mapping methodology.
6. Bob Roberts replied that the mapping methodology in England had been finalised incorporating some minor amendments, and there was very little difference between the methodologies used in England and Wales. Gareth Roberts added that CCW had slightly different data sets from those available to the Agency but that the close liaison that exists between the agencies would ensure that very little, if any, difference would result.
7. Tim Marshall raised the question of signs warning of hazards on open country which landowners might feel obliged to post in order to discharge their liability. He felt that the posting of large numbers of such signs would be unwelcome and sought clarification of the Agency's position. Bob Roberts replied that work was in hand to investigate the legal aspects of restrictions for safety purposes, and this would guide the Agency's thinking.
CROW ACT - ORAL REPORTS ON PROGRESS TOWARDS IMPLEMENTION
8. The Chairman introduced this agenda item, in which Agency staff would give an update on progress in principal aspects of the Agency's work.
Update on Mapping
9. Kirsty Shaw said that the mapping methodology had been circulated to over 200 organisations and had received a good and supportive response. Comments had been evaluated and incorporated, and the final document detailing the methodology would be available on the Agency's website shortly. The Agency had worked closely with CCW to ensure that both methodologies are consistent, particularly on the areas of discretion. Mapping had now started in the two lead areas and was on course for the draft maps for these areas to be issued by the end of September.
10. Presentations on the methodology and consultation plan had been made at three meetings for organisations' national representatives, and a series of regional meetings was now under way. Press releases with information on the work in hand had gone out in the lead areas.
11. The MA representative commented that he had written to offer his organisation's assistance in Mapping Area 2 but had not had a response from Binnie Black & Veatch (BBV). Bob Roberts thanked the MA for their offer and assured all members of the importance of their support in this work.
12. The BMC representative drew attention to the terminology used in the information pack-up, some of which was misleading. As an example, he cited use of the word "prohibit" to describe activities which were not permitted under the Act. This should be replaced with "restricted", to indicate that the activity was restricted under Schedule 2, and he stressed the importance of this level of detail being correct. Hugh Craddock (DEFRA) confirmed that the Act sets out what may be pursued as a statutory right but does not change or diminish freedoms enjoyed on a de facto basis in the past, or which may be enjoyed on this basis in the future. Bob Roberts asked that any inconsistencies of this type be brought to the Agency's attention.
13. The BHS representative said that her organisation had not been included in the meeting for users' national representatives to which equivalent organisations had been invited. Bob Roberts said that this oversight would be looked into.
14. The RA representative asked for clarification of the expression "wholly and predominantly". Bob Roberts commented that a full explanation would be given in the mapping methodology which would be published on the website within the next few days.
15. The BMC representative asked what steps the Agency would take to encourage land managers to dedicate land under section 16 of the Act. He also asked if coastal heath would be included in the definition of access land or whether such areas would fall under any subsequent mapping to provide access rights to coastal land under section 3.
16. Bob Roberts explained that the Agency's approach to encouraging use of section 16 would become clearer when the regulations on dedications had been drafted. The Agency was currently considering producing model agreements to assist land owners interested in dedication. The possibility of using grant aid would also be considered, but the Agency could make no commitments at this stage. The Agency would use dedication to seek opportunities to increase access for activities beyond those permitted under the Act in addition to increasing the extent of access land.
17. Kirsty Shaw confirmed that coastal heath would be included as access land where it conformed to the criteria given in the mapping methodology.
Update on Restrictions
18. Susanna Perkins reported that a paper on restrictions incorporating the principles developed through NCAF had recently been endorsed by the Agency Board. A consultation paper was now being drafted, which would include the key issues and the criteria against which applications for additional restrictions would be judged. The Agency intended to synchronise its public consultation with DETR's consultation on the associated regulations later in the year. The timing of this was later than anticipated due to the diversion of DETR officials onto work arising from the Foot and Mouth outbreak. The Agency's intention is to have guidance for land managers and relevant authorities published next year at the time when the local restrictions system opens for business in the lead areas.
19. The CLA representative expressed concern that the restrictions system would not be in place at the time when draft maps were produced. Bob Roberts explained that the system cannot be finalised until regulations are in place, and this was unlikely to be before 2002. The Agency will work closely with English Nature, English Heritage, Defence Estates and others to provide as much information on restrictions as possible.
20. The MA representative commented that he had passed to the Agency his organisation's views on the apportionment of discretionary restrictions between entitled persons, which had been acknowledged. However, he was not aware that DETR had sought views on this issue outside their organisation and suggested that a workshop should be set up to consider this. Roger Smith acknowledged the MA's offer of assistance on land ownership issues.
Update on Local Access Forums
21. Nadia Little reported that the Agency was working closely with DETR on the preparation of regulations. Public consultation on these would be held during the summer and regulations should be made in the autumn. Funding would be made available to local authorities for the establishment of LAFs. DETR and the Agency were discussing the form and content of guidance, and how this would fit in with other guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
22. BBV's meetings with LAFs during the formal consultation period in the lead mapping areas would provide an opportunity to present general comments on draft maps. The Agency's regional staff were encouraging local authorities to set up LAFs so that these would be in a position to comment on draft maps.
23. Gareth Roberts added that CCW and the Agency were aware of the importance of delivering access in the border area in a consistent way. A LAF had been set up in the Black Mountains. It was not possible for this to be a cross-border Forum but representatives from Herefordshire had been invited to meetings, and cross border issues would be discussed.
24. Roger Smith reported that DETR was working on regulations but could not confirm the timetable for these due to the imminent General Election and possible changes within Government.
25. The LGA representative asked whether the Agency's guidance and DETR guidance would be separate documents. Roger Smith explained that there was scope for three sets of guidance. He acknowledged the potential for overlap and the difficulties that this could cause. DETR and the Agency were discussing the best approach.
26. The BHS representative raised the question of whether access forums that already existed could be carried forward to become a LAF, and she asked that local authorities be encouraged to do this. Bob Roberts explained this could be done where existing forums were modified to conform to the regulations.
27. The MA representative commented that in some areas lack of funding was preventing local authorities from setting up LAFs on a scale small enough to meet local needs.
28. The CLA representative said it was crucial that LAFs were set up early enough to consider maps and early applications for restrictions in the lead regions. He was concerned that the mapping programme was getting ahead of work on LAFs and restrictions.
29. The Chairman raised the importance of Forum members' networking with associated organisations within their field to ensure that as many people as possible were aware of development on all these issues.
Update on Foot and Mouth Disease
30. Susanna Perkins drew attention to the paper 'Reopening Rights of Way' and reported on recent progress made through the RoW and Access Land Fund. Phase One of the Fund had run to the end of May, giving priority to schemes which would maximise visitor use. Nearly 50% of the RoW network across England was now open, including large sections of National Trails.
31. The Agency had announced Phase Two of the Fund, which would focus on (i) re-opening paths and access land in regions where FMD cases still occur; (ii) National Trails and popular areas in National Parks, and (iii) information and promotional work. MAFF guidance (since 23 May) recommended that authorities proceed rapidly to re-open RoW in areas outside the 3 km protection zone around infected premises, and that precautions are widely publicised.
NCAF 11/1 - CONSULTING ON THE BOUNDARIES OF OPEN ACCESS LAND - PRESENTATION BY BINNIE, BLACK & VEATCH
32. Kirsty Shaw presented a short paper and introduced Kevin Read (BBV) who gave a presentation on the mapping consultation. She asked for any written comments from Forum members by 26 June.
33. [The content of Kevin Read's presentation is attached to these minutes.] Forum members complimented BBV on an informative and comprehensive presentation.
34. Commenting on the targeted leaflet drop, the CLA representative asked that special efforts be made to contact land managers with details of the consultation, as many would not be members of nationally represented organisations. He stressed the need for information to be passed to all local authorities within a mapping region, and to ensure that those with small areas of land within a region were not overlooked. He asked that comments on draft maps be accepted by email. He expressed concern that the 6 month period allowed to consider appeals would be too short.
35. Kevin Read responded that the strategy for delivering leaflets would be adjusted to suit the circumstances in each region and that coverage would be comprehensive. He said that comments on draft maps could be received in any format provided that the nature of the representation and the area to which it referred were clear. A central point for receipt of emails would be considered. He confirmed that all local authorities within a mapping region would be provided with the necessary information.
36. Kirsty Shaw added that responses on draft maps would need to include specific information and that the use of forms would help ensure that this was included. However, their use would not be mandatory.
37. The RA representative was concerned that comments submitted in a non-formal manner would not be given proper consideration and warned against making the process too bureaucratic. He also raised the need for comprehensive publicity that the consultation exercise was in hand. Kevin Read said experience suggested that newspapers were not always the best means to advertise consultation exercises and that plans to include wider local media (radio as well as printed media) were being considered.
38. Bob Roberts said that, to be accountable, the Agency must be able to properly record the comments made on draft maps, knowing the source and the precise details of the representation. The Agency needed to balance these requirements with flexibility regarding the form and means by which the comments could be submitted.
39. The RA representative asked for clarification of the status of land under an access agreement (section 15 land) when the agreement expires. Bob Roberts explained that formal maps would not be amended at the time of the expiry of an access agreement, but he agreed that a means was needed to illustrate the status of the land. The use of non-statutory overlays was an option. This issue would be given further consideration. Hugh Craddock added that the existence of an access agreement would not alter the identification of the land as open country. If the land was mapped as open country then access rights under the CROW Act would take effect on expiry of the access agreement.
40. Tim Marshall said it was important that the public be made aware at draft map stage of what areas of mapped open country would on commencement be available for access. He asked for clarification of the timetable for the publication of regulations.
41. Hugh Craddock said that the consultation remained open until 20 June. It was too early to comment on the outcome of the consultation exercise. The intention was that regulations would be in place to allow the Agency to publish draft maps in the lead areas on schedule.
42. The NFU representative agreed with other Forum members that the flexibility to submit comments on maps in a non-formal manner had not been satisfactorily addressed. He felt that receipt of comments by email should be allowed. The official proforma should be made available in an electronic format. He stressed the importance of getting the information on mapping to all land owners and farmers. He offered the NFUs assistance and added that linkage of websites would be possible to facilitate this.
43. Kirsty Shaw confirmed that comments by emails would be accepted if the required information was given.
44. The LGA representative said that the linkage of websites of local authorities, and other organisations such as IPROW and CMA, would help facilitate communication. He added that where drafts maps were available for inspection at local authority offices, their staff would require sufficient briefing to enable them to handle any enquiries.
45. The MA representative requested that a copy of the presentation slides be send to all Forum members. He asked whether, where mapping was undertaken on a scale of 1:10,000 these maps would be available. Kirsty Shaw explained that the OS licensing agreement did not permit reproduction of maps at this scale. However, she confirmed that these maps would be available for viewing through the offices of local authorities, and the digital record would be made available for inspection in the Agency's offices.
ACTION. Countryside Agency to distribute copies of the presentation slides to NCAF members.
46. The MA representative asked whether the information shown on the consultation video would also be available in CD format. Kevin Read explained that two versions of the video would be produced - a long version for use in workshops and a shorter version for distribution to parish councils and others. The possibility of converting this to CD ROM format was being considered but he anticipated there could be technical difficulties.
47. The MA representative asked that, to minimise the volume of appeals on provisional maps, there should be direct consultation where necessary with land managers regarding their comments on draft maps. Bob Roberts replied that the CROW Act does not allow the Agency to negotiate directly with individuals regarding what is shown on maps.
48. The RSPB representative commented that the consultation plan does not address the extent of non-statutory overlays. He raised the need to show areas likely to be subject to restrictions for nature conservation at the time that draft maps are produced. He also mentioned the possible role for dedication of land to enable the boundaries of access land to be mapped to physical features where existing registered common land boundaries do not coincide with features on the ground.
49. Kirsty Shaw confirmed that information on long-term restrictions could be shown as non-statutory overlays where this was known and reasonably certain.
50. The ANPA representative asked how members of the public who did not possess the means to download maps from the internet would be able to obtain a copy of the draft map. Kirsty Shaw said that means were being considered to make maps available in other ways. The costs involved would constrain what the Agency was able to offer.
51. The BMC representative said that, where the boundary of open country followed a cliff edge, it should be made clear on maps whether this boundary ran along the top or bottom of the cliff. He added that the boundary should include the cliff face wherever possible.
52. The RA representative asked who would formally approve changes made to the draft maps, and whether a site visit would be undertaken. Bob Roberts replied that the formal decision would be taken by the Agency Board, but in practice consideration of changes would be undertaken by other trained individuals. The decision-making tree agreed in the mapping methodology would be followed, and the only changes made would be where it was clear that the information used for mapping was incorrect or that a poor judgement had been made on where the boundary of open country should lie. Field visits would be considered on a case by case basis.
53. The NT representative commented that some of the issues raised had been addressed in DETR's consultation on regulations and asked whether the Forum's comments would be considered further by DETR. Hugh Craddock responded that DETR's consultation was still open for comment.
54. The Chairman asked for any further comments on the consultation plan in writing.
NCAF 11/2 - ACCESS TRAINING STRATEGY
55. Nadia Little presented a paper on the Agency's proposals for training. She said that the Agency wished to support the training of a wide variety of audiences and highlighted the need for partnership in delivering this. She asked for any written comments on the paper by 30 June. The strategy would be finalised following receipt of comments from Forum members and others. The training strategy would commence in September in the lead areas and would roll out as mapping progressed to the other regions.
56. The BHS representative asked which members of LAFs would be eligible for training. Nadia Little explained that local authorities would determine which members would be offered training.
57. The BHS representative mentioned that training for research into historic Rights of Way was not due to start until 2002 and asked whether funding would be available in advance. Nadia Little agreed to look into this and respond.
58. The BHS representative suggested that local authorities' and users' representatives should be trained together. This would have benefits for consistency in their approach. Nadia Little explained that local authorities would determine how the training was run at a local level.
59. The LGA representative welcomed the Agency's approach and said that the LGA would be pleased to work in partnership. He said that training would be particularly important for local authority staff in areas where draft maps would be available for consultation. Referring to Table 1 of the paper, he felt that training on RoW should be included with other issues under a theme of "improving access networks".
60. The BMC representative mentioned the important role of heads of outdoor education centres in training young people and asked that they be considered in the training strategy. Nadia Little asked for a contact in that network.
61. The CLA representative felt that training should be offered to all members of LAFs, not only "key members".
62. The NT representative referred to the Trust's experience in training and offered the organisation's support.
63. The Chairman said that any further comments on the strategy would be welcome and asked for these to be sent in writing to the Agency.
NCAF 11/3 - ACCESS AND THE LOCAL ECONOMY
64. Bob Roberts introduced the paper which was intended to explore, in a creative and visionary way, means to make access a benefit to everyone. He saw this as an opportunity to discuss funding - including that through agri-environment schemes and lottery sources - which could be used to create positive linkages between access and the economic well-being of rural areas.
65. The RA representative supported the contents of paras 1 to 9 and welcomed the illustration of the problems currently existing in the countryside. However, he did not support the comments in para 10 to 18. He said that the issue of Inheritance Tax was complex and had already been explored. He was particularly concerned by comments in paras 13 and 16 which he believed showed tacit support for arguments presented during the passage of the CROW Bill through parliament that land managers would suffer financially from the introduction of access rights onto their land.
66. Bob Roberts responded that the Agency was looking for opportunities to improve the management of access and to create incentives for the reversion of land to a less intensive form of management. This could then be accessible to the public (where subsequently qualifying as 'open country') in addition to having nature conservation benefits - for example, reversion to heath and down in southern England.
67. The Chairman stressed that the intention behind the paper was to initiate general discussion of access in the context of sustainable land management in the long-term.
68. The ANPA representative supported the objective behind the paper but was also concerned at the wording of paras 10 to 18. He commented that some management agreements, such as Tir Cymen, included an access element.
69. The BMC representative congratulated the Agency on an excellent paper. He supported the idea behind a Land Management Initiative and the proposal for a strategy for sustainable land management. He added that the BMC had recently established a Rural Development Panel with the aim of encouraging BMC members to consider ways to support the economies of the areas which they visit. He offered to make the findings of this group's work available to the Agency.
70. The BHS representative welcomed the Agency's work to address the issue of an access element in incentive schemes. She expressed sympathy with the RA representative's comments on Inheritance Tax. She explained that money for RoW improvement had often not been forthcoming because this work fell within the statutory role of some organisations. She saw a need to make provision of RoW more attractive to land managers.
71. The LGA representative welcomed the paper but did not see access as a critical prerequisite to a thriving rural economy. RoW had historically created a source of tension because the decisions made on them were often divorced from land management needs and tourism strategies. He saw scope for addressing this through RoW Improvement Plans which would attract wide interest and which could be linked to community needs.
72. The MA representative felt very strongly that the FMD outbreak and associated culling of livestock would have a long-term effect on many land managers. He was particularly concerned with paras 13, 15 and 16 and urged caution in pursuing these suggestions. He said that the suggestions would receive a strong negative reaction from land managers if any existing financial support was withdrawn.
73. The RSPB representative felt this was an important paper and commented on the benefits to wildlife and people's health which could be delivered. He welcomed the vision in the paper and said this was an important goal to try to secure.
74. The CLA representative supported the MA representative's comments and said that the incentives must be positive.
75. The NFU representative commented that some of the statistics quoted in the paper were open to misinterpretation. He did not support all the issues raised in the paper but agreed that more money should be put toward agri-environment schemes. He was concerned that any alteration to the existing Inheritance Tax arrangements would lose the support of farmers, who would be vital partners in delivering improved access.
76. Bob Roberts emphasised that the Agency's intention was to assist those who manage the land. He drew attention to para 7 - that in many areas "there is often no direct relationship between the accessibility of land to the public and the income that can be derived from its produce". This was a key point in the paper which had been highlighted by the FMD outbreak, and something which the Agency seeks to address. He acknowledged the comments made by the BHS and LGA representatives concerning RoWs.
77. The RA representative added that he had no objection to the provision of grants but said that there should not be a direct relationship between access and finance. He felt that the issues raised in paras 10 to 18 were not wholly accepted by NCAF and asked that his objection to these paragraphs be minuted.
78. The CLA representative supported the notion that access could be both by agreement and under the measures introduced in the CROW Act.
79. The Chairman thanked Forum members for their comments. She acknowledged that there were sensitivities and areas of disagreement but felt that the underlying vision in the paper was valuable. She stressed that the paper did not seek to introduce compensation for access to land owners; rather it encouraged consideration of ways in which everyone could benefit from access. She felt that too much emphasis had been placed on financial aspects in the discussion, which was not the basis of the paper. She explained that this paper did not represent the Agency's definitive position on this issue but was intended to stimulate discussion.
80. The Chairman said that the Forum's comments would be taken into consideration when preparing a paper on sustainable land management which would be submitted to the Agency Board. She asked that all Forum members be given a copy of this paper when it had been presented to the Board, and that subsequent discussion would be considered.
ACTION. Countryside Agency to circulate copies of the Agency Board paper on sustainable land management when available.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
81. The Chairman raised the issue of networking and asked all Forum members to network as widely as possible to help disseminate information available to NCAF amongst organisations within their field of interest.
82. The BMC representative suggested that an Annual Conference be held in 2002, and that all organisations with which NCAF members networked should be invited. The Chairman agreed to consider this.
83. The Chairman regretted that there was insufficient time to respond to questions from the public orally and confirmed that the questions submitted would be answered in writing.
ARRANGEMENTS FOR NEXT MEETING
84. The next NCAF meeting was scheduled for Monday 24th and Tuesday 25th September. The intention was to hold a site visit on the Monday and the NCAF meeting on the morning of the Tuesday. The Agency would consider the advisability of holding a site visit and a possible location, and would write to members shortly to confirm the arrangements.
[Note: the meeting on 24/25 September has subsequently been postponed]
