Minutes of the 15th Meeting of the NCAF
Present:
Chairman: Pam Warhurst (Countryside Agency) (CA)
Pam Ashton (Cyclists Touring Club) (CTC)
Hugo Blomfield (National Trust) (NT)
Richard Brown (Local Government Association) (LGA)
Bob Cartwright (Association of National Park Authorities) (ANPA)
Andrew Clark (National Farmers Union) (NFU)
Mark Hudson (Country Land and Business Association) (CLA)
Iain McMorrin (British Mountaineering Council) (BMC)
Andrew Sutcliffe (The Moorland Association) (MA)
Margaret Thomas (Ramblers Association) (RA)
Stephanie Wheeler (British Horse Society) (BHS)
Gwyn Williams (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) (RSPB)
Observers
Quentin Grimley (Countryside Council for Wales) (CCW)
Graham Bathe (English Nature) (EN)
John Mackay (Scottish Natural Heritage) (SNH)
William Crookshank (Environment Agency)
Countryside Agency Staff
Jon Tomlinson
Roger Ward
Andrew Chester
Richard Tibenham
Joanne Hall
Karen Gillibrand
(About 40 members of the public attended the meeting)
CHAIRS INTRODUCTION
1. The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. Greeting William Crookshank from the Environment Agency, Bob Cartwright from the Association of National Park Authorities and Margaret Thomas from the Ramblers Association. Chairman invited members to advise and guide the CA on implementation and information, using the presented papers as a guide.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
2. Apologies were received from:
Members: Tim Bennet (NFU), Barry Leathwood (TGWU), Jo Burgon (NT), Jerry Pearlman (RA), Ian Mercer (ANPA), David Payne (Sport England).
Observers: Susan Carter (DEFRA), Judith Williams (Ministry of Defence), Peter Hodgson (Defence Estates), Gareth Roberts (CCW), Chris Probert (Forestry Commission).
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING (HELD ON 11TH JULY)
3. Iain McMorrin (BMC) clarified that, in Paragraphs 7 and 9, his question to Hugh Cradock (DEFRA) was if he could explain implications of the change to the guidance would give any increased status to anyone going on to another person’s land with their consent or implied consent. Hugh impressed the point that changes to the guidance would not affect this in any way.
3a. Pam Ashton advised that in Para 11 her comment on Local Access Forums should include at the end the phrase “on the draft guidance”.
MATTERS ARISING
4. Para 21 - Guidance. Mark Hudson (CLA) said that guidance for the Planning Inspectorate is urgently required, and asked to be advised as to when it would be issued.
5. Roger Ward (CA) confirmed that the guidance to the Planning Inspectorate would have to be available to inspectors before they answer any appeals.
6. Para 23 - Mark Hudson (CLA) asked the Countryside Agency whether money would be made available to fund roadshows across the Country.
7. Roger Ward (CA) confirmed that Roadshows were crucial & that the Agency has set aside money for Areas 6, 7 & 8. In areas 7 and 8, the Agency intends to carry out smaller ‘surgery’ type road shows to allow consultation at more locations over these much larger areas.
8. Para 26 - With reference to small areas of open country, Mark Hudson (CLA) highlighted to members that in Bob Roberts’ (CA) response that parcels must meet one or more criteria, not all, it would be helpful to clarify that this was in order for a parcel to be excluded from mapped access land.
9. Para 27 - Mark Hudson requested an update on the Sussex Common Land Register that was damaged by fire.
9. Jon Tomlinson (CA) responded with advice that before the Agency would review the maps of East Sussex on completion of the maps of areas 7 and 8, provided sufficient funds were available and East Sussex County Council had finished a review of their register of common land.
10. Para 27 - Andrew Clark (NFU) asked whether the Agency would be re-mapping the whole of East Sussex, or just the affected area.
11. Roger Ward (CA) confirmed that the East Sussex map will be remapped in order to include registered common land on the East Sussex commons register. This was backed up by Jon Tomlinson who pointed out that on release of the conclusive maps the only land that will be omitted is registered common land that is not open country. Omitted common land will be included as soon as the new register of common land is made available to the CA.
12. Para 25, Iain McMorrin (BMC) referred to a conversation he had had at the dinner with the Minister, regarding a small piece of land near Todmordon. Action was agreed at this meeting, however nothing has taken place in the interim period. P20180 is a parcel of land which was mapped as open country, it has recreational value to climbers. However it was taken off the map under the no useful purpose rule. Ian McMorrin questioned why the Countryside Agency have not rectified this error and replaced the parcel back onto the map.
13. Roger Ward responded, stating that the Agency has no power to put land back on the maps at the provisional map stage. Ian McMorrin stated that this was unacceptable and would compromise the BMC’s position in respect of persuading its members that the mapping was a fair process.
14. Pam Warhurst responded by stating the fact that by law, the Agency can not change details on the provisional map. Despite the fact that this may be seen as a flaw in the regulations, the Agency does not have the legal power to correct these kind of errors. In respect of this, the Agency is constrained by the law and can only learn from its mistakes.
15. Roger Ward stated that the Agency is recording any errors that are discovered and in order to correct them on review. He also clarified that new regulations did not give the Agency the power to correct any error in the decision to include or exclude any parcel from the maps, but only administrative errors in transcribing recorded decisions to the map..
16. Pam Ashton (Cyclist Touring Club) stated that members of the West Yorkshire Access Forum had discovered examples of areas greater than five hectares that had appeared on the draft map but have now disappeared on the provisional map. A lot of these parcels were intake areas and she suggested that these areas had most likely been excluded from he maps as a result of comments by land managers. The removal of such land has resulted in a patch work of land on the provisional map, although it is all ‘open’ in character. This will confuse both recreational users and land managers, because of the difficulty for users in distinguishing land that has been mapped from land which has not, despite evident similarities.
17. Pam Ashton recommended that people wishing to walk on land that looks of similar character should be encouraged to submit comments in support of any appeals that may arise on those areas.
18. Roger Ward requested information about the area Pam Ashton referred to in order to consider her comments in more detail.
19. Pam Warhurst thanked Pam Ashton for her useful comments.
20. Margaret Thomas (Ramblers Association) reported similar feedback from their members to the comments from West Yorkshire Local Access Forum. She requested confirmation as to whether organisations will be informed when a review of the maps goes ahead, and whether they will have a chance to be consulted.
21. Roger Ward expected that organisations will be able to comment on the maps as and when a review takes place as during the original consultation, but when review happens will be dependant on when money is available. He emphasised that it was important to understand where the outcome in areas 1 and 2
22. Pam Warhurst pointed out that funding is key, and that whilst the Agency has got the large majority of land mapped correctly, we will need to correct errors at review.
23. Para. 61 - Stephanie Wheeler (British Horse Society) requested information on research into historic rights of way and whether a trust will be set up for these areas.
24. Jon Tomlinson outlined the contents of a paper on this project which has gone to the CA Board, details are currently on the web site and will be issued to NCAF members in a paper at the next meeting. He promised a short report on the project at the next meeting.
ACTION - Agency to forward Board paper on Lost Ways project and to prepare short report to members on the Lost Ways project at the next meeting.
25. Pam Warhurst apologised that this issue was not submitted as a paper, as it did arise as a point of action in the last meeting.
26. Para. 21 - Margaret Thomas (Ramblers Association) requested whether or not guidance to the Planning Inspectorate would be made available to the public upon its release.
27. Para. 54 - 55 - Margaret Thomas (Ramblers Association) requested an update on plans for a national countryside access database and emphasised the importance of the project to her organisation.
28. Para. 24 - She asked that it be recorded that the Agency’s assurance had been withdrawn that it would respond to those who submitted comments on the draft maps explaining its decisions on the land parcels concerned.
29. Pam Warhurst advised that Margaret's first query would be addressed by the Information Paper 15/ 2 ‘Access Information Programme’ by Richard Tibenham, later in the meeting.
30. In response to Margaret's query on Appeals Guidance, Roger Ward confirmed that any guidance issued to the Planning Inspectorate would be available for public viewing.
31. Roger Ward also confirmed that the Agency was happy to engage with local interests to discuss the outcomes of the mapping process in the lead areas, subject to constraints on staff time and availability.
32. Iain McMorrin (BMC) requested assurance that errors on the provisional mapped will be addressed at the first available opportunity.
33. Pam Warhurst iterated that this would be the case, identifying that inaccuracies on the conclusive maps are unacceptable. These errors will be addressed, as soon as a review is granted.
34. Andrew Clark ( NFU) pointed out a distinction that may not be clear in public minds between errors in the application of the mapping methodology on the one hand and where the methodology was applied correctly but did not meet the expectations of the public.
AGENCY Update on progress
35. Margaret Thomas (Ramblers Association) asked whether, following the closing date for comments on the draft maps for Area 3, the Agency would be pulling together any statistics, as was the case for areas 1 and 2. It was requested that some comparative figures would be of use.
36. A date was requested for the release of Draft maps for Area 5.
37. Roger Ward stated that the Agency would not be able to provide any statistics on area 3 until the it has finished processing the comments. As and when this task is complete, the Agency will provide the same statistics that there were made available for areas 1 and 2.
38. In response to the query regarding the release date of draft maps for area 5, Roger indicated that 1 month’s notice would be given upon the release of an official date and that currently we were looking at a release date of mid-March. An announcement will therefore be made, in the coming weeks.
39. Gwyn Williams (RSPB) asked about progress on determining the extent of section 26 restrictions with English Nature.
40. Roger Ward responded acknowledging that this programme has been delayed, but progress is currently being reviewed.
41. Mark Hudson (CLA) asked whether NCAF members will have an opportunity to look at the restrictions regulations, and whether the Agency would press DEFRA to get the regulations out as soon as possible.
39. Roger Ward responded that NCAF had had its last chance to comment on the regulations, however the Agency has taken the Forum’s advice on board in their comments to DEFRA. The regulations are expected before the next meeting.
40. Margaret Thomas (RA) asked for any information on appeals dates, venues and timetables.
41. Roger Ward responded, stating that the Planning Inspectorate would provide the Agency with information and that the Agency will contact the Inspectorate to clarify how organisations can be involved in Appeals, this will be produced as guidance at the next NCAF meeting.
42. Pam Warhurst asked NCAF members to give consideration to the diversity review in wider discussions, and let the Agency know how they wish to be involved in the project.
43. Iain McMorrin (BMC) highlighted that in the second paragraph of the diversity review update, the Agency had underestimated the amount of available data. He referred to data and information from a variety of organisations such as Duke of Edinburgh and the Scout and Guide Associations, who may help as many as 500,000 young people to visit the countryside each year. These organisations are available to be contacted and used as a source of advice.
44. Pam Warhurst requested details of these information holders from the BMC.
ACTION - BMC to forward contacts in relevant organisations working with children and youth.
45. Pam Ashton (Cyclist Touring Club) - stated that social exclusion and poor health amongst urban populations have been addressed by schemes such as ‘Walking the Way to Health’ and other initiatives. Even if there is less access to the countryside does not tackle social exclusion, it does improve health. There are obstacles to healthy walking that need to be better understood, but it will continue to be a very fruitful area of work.
46. Pam Ashton also pointed out that in the Agency's publicity plan included a table of how people with a disability would get information on the mapping exercise which suggested a web site. This raises concerns over how well the Agency had understood disability, given the fact that disability can include anything from a learning disability to physical disability such as blindness.
47. Pam Warhurst acknowledged these points and confirmed that they should be addressed in the information paper, later on in the meeting.
48. Richard Brown (Local Government Association) pointed out that experience from abroad should be considered in the review of best practice on diversity.
49. Andrew Clark (NFU) questioned the view in the update that there is little evidence of the benefits of countryside visiting. He also pointed out the importance of thinking laterally about links between city and countryside, as demonstrated by recent Arts Council project, working with schools, changing people’s mental interpretations of the countryside and realising that the countryside is ‘more than just about walking’.
50. Margaret Thomas (RA) expressed her support for the review and offered help in gathering data on behalf of the Ramblers Association.
51. Bob Cartwright (Association of National Park Authorities) identified that the Agency’s Integrated Access Demonstration Projects should be considered as sources of data and information on the benefits of countryside recreation.
52. Pam Warhurst encouraged members should share what information they have available to them with the Forum.
53. Jon Tomlinson explained that making a convincing case to Government of the benefits of access is a difficult job in spite of much anecdotal evidence and there is a tendency to underestimate that task.
54. Stephanie Wheeler (British Horse Society) asked if there was any way the Agency could commission research to measure the value of outdoor exercise.
55. Pam Warhurst responded by acknowledging that there is a good case for reviewing existing data, before considering any new research.
NCAF 15/2 - ACCESS INFORMATION PROGRAMME
56. Pam Warhurst introduced Richard Tibenham, the Agency’s new Information Manager, who presented Paper 15/2 - Access Information Programme.
57. Richard Tibenham invited the Forum to consider the Agency’s work on the Country Code described in the paper and other relevant initiatives such as the diversity review. He outlined the scope and purpose of the external consultation process on the Code and plans to work with representative bodies on bringing the Code to a wide range of audiences, including those with special needs.
58. Jon Tomlinson summarised recent development on the national access database, renamed ACE - Access to the Countryside Electronically. Attracting sufficient funding for this project has proved difficult, but efforts continue. There is a proposal to link the database with a helpline, which has significant additional cost implications, but this is likely to be more popular than a completely wed-based database. NCAF members were invited to contact the Agency with views on the funding issue.
59. Mark Hudson (CLA) suggested a meeting between Ordnance Survey and the Forum to discuss the access database. He stressed the need for a series of common symbols to communicate closures, restrictions and liability issues. Mark offered support from the CLA in communicating with their members and offered to assist with any ground testing instigated by the Agency.
60. Iain McMorrin (BMC) suggested that using organisations who work with children and youth will be an important way to communicate the new Code and other messages.
61. He suggested that the list of frequently asked questions drawn up by the Countryside Council for Wales on mapping was too restrictive in tone and asked that the Agency consider this in the presentation of their own messages.
62. Pam Ashton (CTC) pointed out that in order to reach the widest possible audience it would be important to work in partnership with organisations and initiatives who have established lines of communication with new target audiences such as Sure Start and neighbourhood renewal programmes and exploit funding streams available to them.
63. Richard Brown (Local Government Association) expressed the need for remarketing the countryside and working alongside creators of the leading highstreet brands. He also talked about ways to keep information on local access arrangements up to date through ‘street corner’ information networks, to complement automated and national systems.
64. Andrew Clark (NFU) asked for a positive spin on the new rights. He stressed the complexity of the messages and the need to provide authoritative and up to date information. He said more consideration should be given to the cost implications of this work. He supported the desire for a common signage system that is simple to use. All organisations will be able to carry these on their websites.
65. Hugo Blomfield (NT) suggested building on the information paradigms developed during the foot-and-mouth epidemic. He offered the help of the National Trust in communicating the messages to their members.
66. Andrew Sutcliffe (Moorland Association) pointed out that on-site information will be very important. There are a range of messages which need to be put across clearly and positively on information boards at major access points. He supported the proposal for a national helpline, but recognised the cost implications.
67. Margaret Thomas (RA) suggested two tiers of information, with the first a set of basic messages signposting to more detailed information available elsewhere. This should be available to people before they leave their homes and actually set off to the countryside.
68. Margaret Thomas also commented that a common Country Code and set of symbols in England, Wales and Scotland would be a great help to the public. She offered the help of the Ramblers Association in testing systems and disseminating information.
69. Jon Tomlinson responded to the above comment, identifying that whilst joined up thinking is beneficial in terms of developing common practices and minimising confusion, due to the variations in the legislation it would not be possible to create a common code across England, Scotland and Wales.
70. Glynn Williams ( RSPB) identified a real urgency in terms of time scales and the need for land managing organisations to have some more specific guidance on signage to inform budgets.
71. Whilst managers need to be positive, people also need to understand clearly the penalties they will incur should they fail to comply with regulations protecting wildlife.
73. Iain McMorrin (BMC) asked for the BMC to be consulted on any information strategies in the future. He suggested that a story on the ‘Archers’ may be a very successful avenue to raise awareness.
75. Bob Cartwright (ANPA) commented that there is no substitute for people on the ground to provide information. These could be public employees, but did not have to be - gamekeepers and farmers could also help to provide information for visitors. He warned against spoiling the landscape and experience of wild areas with too much signage.
76. William Crookshank (Environment Agency) suggested using citizenship modules of the National Curriculum to educate children about the new Code. He also pointed out that the word ‘Country’ in Country Code could be seen as exclusive by urban populations.
77. Jon Tomlinson emphasised the need for collaboration and joint investment on information work, which could not be achieved by national agencies alone. He said that the Agency’s budget for information work would be limited for the coming year and it would make the effective use possible of limited resources. He promised a copy of the Board paper on the Country Code would be sent to members.
ACTION - Agency to send copy of Board paper on Country Code to Forum members.
78. Pam Warhurst said it was important that Forum members let the Agency know what time scales they are working to and what work they are planning to do on the ground, so that the Agency can take this into account in planning its own work programme.
79. Jon Tomlinson said that the Agency would need to make some difficult decisions on the content and tone of its messages and could not be expected to satisfy all the expectations expressed by organisations with differing views.
80. Andrew Sutcliffe (The Moorland Association) stated that he was concerned to hear that the Agency’s budget for information would be limited in the coming year, because individual land managers will find it difficult to find the resources to deliver on-site information themselves.
Paper 15/3 - Support and Investment to Help Facilitate and Manage Open Access on the Ground
81. Pam Warhurst introduced Andrew Chester, who presented Paper 15/3 Support and Investment to Help Facilitate and Manage Open Access on the Ground.
82. Andrew Chester outlined recent research into national grants and incentives for access. This identified that current national schemes will be unable to support open access management wholly. He asked how the Agency and others how local and regional sources of investment could be secured for the work. He asked what role national investment might play and how this could complement, rather than replace, local and regional investment.
83. He stated the need for local access advice on the ground, and National Park Authorities and Local Authorities have been identified as best placed to do this. He asked how the Agency can encourage access authorities to take on this task and how to make such advice nationally consistent.
84. He asked how best to target this advice at a local level and what role local access forums could play.
84. Hugo Blomfield (National Trust) said that the emphasis should be on developing the network of access advice rather than new posts. There was a need for more than just basic advice for land managers on access management.
85. Margaret Thomas (Ramblers Association) said that the RA saw the Countryside Agency as better placed to deliver consistent advice than access authorities. She expressed concern on relying on local authority spending and said there should be a top-up scheme administered by the Countryside Agency. This could be based on public need and on the performance of local authorities. She supported the proposal for careful targeting of resources.
86. Stephanie Wheeler (British Horse Society) was concerned about relying on local authority spending to fund open access management. She asked how any funding could be sought from lottery schemes, when open access is a statutory duty.
87. Mark Hudson ( CLA ) stated that the Government should be responsible for delivering funding for access management, through a grant scheme administered by the Countryside Agency. He commented that during the passage of the Bill, it was identified that the Act should not result in significant costs to land managers. He supported the establishment of a network of local advisers, and asked the Agency to consider a series of demonstration sites to develop and learn from best practice.
88. Andrew Clark ( NFU) stated that he felt the tone of the paper was not urgent enough. He was concerned about the availability of local and regional resources to do the work. He said the core funding should be from central government.
89. Gwyn Williams (RSPB) stated that investment was not be discretionary and that mitigation on sites with statutory nature conservation designations will require funding, or restrictions will be required.
90. Pam Ashton (Cyclist Touring Club) stated that open access needs proper national investment and that if local authorities were expected to contribute, there should be an element for this work in their spending settlements. She stressed the importance of integrating leisure and transport in Local Transport Plans to address some of these management issues, alongside improvements to the path network. She said that the hot spots would be on land adjacent to land with existing access, but where the new rights would introduce public access for the first time.
91. Richard Brown (Local Government Association) said that the Forum should understand that local authorities have higher priorities than open access and that indications are that spending on new access work is patchy. He said the best chance of success would be to show the benefits of open access to other areas of local authority work. He reminded the Forum that access authorities powers are discretionary. He emphasised that modernising current access management networks and arrangements to accommodate open access was as important as new funding. He saw connections between access management and small business advice. He asked for a definition from the Agency of the benefits of open access to land managers, small businesses and the visiting public, in order to draw in investment from a wider rage of interests than was implied in the paper.
92. Andrew Sutcliffe ( The Moorland Association) stated that it was critical that access authorities make proper use of their statutory powers under the Act to make arrangements for access management. He emphasised the importance of funding in addition to changing attitudes and developing competencies in order to make management arrangements work. He saw a central role for the Agency in helping access authorities to exercise their powers said the message to Government should be to resource those roles adequately.
93. Graham Bathe (English Nature) pointed out that access management is good value for money in comparison to restrictions. He suggested the need to make an assessment of the cost of management in pilot areas in order to establish how much access management will cost. He supported the role of access authorities in managing open access and the need for Government to place clear expectations on them in this regard.
94. Bob Cartwright (ANPA) said that access authorities should be accountable to local access forums for local access management as implied in the Act. He said that the early experience of the Parks in working with local access forums had been very positive. He saw a role for the Agency in developing best practice but stressed that any Government initiatives or pilots should be short term and with a clear exit strategy.
95. Roger Ward identified the need for a clear set of expectations on the roles locally and nationally for managing open access. He said the Forum needs to agree on a common understanding and common assumptions of what those roles are to avoid further confusion.
96. Jon Tomlinson called for a paper articulating those responsibilities to be circulated before the next meeting. He said that there had to be a clear and rational basis for where and how central government could help to fund access management.
ACTION - Agency to prepare paper on roles and responsibilities for open access management to be circulated to the Forum for comment in March.
96. Stephanie Wheeler (British Horse Society) reminded the Forum that local authority settlements for access also cover substantial new duties under Part II in respect of rights of way.
97. Richard Brown (LGA) confirmed that by far the greatest cost to highway authorities was incurred in dealing with statutory duties in Part II.
97. Jon Tomlinson responded to an earlier point that local authorities have powers but no statutory duties in the Act. The Heritage Lottery Fund is currently conducting research to decide how it can help fund the public access and are sympathetic to the objectives for open access.
98. Quentin Grimley (Countryside Council for Wales) said that local access forums in Wales can play a crucial role in influencing and putting pressure upon local authorities to spend money on access management.
99. Andrew Chester told the Forum that CCW and The Countryside Agency are developing an initiative top look at managing access across national borders. The Forum was invited to comment on the draft proposal to the Agency.
100. Pam Warhurst asked for any more detailed comments on the paper to be forwarded to the Agency’s Wider Welcome team.
ACTION - Forum members to forward any more
detailed comments to Andrew Chester in Cheltenham
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
100. Mark Hudson (CLA) expressed CLA members’ concerns about occupiers’ liability in respect of abandoned mines and quarries on access land.
101. Andrew Chester said that a report had been submitted to DEFRA from CA, CCW and FC recommending that regulations be made under section 42 to remove any new burdens on occupiers with respect to places of public resort.
103. Bob Cartwright (ANPA) asked for guidance on the process for making assessments of sites of nature conservation for relevant authorities from the Agency and English Nature.
104. Iain McMorrin (BMC) pointed out that in previous discussions it had been suggested that the Forum could arrange a biannual conference to allow other interested organisations the opportunity to contribute.
ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE NEXT MEETING
105. Pam Warhurst told the Forum that the next meeting would be in April, followed by a joint meeting with the Welsh National Access Forum in July.
ACTION - Agency to fix dates with Forum members for the April meeting and confirm the date of the joint meeting in July.
QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
105. Five questions were tabled.
106. Mr B Renshaw asked what detailed comments on the draft maps needed to be made and was it necessary to comment on all aspects of every parcel to support their inclusion on subsequent maps?
107. Roger Ward responded stating that this was not necessary, but if their are particular generic issues associated with an area it would be helpful to know these.
108. Mr T Goodwin asked why there was no representation from the integrated transport panel invited to attend NCAF meetings.
109. Pam Warhurst answered stating that the Forum need to be large enough to have a representative cross-section of bodies, but to be small enough for manageable discussion. The Forum could consider at the next meeting if there was a need to expand the membership as a result of a broader brief.
110. Mr C Cockershaw asked whether future policy would be more sensitive to local economic problems.
111. Roger Ward responded stating that in all the Agency is doing in order to implement CROW they are recognising the importance of tourism to rural areas. The foot and mouth epidemic brought home how important access and tourism are in terms of rural businesses. The Agency will attempt to make that link wherever possible.
112. Mr E Wilson asked if the alterations to the issue date of the draft map for area 5 would cause delays to the overall mapping timetable.
113. Roger Ward stated that the Area 5 maps are still due within the original time frame and will be issued just on the cusp of winter into spring. There will be no affect on the overall timetable.
