Minutes of the 16th Meeting of the NCAF
Bob Cartwright (Association of National Park Authorities) (ANPA)
Caroline Bedell (Country Land and Business Association) (CLA)
Stephanie Wheeler (British Horse Society) (BHS)
Iain McMorrin (British Mountaineering Council (BMC)
Jerry Pearlman (Ramblers’ Association (RA)
Jo Burgon (National Trust) (NT)
Simon Bostock (Moorland Association) (MA)
Gwyn Williams (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) (RSPB)
Andrew Clark (National Farmers Union) (NFU)
Barry Leathwood (Transport and General Workers Union) (TGWU)
ObserversChris Probert (Forestry Commission) (FC)
Phillip Wilson (English Nature) (EN)
Jeremy Rowan Robinson (Scottish Natural Heritage) (SNH)
William Crookshank (Environment Agency) (EA)
Jonathon Tweney (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (DEFRA)
Countryside Agency StaffRoger Ward
Wendy Thompson
Paul Mutch
Hannah Weaver
(circa. 45 members of the public attended the meeting)
CHAIRS’ INTRODUCTION1. The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. She greeted new representatives Caroline Bedell (CLA), Prof. Jeremy Rowan Robinson (SNH) and Phillip Wilson (EN). The Chairman also welcomed back Simon Bostock (MA).
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
2. Apologies were received from:
3. The Chairman expressed disappointment that Defence Estates had been unable to send a representative.
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING (HELD ON 4TH FEBRUARY)
4. The RSPB representative suggested amendments to paragraph 70 of the minutes which were sent to the secretary.
MATTERS ARISING
5. The Chairman confirmed that all action points from the previous minutes had been completed.
6. Paragraph 42 - The MA rep asked when the draft restrictions regulations would be published.
7. Roger Ward (CA) stated he didn’t know the precise date but that DEFRA had indicated it would be during May.
8. The CLA representative enquired about whether guidance to the planning inspectorate, as to how they are dealing with appeals, would be published. She asked for confirmation that they would go on website soon.
9. Roger Ward stated that Planning Inspectorate did intend to publish the guidance on the website and they were expected imminently.
10. The RA representative expressed concern regarding guidance to inspectors, because he understood there had already been some appeals, therefore how could they have been properly conducted if guidance hadn’t been produced.
11. Roger Ward advised that it was the decision of the Planning Inspectorate but he would investigate on the Forum’s behalf.
12. The NFU representative requested that a copy of the guidance be circulated to members after the meeting.
13. Paragraph 108 - The ANPA representative reminded EN and CA that they were requested to forward guidance on process of making assessments for sites of nature conservation.
14. Roger Ward stated that a meeting took place on 1st May with EN and relevant authorities regarding the process that would take place for this and that CA would be circulating guidance. He informed the Forum that in addition to their roles under the CROW Act, the CA and other relevant authorities have very specific duties as competent authorities under the Habitats Regulations to ensure that changes such as the introduction of right of access don’t significantly damage internationally important nature conservation sites. So separate statutory duties are to be dealt with in parallel with CROW Act.
15. Paragraph 109 – The BMC representative enquired whether the Forum plans to hold an annual or bi-annual conference because lots of organisations with which his organisation networks are keen to have their say.
16. The Chairman responded that this would be suggested to the CA Board.
17. Paragraph 16 – The RA representative asked which regulations were being referred to in the minutes as “new regulations”.
18. Roger Ward confirmed that this referred to the regulations for the correction of errors on provisional and conclusive maps. He advised that these regulations have been in preparation for some time and they are due to be published soon. He stressed that the regulations are not for changing decisions but are for the correction of administrative errors.
19. The Chairman stated that the CA would report to DEFRA these timetable issues.
20. The DEFRA representative advised that the regulations timetable was available on the DEFRA website.
21. The RA representative asked to clarify paragraph 16 about new regulations and suggested that the words “did not” should be replaced by “will not”. This was agreed.
22. The CLA representative raised the issue of how Ordnance Survey (OS) would show access land, and hoped that there would be a discussion soon.
23. The Chairman agreed and recommended that this issue could be discussed at the October meeting.
24. The BHS representative expressed that this was the same issue of how users would know about access land, in particular those commons covered by sec. 193 of the Law and Property Act 1925, which are open to horseriders.
25. The Chairman suggested that OS be invited to NCAF to explain and that October would be suitable timing.
26. The RA representative informed that they had invited OS to the Moorland Access Advisory Group but they hadn’t come. He suggested that major changes are happening to OS maps and that it would be too late if left until October and that the Forum needed to act now.
27. The Chairman asked if he had any suggestions of how that could be done.
28. The RA representative suggested the July meeting.
29. The Chairman asked the Secretary if this was possible. The Secretary responded that the July meeting wouldn’t be a formal public meeting but a joint meeting with the National Access Forum for Wales. The Chairman stated that she would note these concerns and would investigate whether it would be possible to have a discussion on this in July.
30. The MA representative expressed his concern at this timetable and emphasised that OS Explorer maps should show all information needed, for example, position of access points, excepted land etc. He stated that overlays should show this information and that the process of where access information points should be placed needed to be started soon.
31. The NFU representative agreed with these points and requested that a session on this be added to July’s agenda. He informed the Forum that he had spoken to Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) regarding this issue and reported that they had progressed further with OS.
32. The Chairman assured that CA would do their best to ensure that happens and asked Roger Ward for an update on discussions with OS.
33. Roger Ward informed the Forum of a group led by DEFRA with OS, CA and CCW that discusses a range of issues including this. CA are not in a position to dictate to OS what should be shown on their maps. He assured that discussions with OS are ongoing and suggested that the Forum needs direct advice from OS. The July meeting would be a good opportunity for this as this is something that National Access Forum for Wales would be interested in too.
34. The Chairman stated that she would feed this back to the CA Board.
35. The ANPA representative informed the Forum that OS have indicated that they intend to remove Parish boundaries, County Council boundaries and National Park boundaries from their maps. He stated that OS have written to MPs recently informing them of this intention. ANPA are protesting this and would like support from NCAF.
36. The BHS representative added that the Exmoor Access Forum had been appalled by this change.
NCAF 16/1 DISCOVERING LOST WAYS
37. Wendy Thompson (CA) introduced this paper. She updated the Forum on Phase 1 of the project which was a scoping exercise by University of Gloucestershire. This had estimated that approximately 16,000km of rights of way were potentially unrecorded and could be added to the network to increase it by 9%. To get to that evidence would mean trawling though the records offices and it was estimated that would take 54,000 days at a cost of £5.5 million. Phase 2 of the project involved gathering that evidence. The CA had invited expressions of interest from organisations interested in a contract to establish an Archive Research Unit (ARU) which would have responsibility for trawling through archive office material. The contract would be let and work started later this year. She added that the OS maps are important to this project and informed that CA had written to OS about their proposals to remove parish boundaries from their explorer maps.
38. The RA representative acknowledged the considerable work needed to get this project running and added that the CA should not underestimate the problems with legal uncertainties about the value of primary sources of evidence. He drew particular attention problems associated with the Finance Act and Inclosure Award documents. He stated that there had never been authoritative clarification of the significance of the Finance Act maps. If the position was not clarified it could mean that hundreds of paths could be lost forever. The matter needed to be resolved in the high court and he asked whether the CA would be prepared to get involved in this type of legal case.
39. Wendy Thompson confirmed that legal issues had been identified and the CA planned to seek clarification on a number of these through counsel’s advice. However, as the resource implications of direct involvement in legal cases could be substantial she could not offer any guarantee of CA involvement but agreed this should be referred to the CA Board as NCAF advice.
40. The CLA representative asked it to be noted that the abbreviation of Country Land and Business Association is CLA not CLAB as in the paper.
41. The BHS representative expressed surprise at the statistics in the paper. She felt the potential increase in riding rights of way in her district would be 100%. She questioned the statistic in paragraph 13 that the bulk of the work would be done in 15 years, she felt that was optimistic. She commented that paragraph 15 was very important as a way of streamlining the process otherwise it would be bogged down forever.
42. The NFU representative commented on paragraph 13 and suggested that the CA would need to allocate a significant amount of funding to ensure the ARU and RCT worked. He expressed concern about the trust proposal, because there were no details of who would be on the board, to whom the trust would be accountable and the amount of public funding required to set it up and run it. He presumed that the trust would be a campaigning body which aimed to add to the definitive map. If so that would present problems to the landowning community who would incur significant costs if the historic evidence was inconclusive and led to the need to oppose applications. The paper did not provide any indication about how landowning interests would be addressed. A proposal to designate a new right of way resulted in costs to the farmer just to understand the proposal and then to test whether it was valid. Liaising with local access forums as suggested in paragraph 11.4 would not address this.
43. The BHS representative advised that local authority rights of way staff are used to dealing with the issues raised by the NFU representative.
44. The MA representative agreed with this point and added that where organisations were well funded they could afford to take action but it was different when dealing with individuals who would have to find the money themselves. He advised that owners of land should be kept fully informed when research was carried out on their land so they could be involved and make their case at that time.
45. The BHS representative advised that if Local Access Forums did their job then everyone would have a chance to comment at the appropriate time. She added that users do not generally have the money to pursue applications either.
46. The Chairman thanked the Forum and noted their views.
47. Wendy Thompson advised that the proposed Rights of Way Claims Trust (RCT) was intended to be an independent professional body. It was likely to have a role in keeping all interested parties informed. She reminded the Forum that the advisory group referred to in the paper included representatives from landowner and user group organisations. She suggested that this group should consider the issues raised by landowning representatives in more detail. She added that 15 years may be an ambitious timescale but it could be done with sufficient funding and a successful accreditation scheme.
48. The Chairman noted that specific issues should go back to the advisory group.
NCAF 16/2 COUNTRYSIDE AND RIGHTS OF WAY ACT (CROW) UPDATE
49. Roger Ward introduced this update. He updated the Forum on the status of mapping appeals. 160 valid appeals were received for Area 1 and 650 for Area 2. This is approximately 10% of the number of comment forms received at the draft mapping stage. He informed the Forum that the Area 3 provisional maps will be issued on 23rd May. He also updated the Forum that 3280 comment forms were received for the Area 4 draft map. He stressed that it was important to understand that 1 comment form can cover more than one parcel and that the ratio of parcel comments is the key driver of the amount of work to done at the determination stage. To illustrate this point:
Area 1 received approx. 2,300 parcel comments
Area 2 received approx. 14,000 parcel comments
Area 3 received approx. 5,500 parcel comments
Area 4 received approx. 5,500 parcel comments
50. Regarding appeals, he informed the Forum that the first decisions from the written representations procedure were expected soon and the first appeals hearing takes place during the week commencing 19th May in Ashford, Kent. He advised that details of appeals hearings and enquiries were available on the Planning Inspectorate website 1 month in advance (www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk) and in the press nearer the time.
51. Regarding information, he advised that workshops were starting week beginning 12th May on the Country Code consultation to which Chief Executives of NCAF member organisations have been sent invitations. The workshops would focus on communication with stakeholder groups, for example, land-owning groups, young people. He apologised that the more general consultation paper on how the Country Code exercise should be finalised would be delayed by a few weeks.
52. The Chairman drew the Forum’s attention to the integrated access project that is being run by Hazel Thomas in the Leeds office in partnership with Yorkshire Water.
53. The NT representative noted that having a Country Code workshop in July would provide a good information based theme and a link to the discussion on how OS maps would be able to promote and publicise the Country Code.
54. The BMC representative asked, with reference to mapping parcel P20180, for assurance that where land has a feature of recreational interest that it not be excluded by virtue of size. Regarding local access restrictions and public liability, he offered to work with the CA on this or see draft versions of the leaflet. He also endorsed the proposed project on access management that CCW and CA are to do in the Black Mountains.
55. Roger Ward reassured that “no useful purpose” procedures had changed and, in future, any land which the CA purposes to omit from the provisional map on the basis that its inclusion serves no useful purpose would be highlighted in purple on the draft map. Regarding the BMC representative’s wish to work with CA on restrictions and liability, he noted and welcomed the offer. Regarding the third point, he agreed that these pilot schemes would be vitally important to make sure that sensible and practical arrangements are in place.
56. The Chairman asked the EN representative to provide some thoughts on integrated access and the piloting of access management, how EN are engaged and what concerns they may have.
57. The EN representative responded that EN always support pilot projects and they were always looking to learn more about processes and procedures.
58. The MA representative informed the Forum of the Moorland Access Advisory Group and their attempt to find a demonstration moor to understand how to manage access. A pilot scheme is underway on Grinton Moor, thanks to Lord Peel. He expressed concern about the ADAS and Met Office fire risk forecasting model, because following the decision to keep an area of moorland open was the worst fires Derbyshire has seen. A total of 15,565 acres were lost in England and Wales during that dry period. He reported that of that total, 10,365 acres lost was due to accident or arson. He iterated that a system to restrict access must be in place to avoid this damage. He added that it was in no-one’s interest for this to happen and the system needed to be good.
59. The CLA representative supported these comments and added that CLA would like to be involved in the occupiers’ liability guidance. She also commented that the PINS guidance when an appeal is conceded was conflicting and that CA needed to look at it. Guidance says that once an appeal is conceded it advises members to do nothing but Planning Inspectorate say to go through processes of an appeal hearing.
60. Roger Ward noted the comments on moorland fires. He informed that there would be a meeting week commencing 12th May on relevant authority guidance, on how the system will be fit for purpose and how views of organisations could be fed into the process. In response to the CLA representative’s comments on the conflicting guidance, he explained that the third party has a right to be heard and that it was not for the CA to concede but to choose not to contest – the majority will amount to the same thing in practice but there was always the possibility that third parties would still wish to exercise their right to be heard and the inspector would have to take account of that.
61. The CLA representative expressed concern at the cost of appeals to members of landowning organisations and asked if it was possible to conduct site visits at an earlier stage.
62. Roger Ward explained that the mapping process is conducted in 3 stages which each narrow down the range of sites over which there is dispute. The first phase, the desktop exercise, is good enough to whittle down the outstanding issues and get the vast majority of parcels recorded in a way that respondents are happy with. The determination of comments before the provisional maps are published is where the parcels are looked at more closely, and a higher proportion of site visits are done, but with thousands of parcels of land it is not cost effective to visit every site. He informed that the CA now has better aerial photography and commented that when the first appeals process has been completed it will be assessed and lessons learned, like with the mapping project. He added that appeals would not need to cost a significant amount of money and that the system had been designed so that appellants would only need to fill in a relatively simple form and not have to employ a professional.
63. The CLA representative commented that some people have to go to great expense to investigate habitat for example heathland. She offered to help produce clearer guidance and share information.
64. Roger Ward thanked her and responded that he would be happy to pursue the issue outside the meeting.
65. The NFU representative informed that many landowners and farmers were looking to contest expert opinion which was often a subjective opinion and therefore need to pay for professionals. He added that farmers were appealing but have to take on appeals that would normally need an expert.
66. Roger Ward reiterated that the system had been designed carefully. He stressed that as long as an appellant can say that they do not think it meets the criteria, an inspector would visit the site, and the appellant would not need a botanical survey and experts. He urged the Forum to advise members that they would not need to spend large amounts of money, the inspectors would make a reasoned decision.
67. The Chairman stressed that the CA want to engage people at an early stage, these concerns have been noted and it was the most cost effective system for all.
68. The RA representative regarding restrictions, commented that the consultations started in December 2001 and since then leaned a great deal from attending the Moorland Access Advisory group meetings. He urged that people needed to know what the problems are on the ground before progress could be made on restrictions. He stressed that progress could not be made until practical angles were fully considered and misconceptions, pessimism and exaggerations were diminished.
69. The BMC representative asked for an update on progress of the restrictions database. He also questioned the effectiveness of wholesale closure of moorland because night time closures would not prevent criminal activity so wholesale closures would not deter arsonists. He added that most fires start in the vicinity of rights of way. He suggested that education rather than restriction would be the best course to take.
70. The ANPA representative congratulated the CA for the roadshows and public relations regarding mapping, he added that it was very professional and customer focussed. Regarding the Country Code, he emphasised that he would like to see the concept move away from rules and a code and more towards the CA initiative of “your countryside, you’re welcome” which was very effective and positive.
71. Roger Ward thanked the ANPA representative for his comments and noted his suggestions for the Country Code and assured that the workshops would be discussing the issues of tone, how to communicate with people, and is a code- or rules-based approach too old fashioned and dictatorial. Regarding fire risk, he encouraged members to feed views into the stakeholder meetings which are being held week commencing 12th May. In response to the question regarding progress of the restrictions casework system, he updated the Forum that organisations had been shortlisted and a contract would be in place by October. He recognised that time is tight and interim arrangements may have to be made to deal with applications for the first region or two. He emphasised that there needed to be a starting point for restrictions with the intention to learn as the process progresses.
NCAF 16/3 RESPONSIBILITIES AND RESOURCES FOR FACILITATING AND MANAGING OPEN ACCESS
72. Paul Mutch (CA) introduced the paper. He explained that the paper looked to set out the responsibilities for managing access, defining clearly who is responsible for managing various elements both at a local level and a national level, and also to look at the resources and funding. He explained that the paper had been circulated to members and had received substantial comments, the majority of which had been on funding. The aim of the discussion was to get some consensus on the main issues which will form the advice to the CA for discussions with DEFRA and the government.
73. The Chairman explained that she would be reporting to the CA Board so it would be helpful to go through the principles to gain clear consensus but she would also record dissent and where issues arise.
Guiding Principles - Principle 1a.
74. The NFU representative, with reference to the last sentence, observed that he understood that CA and CCW would be an access authority and therefore would be involved in managing open access locally.
75. Paul Mutch clarified the CA wouldn’t be the access authority but would be the relevant authority and should not engage in day to day management of access on the ground.
76. The RSPB representative agreed that the role of the CA shouldn’t be the day to day management and commented that the CA needed to be certain that issues could be decided locally satisfactorily and legally.
77. Roger Ward endorsed the RSPB representative’s statement and added that the duty of the CA as a competent authority means that where there was a conflict between access and nature conservation it had to ensure that the conflict was dealt with.
78. The MA representative questioned the wording of the last sentence and suggested that the wording on central funding needs clarifying.
79. Roger Ward assured that it was not intended to absolve government from funding the continuing management of access but to draw a distinction between the role of the CA to set up the system and put initial one-off measures in place, with the ongoing day to day role of managing access into the future which is the job of access authorities. The access authorities also require funding from government for that purpose. He stressed that it was important to recognise the clear distinction of responsibilities between central government and access authorities.
80. The NT representative emphasised the need for clarification of the different roles.
81. The BHS representative commented that it was important to have local input but asked what would happen when it goes to regional government.
82. The NFU representative, referring to the first sentence of 1.a. of the paper, commented that the role of central government was continuing and ongoing but the paper suggests that it was a one-off role. He also suggested that the resources of the access authority were added to the paper.
83. The Chairman thanked the Forum for their comments and assured that she would take those points and clarify the situation.
Principle 1b.
84. The RA representative suggested that there was a role for the CA regional offices and that he would be happy if they helped co-ordinate matters on a local basis.
85. Roger Ward responded that it would be likely that the regional offices would be the eyes and ears but stressed that their role would only be to assess and not get involved in the day-to-day management.
86. The RA representative asked that this role be added to the paper.
Principle 1c.
87. The CLA representative suggested that the idea of local businesses making a contribution was very aspirational and asked how this was going to be achieved.
88. The NFU representative also expressed concern and stated that later on in the paper local investment becomes a condition and if it was made so important and investment isn’t made then it would be a problem.
89. The Chairman urged that those people and agencies needed to be made aware of the economic importance of that issue.
90. The RA representative stated his concern with that issue and gave the example of a local contribution in Yorkshire that was abandoned. He suggested that the idea of local contribution was something that could happen in the future once the benefits of access could be shown but that it should not be a key factor from the start.
91. The BHS representative expressed disappointment that it was perceived that local businesses would not contribute, she informed that they do quoting the visitor pay back scheme working successfully in Exmoor National Park.
92. The ANPA representative reinforced that point with an example of the Tourism and Conservation Partnership in the Lake District that raised £90,000 for conservation and access projects.
93. The NT representative drew the Forum’s attention to the first sentence and reiterated that it was about securing that positive contribution the new access could bring.
94. The Chairman stated that it was about incorporating the best practice that was already out there.
95. The NFU representative commented that he was looking forward to the next draft.
Who should be responsible for coordinating management of open access at a local level?
96. The RA representative commented that local access forums should have relationships with adjoining forums. He felt that NCAF had a role in the coordination of general policies.
How should access authorities approach their role?
97. The CLA representative, with reference to paragraph 6, suggested that it would good if free signs were provided.
98. The NT representative, with reference to paragraph 4, reported that CCW had done work on a developing a model for countryside management services across Wales looking at the opportunities this legislation would bring for wider countryside management and suggested that it would be worth looking at that proposal.
99. The NFU representative, with reference to paragraph 1, suggested that access authorities should act not only strategically but pro-actively too. He stressed the importance that access authorities predict where there would be problems in consultation with land managers.
100. The RSPB representative, with reference to paragraph 3, suggested re-wording of the section on designated land and the CA to provide framework of the appropriate assessment, which would have to be done before commencement, as it would put too much emphasis on the access authorities. With reference to paragraph 7, he urged that restrictions should be notified in one way not by multiple means, it needed to be simple and clear.
101. The MA representative commented that land managers could give advice rather than just be advised. He asked that this be added to paragraph 3. With reference to paragraph 4, he suggested that keepers, farmer and shepherds be involved in the ranger service. With reference to paragraph 6, he stated that the major task was informing the public and urged that this issue needs to be addressed. He commented that more assurance is needed and practicalities need to be addressed, paragraph 6 should be more detailed.
102. The Chairman confirmed that information is a huge task and assured that the task was recognised and the points made would be noted.
103. The ANPA representative asked what line 6 of paragraph 6, “unreasonable burden” meant.
104. The BHS representative queried the exclusion of access points on OS maps.
105. The RA representative commented that the Forum had been informed of a working party on signage and asked for an update. He also queried what was intended by the words “some authorities will have to adapt their existing structure in order to accommodate this expanded role on private land” in the last sentence of paragraph 3.
106. Paul Mutch explained that paragraph 3 was recognising that some authorities don’t have a wider service that may work on private land and in some cases that role would have to be expanded.
107. Roger Ward commented that the LGA had made the point, in response to the earlier paper on this subject, that some local authority structures were fine for this purpose but others weren’t so they would need to be looked at as a starting point.
108. Paul Mutch reported that a contract had been let for the development of symbols and that CA and CCW were working together to develop a consistent national framework.
109. The RA representative asked that the Forum be consulted on the development of symbols.
110. In response to the ANPA representative’s query about paragraph 6, Roger Ward clarified that the point was that although it was the responsibility of the land manager to erect notices, it shouldn’t be an absolute requirement if it proves to be a burden, and there may be circumstances when a land manager may need help. This would be a presumption rather than a requirement.
111. The Chairman noted the need for clarification of OS maps and offered to investigate.
112. In response to the point on consultation, Roger Ward agreed that this was the purpose of local access forums.
113. The NFU representative, with reference to paragraph 7, commented that he presumed it meant that land managers would not be expected to notify the public and suggested that this wording be amended as such.
114. The EN representative confirmed that was correct.
What support can central government provide for open access management?
115. The NT representative commented that this section was slightly repetitive of the last section and suggested that they be merged.
116. The NFU representative, with reference to paragraph 2b, stated that guidance for land managers on notifying the public of restrictions was a critical point and should be given more prominence in the paper rather than just being a sub-paragraph. With reference to paragraph 1c, he questioned the ability to identify high-pressure areas easily and suggested the removal of the term “high pressure”.
117. The MA representative commented that money was needed where pressure was high but the paper seemed to seek to limit funding.
118. Roger Ward responded that the paper did not seek to limit funding but bears in mind the distinctions of different roles. He stated that the government needs to provide adequate funding for both the initial implementation phase and the ongoing practical phase. He urged that the intention is not to limit funding but to channel the funding between the phases.
119. The Chairman thanked the Forum for raising useful points.
How should open access management be financed?
120. The NT representative commented on the connection between other forms of access so that connections are made to rights of way and other public open spaces and suggested that may be a way of bringing in a variety of funding opportunities not solely associated with access land.
121. The RA representative disagreed with the NT representative’s suggestion of associating rights of way with access as they come from different budgets. He commented that government must be lobbied to provide adequate funding and to make the funding as public as possible. He appreciated that the money would not be ring-fenced but requested that it be made public how much money each authority is given. He brought to the Forum’s attention a letter from RA, NFU and CLA sent to Alun Michael which urges the department to clarify how it expects the additional costs of new local authority powers to be met.
122. The BHS representative commented that she liked the suggestion in the commentary that allocations to local government for access work should be published.
123. The NFU representative presumed that the commentary on the paper wouldn’t be shown to the CA Board and urged that allocations should be known and transparent, so that point should be in the main paper rather than just in the commentary. With reference to paragraph 2, he questioned how it would be made sure that local communities recognised these benefits. He suggested that it be added that the CA help local communities recognise these benefits. Regarding the last sentence of paragraph 2, where local access forums take the lead in lobbying for resources, he suggested it should be that the local access forums take the lead in lobbying their local democratic organisations to get resources.
124. Roger Ward asked for members help in making sure local government is held to account in its role as access authorities.
125. The BMC representative endorsed the RA representative’s comments and the BMC would have signed up to that letter too.
What role is there for a national grant aid scheme?
126. The CLA representative questioned making grants conditional on match funding.
127. The RSPB representative commented that for designated sites the responsibility was on the national government to fund 100%. Therefore points b. or d. shouldn’t follow. He expressed concern that the funding was perceived as discretionary and it shouldn’t be.
128. The NFU representative, with reference to paragraph 1, “patterns of visitor use will change significantly once the new right rights commence” he reiterated his point of needing to act pro-actively and would like to see some predictions. Regarding paragraph 2, “new national programme of grant aid is therefore required to help access authorities” he felt it should also be land managers and competent authorities. Regarding paragraph 3, the commentary “most agreed that this should be predominantly for capital investment, with some support also to set up local arrangements for ongoing management”, he stated that the main text talks exclusively about capital grants but should also include ongoing grants.
129. The NT representative suggested that lessons were learned from National Trails funding and how the level of funding has declined over recent years, and take examples of exit strategies.
130. The RA representative commented that he was uncomfortable with the idea that the funding is time limited and would like to see it spread over time to enable the Forum and others to act as watchdogs and to be able to stimulate proper activity.
131. The CLA representative expressed concern with the time limit as the new right of access would take time to develop.
132. The Chairman asked members of the Forum if they supported this concern for time limit and asked for agreement for whether that line should be removed from the paper or remain.
133. The Forum all shared the same concern for the time limit and it was agreed that that line should be changed.
134. Roger Ward asked the Forum to clarify whether it was advising that the time shouldn’t be limited to just 5 years, or that the national grant aid should be permanent rather than time limited at all.
135. The RA representative responded that he preferred the latter option.
136. The Chairman asked that the Forum differentiate between funding at the beginning to get access up and running however long the beginning might be, and permanent funding. She asked if the argument is whether the funding should be time limited.
137. The CLA representative responded that the initial grant shouldn’t be time limited to 5 years.
138. The Chairman responded that it needed to be defined more clearly what the funding was for.
139. Roger Ward, in response to the NFU representative’s point regarding capital grants, clarified it was the distinction between what is a one-off introductory step as part of putting the new rights in place and what is part of permanent ongoing management.
140. The Chairman assured that the wording of the paper would be amended to be clearer.
141. In response to the CLA representative’s concern about match funding, Roger Ward stated that there was no intention that there should be a requirement for match funding from local businesses or land managers. People who have a financial interest in the right of access should be encouraged to play a role. The CA is suggesting a requirement for match funding from access authorities as part of the role of tying them in and getting them signed up to a PSA agreement and ensuring the investment in the initial work is sustained through the ongoing role of the access authority.
142. The CLA representative noted that she was still concerned about local authority funding and the expectation of match funding.
143. The MA representative noted that he was still concerned that the buck stops at government funding, he worried about the words “regional investors”.
144. The Chairman reiterated that the paper would be amended.
145. The NFU representative clarified whether this line would be removed.
146. The Chairman confirmed this.
147. Roger Ward, with reference to mandatory funding, stated that it needed to be clear that for the nature conservation issues where the CA and other relevant authorities have separate statutory duties under the Habitats Regulations, management and restrictions need to be looked at as a package. He stated that funding cannot be mandatory but it could be made clear that in the absence of some mechanism to fund management measures identified as being suitable there would have to be statutory restrictions.
148. The Chairman closed the discussion by assuring the Forum that the paper would be re-drafted and circulated shortly and asked that members respond promptly.
NCAF 16/6 DIVERSITY REVIEW – PROGRESS REPORT
149. Wendy Thompson (CA) introduced the paper. She reported that across government all departments are looking at equality of opportunity. For example, health and education departments were looking to see that all sectors of society had equal access to services. She reported that, on behalf of DEFRA, the CA is looking at levels of representation in countryside activities. There are 2 pieces of legislation driving this work – Disability Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Amendments Act. The aim of the CA work was to provide practical guidance to countryside managers and recreation providers. This guidance would be developed through national research and pilot projects that will be undertaken in the next 2-3 years. The review was a Rural White Paper commitment with the target date to report to DEFRA in 2005.
150. The Chairman commented that it was very clear that lots of work had taken place on how to engage with a wide population but not how to assess this. She reported on the need for a common evaluation framework and a national policy that fed from that information.
151. The TGWU representative commented that the issue had moved from technical work and there hadn’t been much thought on how it would be rolled out to the wider populous. He advised that other groups should be involved including representatives from socially excluded groups.
152. The Chairman asked members to share information on what their organisation was doing.
153. The NFU representative iterated that it was important work but noted that it was very research focussed and not clear what was actually going to be achieved. He emphasised the need, when marketing a product, to differentiate between who wants and needs it, to focus on the customers.
154. Wendy Thompson confirmed the need for research to fill information gaps but drew the Forum’s attention to the area based action research which was intended to produce good practice guidance for land managers. She assured that the diversity review aimed to develop a practical approach.
155. The Chairman noted that paragraph 2 did not mention the elderly but stressed that the paper was to provide NCAF with a general overview. She added that page 3 of the paper did address the issue raised by the NFU representative. She asked members if it was something that their organisations had discussed and also whether they felt the CA had engaged enough.
156. The BHS representative commented that the work seemed very expensive and could the CA not co-ordinate the work of other people and save some money which could be used on rights of way. She agreed with the NFU representative’s point regarding marketing but commented that work to get people out into the countryside had already been done and it could be co-ordinated.
157. The Chairman responded that it was surprising how disparate that work had been and how little evaluation had been undertaken.
158. The BMC representative was disappointed not to see reference in the paper to organisations that have traditionally introduced young people and minorities to the countryside, for example, Duke of Edinburgh’s Award Scheme and the Local Education Authority outdoor education centres. He felt that those organisations should have been consulted. He endorsed the diversity review.
159. Wendy Thompson said she would check to see if those organisations had been involved in national evidence gathering.
160. The RA representative commented that there were no facts in the paper and asked for more information on what work was actually taking place.
161. The Chairman responded that there was little evaluation for the government to use in assessing representation in countryside recreation. The review was about developing good practice but also about understanding where the deficits are. She noted the RA representative’s point regarding clarity.
162. The CLA representative asked if there were any links to art and culture and suggested it might be something to explore.
163. The ANPA representative, in response to comments about the role of National Park Authorities through the Mosaic project, reported that the feedback from ethnic communities showed the importance of meeting specific needs, for example, relating to food and hygiene. He advised that there was a lot to be gained from the sort of research that looked at how special needs could be catered for. He argued that this type of research should support the development of best practice.
164. The Chairman agreed with this point.
165. The NT representative commented that the NT was investing resources into this area and agreed that there wasn’t enough evaluation. He stated that many projects are short term and advised that long-term commitments were required to make them work.
166. The Chairman thanked the Forum for a good discussion and suggested that the issue was re-visited to update on progress.
NCAF 16/7 HEALTH AND THE COUNTRYSIDE
167. The Chairman apologised that the diagram in the appendix of the paper didn’t specifically refer to riding.
168. Wendy Thompson introduced the paper. She informed the Forum that the paper summarised how the countryside contributes to better health. She reported that as the Government’s health policy shifted away from treating disease to prevention, the countryside could have a bigger role in future policy. CA had already shown what could be achieved through its 2 projects – Walking the Way to Health Initiative and Local Exercise Action Pilots (LEAP). One of the challenges is to integrate this work and the lessons from it into other programmes of countryside work, for example Country Parks.
169. The RA representative agreed that walking was good for health and stated that it was a good paper and he would like to get involved.
170. The BMC representative added that the Association of Heads of Outdoor Education Centres (AHOEC) and the Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme could help involve more people in active lifestyles.
171. The RSPB representative commented that the paper provided useful information to NCAF. He suggested there were three important drivers to get more people involved in countryside recreation. First, access infrastructure; second, confidence to get out there; and third, the countryside as a motivator to get people out. He informed the Forum that RSPB had an interest in making links between public investment in health initiatives and support for habitat restoration and improving the quality of the countryside. He added that there was a recent report by University of Essex that provided a useful summary of the health benefits.
NCAF 16/4 FUTURE OF NCAF
172. Wendy Thompson introduced this paper as an opportunity for members to influence the future of NCAF. She asked the Forum to consider 3 issues: objective and remit; relationships with other groups; and style and frequency.
173. The TGWU representative commented that the Forum had worked well over the years and it was now moving towards a new phase and new opportunities. He stated the need to bring in new organisations and agencies and added that although it may not be advisable to expand the membership of the group it might be possible to co-opt people or share expertise through informal working groups.
174. The NT representative suggested that the Forum had been successful because it had been singularly focussed on one aspect of helping to progress part I of the CROW Act. He noted that the challenge was whether the Forum wanted to maintain a monitoring role in terms of delivery part I, and increasingly part II. He would like to see more links between NCAF and local access forums and would like to see a reprofiled Forum that encompasses wider organisations and views. He added that consideration would need to be given to how the Forum sat within a possibly re-shaped CA in light of the Haskins review. He wondered how DEFRA perceived NCAF in term of supporting and delivering a Government agenda.
175. The NFU representative welcomed the paper and commented that the Forum was in a transitional phase and it still had important issues to address. He suggested that the Forum should initially focus on some new areas for example, active sports like cycling, horse-riding and water-based sports, as the Forum has so far concentrated on walking. He noted that if the Forum tried to take on too much it could lose focus. He would welcome future discussions on health and rural economy in a seminar format and on an ad-hoc basis. He would like the Forum to bring together a voice of a range of organisations and also share experience with other parts of the UK.
176. The RSPB representative agreed that the Forum has been successful so far and agreed that if too many issues were discussed there would be a loss of focus. He added that if there was a change in issues discussed then it would affect the individuals represented on the Forum, for example, his own expertise was on open access and not on wider social issues.
177. The BHS representative commented that members of her local access forum had already started to channel queries through her for NCAF.
178. The RA representative noted that the Forum had been successful because of its expertise but that the work on open access wasn’t finished yet. NCAF needed to set out to help local access forums with their work. He disagreed with the proposal to expand. The Rights of Way Review Committee already dealt with public rights of way issues and there was no need for NCAF to duplicate this.
179. The CLA representative reiterated the point that the Forum needed to stay focussed.
180. The BMC representative welcomed the paper and reminded the Forum of the enormous amount of work still to be done on open access implementation. He agreed that the Forum should co-opt people as necessary for particular issues rather than expand the group.
181. The Chairman, with reference to paragraph 4, reminded the Forum that their original objective was very broad. She proposed that it remain unchanged.
182. Members agreed there was no need to change the formal objective of the Forum.
183. The Chairman stressed the importance of creating a network of information by, for example, sharing minutes with the Rights of Way Review Committee. She also commented on the importance of independent members, she asked for views on membership.
184. The NT representative suggested that the CA prepared a programme of work which it would like NCAF to advise on. He proposed that there was still much work to do on monitoring and evaluating open access. A work programme would help the Forum determine its role, style, membership and frequency of meetings. It would also help members organisations decide who would best represent their interests at the meetings.
185. The Chairman asked members to think how the Forum could be serviced by working groups but to remember the pressure this would put on the CA. She asked members to think through the sort of advice and the sort of engagement in evaluation that would be useful to the Government and the CA.
186. The ANPA representative reminded that NCAF was an advisor to Government advisors. It could be more assertive in this role.
187. The RA representative suggested that co-option may not necessarily be the answer but presentations could be made by invited speakers.
188. The Chairman asked if members felt the regional agenda was represented and suggested that the Forum should include a representative for the local access forums.
189. The NFU representative responded that it would be difficult for one person to reflect the concerns of all local access forums and there would be a risk of generalising. He added that having someone from regional bodies attend would probably not inform the Forum more than currently.
190. The BHS representative agreed with this point and noted that everyone was interpreting the same Act so there was no need for regional representation. She suggested that links with local access forums could be achieved by circulating relevant papers and minutes.
191. The CLA representative added that it was difficult to comment on the future of NCAF without knowing the business likely to require discussion in the future. She expressed disappointment that working groups would cost too much to run as they were likely to be most effective in encouraging full debate.
192. The Chairman stated the importance of the Forum having the right style.
193. The ANPA representative recommended that the CA set up a LAF working group with a rapporteur to link with NCAF.
194. The RA representative suggested that the CA regional offices fed information from local access forums to headquarters so that it could be fed back to NCAF.
195. The BHS representative agreed with this point and suggested that there be one person at the CA to be the LAF liaison point.
196. Referring to the style and frequency of meetings, the Chairman asked for consensus from members. The members agreed that meetings should be public and structured to encourage maximum participation.
197. The NT representative also suggested that the Forum break into smaller groups and maybe talk to members of the public who attend.
198. The Chairman stated that she would like to continue to involve Wales and Scotland.
199. The SNH representative reported that the Scottish Access Forum was embarking on a similar exercise.
200. The RSPB representative enquired about having an annual conference. He endorsed the idea of breakout groups to provide focus and suggested training for local access forum members.
201. The NFU representative informed that CCW and NFU were providing briefing for members of local access forums and that CCW were producing an annual report on the achievements of local access forums. He reiterated that it was important to have a programme of issues which would provide an opportunity to plan ahead.
202. The BMC representative raised the issue of education and training activities on access land and stated that there was a real possibility that such activities could be mistakenly interpreted as commercial and therefore restricted under Schedule 2 of the CROW Act. This issue had implications not only for education but also for the rural economy. He informed the forum that the Land Reform (Scotland) Act had addressed this issue very appropriately and asked that the issue be discussed at a future NCAF meeting.
NCAF 16/5 RIGHTS OF WAY IMPROVEMENT PLANS
203. Wendy Thompson introduced this paper and said that she particularly welcomed solutions and suggestions on funding to implement plans. She reported that the eight fast track plans mentioned in the paper were all underway. There was one project in each CA region and each focussed on particular aspects of preparing a rights of way improvement plan. The local authorities and specialist research were summarised in the annex. She stressed, however, that where, for example, in Bedfordshire they are doing in depth research into the needs of walkers, they were not ignoring the needs of riders and cyclists. She drew the Forum’s attentions to the 2 main issues raised in the paper – 1) how the ROWIPS would merge with local transport plans in 2005; and 2) where funds were going to come from to implement the plans.
204. The RA representative agreed that DEFRA/ DFT guidance on the links to local transport plans was required. He asked what was meant by the term in paragraph 9 “improvements to the countryside in and around towns” and how it could be achieved.
205. Wendy Thompson responded that this referred to improving the rights of way network in the urban fringe and to creating more routes to link town and country. Greenways were an example.
206. The BHS representative commented that it was difficult to look at rights of way improvement plans and discovering lost ways separately and that it was not until the lost ways were in place that ways to improve could be seen. She stated that the other problem was overcoming resistance from landowners and land managers to suggestions to create new routes.
207. The RSPB representative reiterated the link with improving the countryside and health. He reported that the England Biodiversity Strategy expressed some of those linkages very well.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
208. The BMC representative drew the Forum’s attention to a paper by Prof. Kevin Gray, clarifying the issues surrounding traditional freedoms of access and asked if it could be circulated. CA to circulate paper provided by BMC representative
209. The CLA representative asked if it was possible to have a working group with CA, OS and DEFRA to discuss OS plans and find out what is going on.
210. The Chairman responded that she would discuss and report back.
211. The NFU representative commented that he supported that point and would also like to be involved.
212. The DEFRA representative reported that a working group was in existence and these discussions were happening.
213. The CLA representative also wanted to discuss how byelaw land and permanently excepted land would be shown on maps.
214. The NT representative reported of structural changes at OS and stated that the maps are their product and they would decide what is on them.
215. The CLA representative responded that what is shown is a big issue and has many effects.
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
216. The Chairman advised that the next public meeting would be in October. The members would be attending a joint meeting with the National Access Forum for Wales on 16-17th July in Wrexham.
QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
217. Several questions were raised by members of the audience:
John Beavan, Settle: If access forums are to hold their appointing authorities (access authorities) to account. Who is to support access forums? Especially given forum’s role of lobbying for resources and their entirely voluntary nature.
Roger Ward responded that this would be considered in discussions of the future role of NCAF and he stated the need to pin down the relationship between NCAF and local access forums. He also identified the need to pin down how and by whom local access should be championed at a national level.
Harry Jevons, Ilkley: How will users of access land have an input on a local basis where access points, information points/ boards, stiles etc. How will this be funded and who will carry out implementation on the ground.
Roger Ward responded that users would have input through their local access forum as that is what it was designed for, management would be carried out by access authorities and clearly robust government funding was needed.
R.A.McLoughlin, Manchester: What publicity should a local access forum be given of NCAF meetings and its work?
The Chairman advised that the meetings were always advertised on the CA website and asked members to circulate dates to members of their organisations. Roger Ward responded that it was for each local access forum to decide how much information is published and how it is publicised.
Jon Beavan, Settle: Caving and potholing open air recreation?
David Aldridge, Huddersfield: Why are the British Canoe Union, the Long Distance Walking Association and the British Mountaineering Association not represented here?
The Chairman responded that the need is to create a Forum that is manageable, so cannot invite everyone to attend. She made it clear that the Forum was set up and the role of the members is to liaise with other organisations and share information.
Catriona Cook, Scarborough: Will the CA attempt to educate farmers / land managers that many “lost ways” are ancient public rights of way that belong to the public in law? And will the CA encourage land managers to concede these rights rather than fighting them through the expensive public enquiry process?
Wendy Thompson agreed that this should be raised at the next discovering lost ways steering group meeting.
Rachel Connolly, Richmond: In reply to enquiries, Richard Wakeford wrote to me on 18 September 2001 “our aim is that by April 2002 the necessary resources will be available to support researchers and others.” It is over a year later, the clock is ticking towards 2026 but there is no sign of any positive commitment that the CA understands the massive task. This is particularly important for horse-riders who have been squeezed out of improved access (generally) and who already suffer from a fragmented path network with seriously dangerous roads to meet them.
Wendy Thompson assured that the CA did understand the task and were putting in place systems and mechanisms in order to do this task thoroughly. She added that was why the archive research units would be set up and then piloted in 2 counties during the next 6-12 months. Lessons would be learned and then the approach would be rolled out across the country.
CLOSE OF BUSINESS
218. The Chairman thanked all for attending.
