Minutes
Minutes of the 18th Meeting of the National Countryside Access Forum (NCAF) held on Wednesday 3rd March 2004, at the Rutland Square Hotel, Nottingham
PRESENT:
Members
Pam Warhurst (Chair), Countryside Agency (CA)
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)
Caroline Edward, Central Council for Physical Recreation (CCPR)
Gwyn Williams, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)
Andrew Clark, National Farmers Union (NFU)
Richard Brown, Local Government Association (LGA)
Jerry Pearlman, Ramblers’ Association (RA)
Pam Ashton, Cyclists Touring Club (CTC)
Jo Burgon, National Trust (NT)
William Bird
Observers
William Crookshank , Environment Agency (EA)
Chris Probert, Forestry Commission (FC)
Ceri Daugherty, Ministry of Defence (MOD)
Graham Bathe, English Nature (EN)
Susan Carter, Defra
Heloise Tierney, Defra
Guests
Simon Houghton, Nottinghamshire County Council
Sir Edward Nall, Nottinghamshire LAF
Wendy Judge, Nottingham City LAF
Countryside Agency Staff
Jeremy Worth
Roger Ward
Paul Mutch
Julia Bailey
David Gear (Secretary)
(approx. 30 members of the public attended the meeting)
1. CHAIR’S INTRODUCTION
PW welcomed everyone to the meeting, including new member Charlotte Edward (CCPR), new observer Ceri Daugherty (MOD), and CA staff Paul Mutch and Julia Bailey.
2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE were received from members Andrew Sutcliffe MA, Henry Aubrey-Fletcher CLA, Barry Leathwood TGWU, and Ian Mercer, and observers Mark Wrightham SNH, Gareth Roberts CCW, and Gail Dyson Defra.
3. MINUTES OF THE 17TH MEETING (14th OCTOBER 2003)
These were agreed to be a correct record, though “miserable” (in para 11m) should be deleted.
4. MATTERS ARISING FROM 17TH MEETING
Update on work programme of CA’s Wider Welcome Branch
PW announced that the Access Land web site was being launched on 3rd March.
JW said that the DLW Project had invited tenders for the contract to run the ARU (Archive Research Unit), and CA expected to let the contract at the end of April.
PW said a seminar on the Diversity Review was scheduled for 27th April, in Birmingham.
(NCAF 17/1) Your Countryside - Your Health PA invited CA to visit a part of Bradford where 60% of people of south Asian origin had been diagnosed with diabetes. JW accepted the invitation on behalf of CA. (Action JW).
(NCAF 17/2) Relationship between NCAF and LAFs JP said that there should be a two-way process, with NCAF knowing what LAFs were doing and vice versa. In response to his suggestion that the minutes didn’t really take matters forward, JW drew attention to 7(i), which recorded that CA regional offices, who were in informal contact with LAFs, should make it clear that if one wanted assistance, CA would help. RB said that LAFs would like to know more about NCAF, but without being formally tied to it, and as LAFs were not sufficiently organised yet, an electronic network for them was needed. CB said she was concerned that there was insufficient awareness of Defra’s guidance on LAFs. In response to JW’s query about Defra putting together a LAF electronic address list, SC confirmed that a questionnaire had gone to all LAFs, and that the resultant information would be sent to CA (action Defra), so the list could be shared.
(NCAF 17/5) CROW Act s2,1(t): commercial activities IMc said that an eight page document had been presented to Defra, outlining BMC concerns, and suggesting which activities were non-commercial, and which commercial. Following BMC’s 15th Oct meeting with the Minister, Alun Michael, Defra had agreed to issue extra guidance about s2,1(t). HT confirmed this, adding that Defra was first taking some legal advice. IMc would arrange for NCAF members to receive copies of the BMC submission to the Minister. (Action IMc).
5. ORAL UPDATE: COUNTRYSIDE CODE
JBy said that following development of the code based on messages and themes recommended and accepted at the July 2003 joint NCAF/NWAF meeting, receipt of comments from partners and stakeholders, and an input from the Plain English Campaign, the revised code’s text would be submitted to CA’s Board in March. The text continued to strive to foster a shared sense of responsibility between all those involved in countryside access. It had been developed in a format to meet the needs of both short and snappy messages (for use in guide books, on signs etc) and lengthier text to explain 'why' people should behave in certain ways.
CA maintained that if the code was to be successful in terms of target audiences taking notice of it, it needed a strong creative theme to make it welcoming and attractive and avoid being seen as Nanny state-ish. To this end, CA was working with Aardman Animation to use their Creature Comforts characters to illustrate the code in print and broadcast media. CA intended to launch the code in early July to coincide with the start of the summer holidays.
In response to AC’s query about the Countryside Code in Wales being different, JBy confirmed this was the case, but that the differences related to a few points in the text but that the messages across the two codes are the same.
IMc said he would like the code to be as rational as possible, and circulated to the education sector. The draft Scottish outdoor access code was, for example, a masterpiece in the application of reason. In response to his expressed concern about the use of “can and can’t go”, JBy reassured him that such wording wouldn’t find its way into the code.
JP said it seemed as though the code had been given a long lead in time, but was then being pushed out in a rush. In response to his doubts that youngsters would read all the detail, JBy said that the Code was designed with this in mind, so it contained two tiers, one with ‘top messages’ (eg for younger readership and use where physical space is limited), and a second, explanatory tier.
In response to JP’s comments that RA didn’t like having an additional Moorland Code (as people on moorland walks wouldn’t know which to use), PM said that 80% of Access Land was moorland, and that rather than a ‘code’, it was a ‘users guide’, which could explain, for example, why grouse moors were burnt. It was complementary to the Countryside Code.
In response to WB’s concerns about the Countryside Code going straight from the market research stage to the finished product, JBy said that it was being tested for plain English through focus groups. Although AC commented that there would be nothing to prevent CA launching the code and then modifying it next year, JW said this would only be worth doing if something was found to be markedly wrong.
6. ORAL UPDATE: PREPARING FOR OPEN ACCESS COMMENCEMENT
JBy said CA’s communications planning for all work concerned with the revised countryside code and introduction of the new rights was moving along apace, with in-depth plans for specific areas of work and activities being developed. These included CA’s web strategy, work with partners/stakeholders to ensure they are communicating the messages consistently to their audiences, an educational campaign, marketing campaign, and media campaign.
CA was also compiling an outline marketing plan to guide marketing and communications activity by all authorities involved in commencement. This plan, along with partnership working through a newly formed access communications group, will ensure all authorities involved are working consistently together on their communications for the introduction of the new rights. CA has produced guidance for land managers who are affected by the new rights in the first commencement areas (south east and lower north west) on managing public access and how the restrictions system works. All NCAF members have been sent a copy of this land managers’ guidance pack.
CA faced several challenging issues in planning its communications activity for open access. It was scoping ways of dealing with these issues and would appreciate any input from members, on ways to tackle them. For example, neither OS maps, nor CA website maps would be able to give the public the complete picture regarding where they can walk. While the OS is planning its reprint schedule to coincide with commencement as far as possible, there will be delays between commencement and the publication of OS updated Explorer maps. The length of delay will vary but could be as much as a year and a half for those map sheets that straddle both the first and last areas to commence. At the same time the public need to have confidence that they are in the right place when they are out using these new rights. The Agency will provide a lot of information on its web site about where people can go from the outset of commencement and will be briefing authors of local walking guidebooks to ensure they include information about the new rights and where people can and can't go. But while CA’s web site maps will be kept up to date as regards restrictions, no maps will be able to provide fully comprehensive information about, for example, excepted land. JBy sought advice from NCAF members about how to communicate the limitations of maps to walkers.
JB added that Access authorities (NPAs or LHAs) have the responsibility (but not duty) for placing signs on the ground relating to the new access rights. Whilst CA didn’t want to see a multitude of new signs going up, it felt that on-the-ground signage was an important tool in telling the public where they could and couldn’t exercise their new rights. As the responsibility lay with the access authorities, signage level might vary in different parts of the country. She added that of the 135 organisations consulted over the new Access symbol, only 13% had expressed concern. JBy sought advice from NCAF members about how to encourage access authorities to assume their responsibility for placing signs on the ground, to ensure good quality signage is available for the public.
JB said that as the revised OS maps will show all open access land, (ie not just CROW Act access land) there would need to be supplementary marginal guidance directing people to other sources, ie a ‘layering’ of information. BC said he looked forward to the publicity campaign, but that those advising land managers must be ‘ahead of the game’ and be able to reassure them. CB added that land managers needed ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ signs, as well as leaflets to hand out.
RB said that there needed to be a properly financed scheme, and LGA needed to work with CA to promote some best practice regarding signage. CB suggested that there ought to be booklets (for landowners and public) to supplement the signs, and explain what they mean.
In response to SW’s scepticism about readiness for commencement by September, RW said that in mapping Access Land area 2, the Planning Inspectorate was on course to have completed the appeals procedures by the end of March.
In response to SW’s query about issues arising from the effects on rights for horse riders under the Law of Property Act 1925, JBy said that this would be made clear through CA’s web site, leaflets, and briefing. SW added that the problem with the new open access sign was that it showed a person walking, but where higher rights applied (eg for horse riders), this ought to be mentioned. PA agreed, despite international moves away from text on signs, adding that she didn’t like the ‘person’ sign, would prefer the use of boot, horseshoe, and wheel symbols, to indicate who was permitted to use the land. CE added that incorporating other recreation uses into the signs was important. PM said that if there was a feeling that the ‘person’ sign could mislead some people who had higher rights, then the responsibility would fall on LHAs to remedy this, although CA would incorporate the point in its guidance. (Action JBy)
JP stressed that signs should be minimal in number and minimalist in content. IMc said that, ideally, he would prefer to see no signage at all, but that in practice it should be kept to a bare minimum. He remarked that landowners had been known to remove footpath signs. SW said that signage was becoming too complex, and from her recent experience of horse riding on Exmoor, the simple small blue waymarking arrows were quite sufficient. It was hard enough getting LHAs to sign PROWs, so colours should be settled for.
BC said the use of the ‘access negative’ sign might convey the wrong message where a walker was going from Access Land onto a PROW. AC suggested that if standard signage was available via the internet, it could be down-loaded by farmers. In response to his comment that there should be signs specifically for Excepted and cultivated land, JBy said that the guidance would outline how this could be done. IMc expressed concern that because there was land where the public had a statutory right to go, and land where there they could ‘customarily’ go, the signage could confuse them.
JBy thanked members for their advice which would be used in developing the outline marketing plan.
7. NCAF 18/2 OPEN ACCESS: MANAGING ACCESS
PM introduced the paper by saying that it was in two parts, the first coming back to NCAF members about their previous advice, and the second asking them for fresh advice. The business case submitted in December for a new Access Incentive Scheme (AIS), estimated that to implement it over five years would cost £31.8 million. Subsequent discussions with Defra had led to a more focussed three year scheme costing £6.3 million, based on ‘high demand’ areas, notably those areas defined by EN as sensitive conservation sites. Currently CA has confirmation of £2 million for 2004/05, so an early review of the Scheme will be undertaken to inform future funding requirements. Support will be targetted at LHAs which especially need it, and it was hoped the scheme would commence at the start of April.
PW asked whether the £2m was public knowledge, and SC confirmed it was and that Defra expected to issue a press release announcing it within the next couple of days. PW commented that she had noted (from Elliot Morley) that funds from the revised agri-environment scheme would be available to target some pockets of Access Land. SC said that Defra’s consultation document was coming out soon, and it was hoped some CAP money would be available. She would ensure that NCAF members were briefed about developments. (Action HT).
RB paid tribute to CA’s working up of a properly costed scheme, and as LGA had helped CA put together the original bid of about £30m, it was very disappointed in the one year, £2m scheme to be announced shortly. About 50 LHAs were expected to give expression to the new right of access in the first year, and all would be adversely affected if funded at the sort of rate implied by the total sum. In the shorter term there would be presentational problems, with LHAs bearing the brunt of criticism from land managers and users, and given the poor resources it would be a challenge to rescue the situation. In the longer term, as more areas came on stream, and as there was more practical experience of what was best practice, RB hoped that NCAF would support the case for LHAs indispensable work.
AC welcomed the Access Land principle, but said the funding was too little too late, and that Ministers should be ashamed when they saw the RA’s figures that rambling brought £6bn pa into the rural economy. JP said that during the 12 months after September, when Area 2 came on stream, it would be possible to gauge the funding levels necessary or, indeed, whether the thing was feasible at all. It would be an ideal situation to use the LAF network. He added that RA was fearful that with so little money available, it would either go to only a limited number of sites, or be spread so thinly that nothing would be achieved. RA would write to CA with its views. (Action JP).
In response to PA’s queries about whether landowners would be able to apply for the money directly, and how they would use it, PM explained that the Scheme was designed to deliver public access to open country plus appropriate signage, as well as mitigating any adverse effects. There would be support for workshops which informed landowners and LHAs more, and there would be strong engagement with LAFs. In the first year the areas of high demand and conservation sites would be priorities, and local plans would be developed in conjunction with LHAs. CA expected that funds would be channelled through LHAs, who might do the wok themselves or pay landowners. Exceptionally, CA might contract landowners direct. RW said that any scheme of such a size had to reflect a combination of local and national priorities. JB added that it would be important to try and get a balance between encouraging people, and mitigating measures.
Although GW welcomed the principle of the Scheme, he wondered how it would be monitored, and shared concerns at the 75% level of funding, and where the other 25% would come from. SW added that underfunding of LHAs for PROW and access work had been a problem since the 1949 Act.
CB said that CLA would be offering to run events about the commencement of open access, but that there was disappointment that the agri-environment HLS (Higher Level Scheme) couldn’t (for example) fund gates onto Access Land. Land managers could use such money. SC said Defra had proposed that there should be funds available under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme for access infrastructure. RW agreed it would be good if CS could be used to fund any beneficial works which added value to the new right of access and which weren’t statutory duties, and that perhaps CA could discuss this with Defra. (Action RW).
WB said that Access Land should be built on the twin pillars of health and social inclusion, and reminded the meeting that when the idea emerged, it was in the context of helping the health and well-being of the excluded urban populations, to whom it should be promoted. JW said that CA was very aware of the health issue, and was working with Dept Health on the benefits, which would form part of the promotional material. PW added that there were huge potential benefits to society at large.
BC said it was positive that the principle of Access Land had been established, but the text appeared to give too much priority to conservation, when it was wrong to imply that access necessarily damaged wildlife. AC agreed, saying he was disappointed in the focus on nature conservation, and that the priority was to use the funds to encourage people into the countryside. GB pointed out, however, that although only 7% of UK comprised SSSIs, over 55% of that 7% comprised Access Land. Fortunately EN knew the landowners concerned, that with simple access management it was possible to reconcile nature conservation and access, and getting around restrictions was in everybody’s interests. RW pointed out that owing to the requirements of habitat regulations, CA and EN would want to ensure that management measures worked, and would examine where intervention was necessary.
SC said she was sorry that there wasn’t more money for the Scheme. As for the current one year limit, this reflected only the fact that Defra hadn’t received its future funds from Treasury, and there was every expectation that the Scheme would continue into years two and three. PW added that such funding should be at an enhanced level.
8. ORAL REPORTS ON LOCAL ISSUES BY NOTTINGHAMSHIRE LAF & CC, AND NOTTINGHAM CITY LAF
PW welcomed to the meeting, Simon Houghton of Nottinghamshire County Council, Sir Edward Nall, Chair of Nottinghamshire LAF, and Wendy Judge, Chair designate of Nottingham City LAF.
EN said that Nottinghamshire LAF (administered by SH) had about 18 attendees representing a wide body of experience, and since it was formed on 24th July 2003, had held four meetings in different parts of the county. These had included presentations from the LHA, CA, and FC, and a site visit to a farm which had given an insight into the difficulties resulting from PROW changes. Although Notts had little Access Land, it was possible that FC would make some dedications.
SH said that his role was split between administering the LAF, and developing the Notts CC ROWIP, which had been one of the exemplar pilot projects. It was concentrated on the area covered by Ashfield, Gedling, and Broxstowe, which fell within the Greenwood Community Forest, and contained a lot of urban land. The steering group set up by Notts CC included reps. from RA, BHS, and district councils, and there had been a large exercise to gather information about the public’s needs and aspirations for access. Defra’s guidance hadn’t proved particularly helpful, and the ROWIP pilot plan could be used to ‘push the boundaries’. It was already in production, and would be entered on the PROW Good Practice Guide web site. Notts CC was the first LHA to reach that stage.
SW asked whether access considerations were built into the Greenwood Community Forest, and SH said that it was strongly represented, and areas had full multi-use access. In response to AC’s query about what contacts there had been with the land management community, SH said that as part of its access study for the Community Forest, Notts CC had held consultations with the major landowners. AC said that NFU was concerned that a lot of consultations with farmers were not as meaningful as they could be, and stressed that LHAs should engage with farmers more so that there was widespread ‘ownership’ of the plan. By way of reassurance, EN commented that Notts LAF included the chairs of both the county NFU and county CLA.
In response to PA’s query about the opportunities proposed for cyclists, SH said that although some of the other exemplar pilot ROWIP projects were concentrating on specific user groups, Notts was looking at the more generic theme of making better use of the existing network for all user groups.
WB asked if Notts CC had consulted the strategic health authority or primary health care trusts, CE asked about GP referral schemes, and PW asked what sort of ‘buy in’ there had been to the broader ‘health constituency’. SH said although there hadn’t been so much activity on these fronts, CA’s WHI had been operating in the area.
PW asked about dedication of land. HT said Defra had issued guidance on this, and FC was intending to dedicate much of its freehold estate over the next four to five years. Also, the Minister (Alun Michael) was writing to large land-holding organisations, and some LHAs were planning dedications. The first dedication by a landowner (in Shropshire) had already occurred.
SH said that one problem faced by Notts CC was the lack of advice on how ROWIPs would link with LTPs, a point reiterated by PW. In response, SC said she would check the position and write. (Action Defra).
WJ said the Nottingham City LAF currently had thirteen members, and that its remit would cover PROWs only. A number of these had been lost over the years owing to building development, and it was important to save the remainder. Simple signage, such as coloured arrows, was appreciated. There was insufficient interpretation by LHAs, owing to their lack of funds, and she suggested using local TV to remind people about issues, (eg bird-nesting season), analogous to weather reports.
9. PRESENTATION ON LAKE DISTRICT IADP *
BC gave a powerpoint presentation, commencing with a description of the IADP (Integrated Access Demonstration Project) context. CA was aiming for a countryside PROW network which was easy to use and enjoy, and five IADPs showed how existing access could be improved by linking countryside recreation to wider issues, eg public transport and availability of comprehensive information. National IABP objectives are:
- Develop access management strategies that consider all countryside users needs.
- Increase awareness of access issues among local planning authorities.
- Build innovative partnerships to deliver integrated access.
- Find new funding sources to assist integrated access management.
- Test different methods for improving physical access opportunities.
- Discover the best way to deliver information to the public.
- Show how access can deliver social and economic benefits.
- Demonstrate how access can be successfully integrated with conservation and land management.
In the Lake District, the project is steered by a small group comprising reps. of Cumbria CC, CA, Lake District LAF, and the Lake District Tourism & Conservation Partnership. Branded ‘open return’, the Lake District IADP has recognised the interdependence of access, education, social inclusion, and tourism, in facilitating a sustainable rural environment, economy and community. Its most significant achievements have been through new partnerships, creating an holistic approach to access management, and attracting new funding. A £60,000 contribution by LDNP over three years has generated more than £500,000 public and private sector investment in integrated access.
Examples of initiatives to widen access opportunities and increase opportunities to leave cars behind have included the Eskdale Trail, Miles without Stiles, and the B4 Network (= boats, boots, bikes, and buses). Additionally, collaboration with the Black Environment Network had generated greater understanding of the barriers that discouraged minority groups from visiting the Lake District and ways to overcome them. An initiative led by BMC to build a partnership between a school in Langdale, and a school in Manchester had promoted young people’s understanding of problems and opportunities, and how visitor spending supports rural services.
PW asked if the lessons from the Lake District could be rolled out elsewhere, eg what proportion of the funding came from different sources. BC said that about 25% came from CA, but the private sector was aware that it couldn’t rely on this in the longer term. However, since the FMD crisis, membership had shot up, and more money was raised from tourists, eg through ‘taxes’ on b&b; and the Ullswater steamer added 10p to each ticket. JB remarked that it was interesting to note that it had taken about ten years to reach such a level of commitment from the community. CE said she liked the ‘Miles without Stiles’ slogan, and asked if LDNPA would be affected by DDA? BC said they would be affected, and were working out standards with representatives of disability groups.
10. NCAF 18/3 OPEN ACCESS: GENERAL UPDATE
Remarking on the achievements outlined in the paper (circulated for information), JP said CA ought to ‘blow its own trumpet’ more. In response to a suggestion by CB, it was agreed to let NCAF have a monthly update of progress on open access. (Action RW).
11. QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
- J C Barker asked if there was any liaison with the OS to ensure that bright colours didn’t proliferate on maps, so obscuring detail. RW said there had been discussions between OS, CA, and Defra, and that the ‘mock-ups’ showed Access Land well, and without obscuring detail.
- Simon Houghton asked if funds from the Access Incentive Scheme would be available for works on land dedicated under s16 of CROW Act, or to enable land to have restrictions either relaxed or removed. RW said that in both cases the answer was ‘potentially yes’, and that it would depend on the priorities of the LHA concerned.
- Simon Houghton asked if NCAF had a view on how LHAs should respond to the announcement of new higher payment levels for access under ESAs and Countryside Stewardship. JW said that he didn’t have an immediate answer, but that CA would offer a response soon. (Action JW).
- Bill Renshaw asked how much Access Land lay in AONBs, and what funding arrangements were being made for such areas. RW said AONBs were not separately funded for open access and the amount of open access land in AONBs had not so far been calculated.
- Elizabeth Fairhurst asked about the aims/remit of LAFs, and how they connected with those of NCAF. JW said that LAFs were creations of statute (CROW Act), whereas NCAF was set up to advise CA.. PM said that the role of LAFs was to advise LHAs about access at a strategic level. JW added that CA would try to encourage liaison between NCAF and LAFs
- Alexander Staniforth asked whether, given the slow progress in getting the DLW project up and running, it would be possible to extend the 2026 ‘deadline’ to compensate for this. JW said he believed that the legislation permitted this option, but it was too soon to ask.
- Mary Mackie asked how ROWIPs would be implemented, given that LHAs were not required to do so. JW said that although this was true, it did give LHAs something to focus on.
- Mary Mackie asked if NCAF had discussed Defra’s consultation on the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on PROW. JW said that owing to difficulties of timing this hadn’t been possible, but that CA/EN would make a combined response to Defra.
12. CLOSE
PW thanked everyone for their interest, and wished them a safe journey home.
* For the minutes, BC would like to make it clear that his remarks during his presentation about Yorkshire Water IADP were incorrect. He understands that the project is going well, that Yorkshire Water is actively working to ensure open access on its land will be a success, and that they have an £80k capital scheme raised and approved to implement access work in 2004/05.
