Natural England

MINUTES OF THE 20TH MEETING OF THE NATIONAL COUNTRYSIDE ACCESS FORUM

PRESENT:

Members:

Pam Warhurst (Chair), Countryside Agency (CA)

Pam Ashton, Cyclists Touring Club (CTC)

Henry Aubrey-Fletcher, Country Land and Business Association (CLA)

Richard Brown, Local Government Association (LGA)

Jo Burgon, National Trust (NT)

Bob Cartwright, Association of National Park Authorities (ANPA)

Peter Kendall, National Farmers Union (NFU)

Jonathan Kennedy, Moorland Association

Iain McMorrin, British Mountaineering Council (BMC)

Ian Mercer (independent)

Paul Owen, Central Council for Physical Recreation (CCPR)

Jerry Pearlman, Ramblers’ Association (RA)

Tim Stevens, Central Council for Physical Recreation (CCPR)

Stephanie Wheeler, British Horse Society (BHS)

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

Observers:            

Graham Bathe, English Nature (EN)

William Crookshank, Environment Agency (EA)

Ceri Daugherty, Ministry of Defence (MOD)

Chris Probert, Forestry Commission (FC)

Roger Smith, Defra

Heloise Tierney, Defra

Guests:            

Rt Hon Alun Michael MP

Countryside Agency Staff:

Jeremy Worth

Roger Ward

Paul Johnson

Victoria Bennett

Bruce Cutts

David Gear (Secretary)

(approx. 12 members of the public attended the meeting)

1.             CHAIR’S INTRODUCTION

PW welcomed everyone to the meeting, including members Paul Owen representing CCPR water interests, Jonathan Kennedy from the Moorlands Association, Henry Aubrey-Fletcher from CLA, and Peter Kendall from NFU.   She also welcomed Defra observers Roger Smith and Heloise Tierney.   This was Richard Brown’s last meeting, and PW thanked him for his contribution.

2.             APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE    were received from Andrew Sutcliffe (Moorland Association), Barry Leathwood (TGWU) Sarah Tunnicliffe (EH), and Mark Wrightham (SNH).

3.             MINUTES OF THE 19TH MEETING (2ND NOVEMBER 2004)

These were agreed to be a correct record.
 
4.          NCAF 20/3 UPDATES ON MATTERS ARISING FROM 19TH MEETING

4.4.6   Your countryside – Your Health 

PW would be visiting Bradford on 28th April, along with any NCAF members who wished to join her; in the morning seeing some good partnership practice on the ground, and sitting in on a meeting of the LAF in the afternoon.
4.4.10   CROW Act Sch2, 1(t): commercial activities  

Following a meeting of Defra and WAG, attended by IMc, guidelines were being re-drafted to clarify that activities would be acceptable if they were broadly within the spirit of the CROW Act, and not specifically commercial.   It was important that the draft guidance on commercial activity should be the same in England and Wales.

4.5   Managing Open Access  

Defra has confirmed that under the Environmental Stewardship Scheme, payments would be made on permissive routes over access land where the   agreed permissive rights were over and above the legal rights. RDS had made agreements with land owners to upgrade existing permissive rights on some routes across newly mapped access land. (Such activity would not prejudice any scope for a Lost Way claim, which would be based on historic evidence - but care would be needed where there has been long-term user that might justify a prescriptive right of way claim.)

6.   Disability legislation and guidance  

After contacting CMA (Countryside Management Association), the largest professional association for countryside and urban green space managers, CA had received helpful contributions.   CA had obtained the paper with a good explanation of DDA (included at Central Law Training’s course on highway law), and it was agreed this would be circulated.  (Action SB)

8.   Local access forum issues  

At the start of January CA had awarded the LAFs research contract to CCRU (Countryside & Community Research Unit), University of Gloucestershire, and work was ongoing.

10.   Horse Industry Strategy             

CA had recently received the British Horse Industry Confederation’s consultation Strategy for the Horse Industry in England and Wales, and would be drafting a response.   In relation to DLW project, CA had advised SW that the contractors were expected to complete the first two counties, (ie Cheshire and Wiltshire) by June 2005.  CA was still working on the details of how exactly it moved from ARU’s (Archive Research Unit’s) trawled evidence to lodging formal claims.   Inevitably in the first two counties a lot of ‘process’ issues were being found out.

5.             PRESENTATION ON ACCESS TO COASTAL LAND

Main points made in presentation (by Bruce Cutts CA):

• The research was being undertaken because there had been limited factual information about recreational use of the coast.   The aim was to gather information quickly and effectively to provide a snap-shot of recreational provision, access problems, where there were access gaps, and the types of agriculture and topography that predominated.
• Structured interviews were designed to give a broad overview of the situation around the coast through speaking to the 43 relevant access authorities, supplemented by six case studies to give reasonable coverage of a range of coastal environments around the country, focussing on coasts in north Cornwall, east Sussex, Essex, Lincolnshire, Durham, and the Sefton coast.
• The case studies enabled the various stake holders (eg   LAFs, LHAs, NT, RSPB, EA, RDS, EN and local land managers) to participate in brain-storming sessions, involving such issues as coastal squeeze, agricultural reversion, pressures and changes caused by management realignment, and potential sea level rises.
• Questions asked of the 43 authorities, included ones about security and quality of access provision, coastal topography, predominant type of agriculture, current recreational and commercial use of the coast, and any information about additional recreational demand.  
• There had been an enthusiastic response from coastal authorities; over half had already responded, indicating that major coastal landowners were NT, private farms, and access authorities (sighted by 59%, 36%, and 23% respectively).
• The most popular coastal recreational activities were identified as walking, fishing, bird watching, boating, and of course ‘beaching’, ie sitting on the beach.
• Access authorities reported   that currently there was de facto access to about 84% of their foreshores, although more than a third were aware of some problems with reaching the foreshore or along the foreshore, eg estuarine inlets or MOD land.
• Undeveloped land behind the foreshore (eg cliff-tops) was typically in some kind of agricultural management, and often only available along public rights of way.
• Given that much current access was based on de facto arrangements, even on the foreshore, the majority of contacts in access authorities would prefer the proposed improvement of coastal access to be by means of a legislative solution, rather than by relying on piecemeal voluntary measures. 

It was agreed that copies of the presentation slides would be circulated.  (Action BC)

6.             PRESENTATION ON ACCESS TO INLAND WATERS

Main points made in presentation (by William Crookshank EA):

• Although Brighton University’s report to Defra (2001) said that there was little evidence of widespread unmet demand for inland water based sport and recreation, there is an imbalance in provision which needs to be addressed. 
• The BCU (British Canoe Union) says canoeists have access to only 2% of England’s rivers, whereas over 70% of major rivers and canals have a right for angling.   Significantly, many actually go abroad for a wider experience, rather than paddling in England, where they cannot get on the rivers they want. 
• In 2000 there were 300,000 people employed in delivering water based sport and recreation, and 250 million visits to water and waterside producing a visitor spend of £2.5 billion.   Although this is therefore big business, it is unplanned, and so the issue to address is the need for strategic planning.
• This involves knowing what is going on, what is strategically important, what is needed to protect conservation, and how opportunities for all can be created so that social economic and environmental benefits can be delivered sustainably.
• In doing this it will be necessary to engage with LAFs, landowners, regional sports boards, and everybody who has a legitimate interest.   When some consensus is reached, the information may be included in regional spatial strategies.
• Water based sports and recreation can help to deliver Government targets, eg. the Game Plan target of 50% of the population being reasonably active by 2020; water recreation has a role to play in helping to deliver the health agenda. 

7.             ACCESS TO COASTAL LAND AND INLAND WATERS:   DISCUSSION WITH THE MINISTER (RT. HON ALUN MICHAEL MP)
PW welcomed the Minister to the meeting and asked him to say a few words to set the scene for the discussion.   He said he valued NCAF’s work in providing a sounding board on access issues generally and in demonstrating that a variety of interest groups could work together on some of the important issues.   It would be very helpful to hear NCAF members’ views on the two issues of access to coastal land and inland waters.  

Main points made in address about access to coastal land:  

• As the new right of access to open country was on course for implementation by the end of 2005, there was an opportunity to move on to other issues.   Improvement of coastal access had been identified as a first priority.  
• The key issues seemed to be firstly access along the coast, (securing wherever practicable the ability for people to make onward journeys on foot around the whole of the English coast line); secondly access to reach the coast from inland; and thirdly securing open spaces at regular intervals along the coast. 

• There needed to be clarity about what could be achieved quickly, simply and straightforwardly using the power at CROW section 3 to add coastal land to the definition of open country – and what role there might be for new legislation to supplement such provision by making additional improvements in coastal access. 
• There should also be scope for measures such as agri-environment agreements to complement statutory measures and bring important practical improvements on the ground over time.  

Main points made in address about access to inland waters:  

• There had been a continual drip feed of letters from canoeists, frustrated at their inadequate access to water, and Defra had undertaken work to analyse the issues.
• The minister had written to LAFs to suggest that this was a sphere in which they could   identify in their areas opportunities for canoeists, and other users as well.
• The issues surrounding water-based recreation were complex, but ways had to be found of achieving improvements through Defra’s discussions with CA, SE, EA and BCU (British Canoe Union).
• BCU had shown a willingness to cooperate with the practicalities even though its long-term goal was to secure statutory access to inland waters. 

8.          NCAF 20/1   ACCESS TO COASTAL LAND

Main points made in discussion:  (Remarks by Minister in italics)

• If new coastal access rights at the national level were likely to be on foot only, it was very   important that this did not result in signs springing up, purporting to ban horse riding, cycling, vehicular use, caving or other uses where they already occurred de facto or by permission.  
• Extending access for horse-riders and cyclists was more complex than dealing with walking, and so the Government would need to decide whether it opted for a comprehensive or   incremental approach.
• The problem with backing this up with legislation was time; it was necessary to wait for a legislative slot, which could take years.   So it was useful to distinguish between what could be done without legislation and what required legislation. 
• Even where coastal access appeared well provided for, (eg on the South West Coast Path), walkers often found themselves squeezed between the cliff-top and the fence separating the path from coastal farmland. More spreading room would be a key element of getting the new arrangements right.
• If the areas to be subject to statutory access could be described in words rather than mapped, this would fit better with the rapidly-changing nature of England’s coastline, and would minimise time-consuming, expensive, and bureaucratic processes. The Minister said he started from a preference for using words rather than maps to identify the land, if this could be made to work in practice.                                                                                                  
• The alternative view was that it was important to be clear what land areas were covered by any new rights. This was particularly desirable for occupiers, who needed to be aware of their obligations on land.    
• A key decision would be what was meant by coastal land - how far back did it go from the sea. It was important not to generalise about the coastline as, for example, the issues for sea level access were very different from those for cliff-top level access. 
• A lot of coastal land would be of prime wildlife interest. There might be a greater need for restrictions here than on other access land - particularly on the ‘soft’ coast such as mudflats and marshes. The CROW arrangements had demonstrated that access on foot and wildlife often co-existed successfully, assisted where necessary by positive management. But exclusion was always an option where there were real problems.
• Some land managers considered that using a statutory approach to improve coastal access was using a sledge-hammer to crack a walnut. It was preferable for LAFs to be asked to sort out local problems where these arose, and only use the law as a last resort if that process did not work.apes were dynamic. Nature should often be left to take its course, and ‘managed retreat’ or abandonment of defences adopted, rather than fighting natural changes in order to protect access or preserve existing paths. Working with rather than against the changing coastline was a very important principle. Where coastal erosion was inevitable, ‘managed retreat’ opened up a lot of longer term opportunities, but raised its own challenges. 
• The Ramblers’ representative had extensive experience of the interface between erosion and access issues, and undertook to produce a paper on this to assist the CA team in assessing the options. There should be scope for automatic ‘re-provision’ of paths and access without having to go through the process of negotiating them all over again.
• There was excellent scope over the coming years to revert coastal farmland to unimproved pasture, to the benefit of wildlife and landscape as well as of access and enjoyment. This was a key answer to the current problems of coastal squeeze, and was a key priority for the agri-environment programme.  
• It was important to draw on the extensive experience of major coastal stakeholders such as the National Trust and the Ministry of Defence. It was also important to investigate the approach being taken to coastal access in Scotland. 
• Very extensive sections of coastal land were golf courses. They sometimes proved more obstructive to access than hard development such as promenades. It would need to be decided whether coastal golf courses were to be treated as excepted land (as golf courses on CROW access land were at present). 

9.          NCAF 20/2   ACCESS TO INLAND WATERS   

Main points made in discussion:   (Remarks by Minister in italics) 

• Outdoor education centres experienced great difficulties in getting access to inland waterways, especially rivers.   The main problem was that riparian landowners favoured fishing rights over access to the river rights.
• The Govt. was congratulated (and the Minister for his personal interest) for supporting  

             the new bylaw on Windermere; it would do more to broaden the range of recreational activities on the lake than anything else.

• It was not a question of denying people the ability to undertake the activities (eg water-skiing) they wanted to take part in, but locating the activities in appropriate places so that there could be proper management of those places.
• Although there was an emphasis on access for canoeists, there were many other access issues relating to inland waters, eg a right of access on foot beside inland waters, covered by s16 of the Countryside Act 1968, had yet to be taken on board.
• The recent report of the House of Commons Education & Skills Committee on “Education Outside the Classroom” properly drew attention to the major problem of gaining   access to inland waterways, for canoeing and other outdoor education activities for young people.
• The BCU had been very willing to engage in extending access by voluntary agreement, and could see the Government was serious about trying to extend access, but to do it by agreement. 
• The Govt was doing more joined up thinking on the problems for cyclists in accessing the towpaths network, and routes to inland waterways in general.   However, it wasn’t feasible to instantly create safe roads for cyclists getting to tow paths.
• A lot of money was being invested in ‘terrestrial’ lost ways (DLW project) so an analogous approach ought to be taken for ‘lost’ navigation on linear water space, as there might be about 60 river navigations and 20 canal navigations created by statue that still existed, as well as ‘lost’ common law rights of navigation.
• It was important not to generalise, as access to the water’s edge, and access on the water, were two quite different issues.
• It was worth bearing in mind that the Association of Inland Navigation Authorities had   developed quite a lot of good practices in terms of embracing access for water sports as part of water management.
• As the Inland Waterways Advisory Council did good work, in planning for access to water, it ought to be consulted. 

PW thanked the Minister for making the time to attend the meeting, and for responding so fully to the points made by members.   The Minister then left.

10.             LOCAL ACCESS FORUMS ISSUES 

Main points made in presentation:

·        As a result of discussions at the 17th NCAF (Oct. 2003), CA had improved support of, and communications with, LAFs, instituting measures for CA regional offices to engage with them more proactively, and making funding available to hold regional conferences, workshops, seminars, and other events for LAF members.   Recent successful examples were seminars in NE and EM Regions.

• In January CA let a contract to the Countryside & Community Research Unit (CCRU), Univ of Gloucestershire, with the purpose of providing CA with: 

             -   detailed information on the structure, geographical extent, and activities of all existing LAFs in England;

             -   a definition of what could be widely recognised as a ‘successful’ LAF;

             -   the factors that contribute to this and, conversely, an assessment of the barriers to  success;

             -   a review of matters affecting their work, now and in the future;

             -   an assessment of whether LAFs require additional support and guidance, and if so how, (and from whom), this could be best delivered; and

             -   recommendations on further action required at national, regional and local level.

• To complement its research (which uses mainly postal questionnaires and focus groups) CCRU would shortly be writing to NCAF members with several key questions, to elicit their views about LAFs. 

• The research was being guided by a Steering Group comprising representatives of CA, Defra, LAFs, LGA, and ANPA; the final report was expected by the end of May.  

Main points made in discussion: 

·        It might be worth trying to persuade one of the more successful LAFs to attend a future NCAF meeting, and give a presentation about the sorts of things they came across, and the problems.   Examples of good LAFs could be used to inspire LAFs where members were drifting away.

·        It might be useful to have such an item on the next NCAF meeting agenda, perhaps inviting several chairs from some successful LAFs.  (Action DG) 

·        When LAFs were consulted about issues (eg access land restrictions) it was important that LAF members did not feel these were token gestures.   However, in general, CA took a great deal of care in determining such cases.

·        The role of NCAF was not well understood by LAFs. 

11.             FUTURE NCAF AGENDA ITEMS

Main points made in discussion:

• To get any papers up and running ready for the 21st or 22nd NCAF meetings, PW encouraged those who had a particular subject in mind to liaise with CA staff: 

             -   Cycling Strategy Fund, PA

             -   Diversity Review, JB

             -   Public benefit and the Lottery Fund, JB

             -   Outdoor education, IMc

             -   Access to inland waterways, PO

             -   Coastal erosion, JP

             -   Access and dogs, JP

             -   Effects of PROW usage on biodiversity, GW

            (Action: NCAF members above)

• The effects of erosion on PROW were as important in Wales as England, so although the 21st NCAF meeting was scheduled for autumn 2005, the possibility of tacking it onto the June 2005 joint NCAF/NAFW event, would be investigated.  (Action DG)   

12.             SUGGESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE

(a)        Ken Taylor suggested that as he was part of the team researching LAFs for CA, NCAF   members might like to ‘bend his ear’ so he could get some instant input into the project.

(b)        Kate Ashbrook suggested that two organisations which NCAF might invite to send   observers were RDS (Rural Development Service) and CABE Space (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment Space).

13.         NEXT MEETINGS

• The 2005 joint NCAF/NAFW event would be hosted in Abergavenny by CCW on 22nd and 23rd June.
• The 21st NCAF meeting would be held (at a venue to be agreed) in the autumn, and dates would be canvassed.
• It was agreed that in future meeting dates would, if possible, be settled up to 12 months in advance.  (Action DG)   

14.             CLOSE
The Chair, commented that from her perspective the meeting had been very helpful and upbeat; she thanked everyone for contributing, and wished them a safe journey home.