Natural England

Minutes of the 22nd meeting of the National Countryside Access Forum

Present:

Members
Pam Warhurst (Chair), Countryside Agency (CA)
Caroline Bedell, Country Land & Business Association (CLA)
Jo Burgon, National Trust (NT)
Fiona Howie, National Farmers Union (NFU)
John Lees, Moorland Association
Iain McMorrin, British Mountaineering Council (BMC)
Trevor Mose, Local Government Association (LGA)
David Moxon, Cyclists Touring Club (CTC)
Charlotte Edward, 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)
Chris Marsh, Environment Agency (EA)
Richard Brooks, Defence Estates (MOD)
Martin Coulson, Defence Estates (MOD)
Heloise Tierney, Defra
Mark Wrightham SNH

Guests
Bob Hunt, Chairman of the Local Access Forum (LAF)
John Hall, Secretary to the Local Access Forum (LAF)
Jont Bullbeck CCW
Ken Taylor - Asken
Peter Scott – Peter Scott Planning
Dr Rowena Langston - RSPB

Countryside Agency staff in attendance
Jeremy Worth, Sarah Seaman (Secretary), Roger Ward, Bruce Cutts, Ros Love, Heather MacIlwaine, Andrew Best, Catheryn Hacker, Andy Green, Lucy Heath.

(Approximately 20 members of the public attended this meeting)

1. Chair’s introduction

Pam Warhurst welcomed everyone to the 22nd meeting at which the main point of discussion was to be coastal access. She welcomed the members from the Natural England partners coastal access project team, comprising staff from the Countryside Agency, English Nature and the Rural Development Service. 

2. Apologies for Absence  were received from Henry Aubrey-Fletcher (CLA), Bob Cartwright (ANPA), Peter Kendall (NFU), Ian Mercer (Independent), Paul Owen (BCU), William Crookshank (EA), Chris Probert (FC), Simon Hopkinson (Defra).

3. Matters Arising from 21st meeting 

Minutes of the 21st meeting were agreed.

NCAF 21/3 Recreational Strategy for Natural England
Members were thanked by the chair for their comments to Wendy Thompson.

NCAF 21/7 Dogs & Access
There had been no feedback on dogs in the countryside, to date, other than a paper from John Lees. 

Action  paper to be circulated to members for inclusion on the next agenda 

4. Actions from previous minutes

Jeremy Worth gave an update on the Draft Diversity Review Action Plan, which will be launched for consultation on 23rd May.

Point 9 NCAF 21/5 Coastal Access update TM suggestion should read 'on' and not 'to' coastal areas.

5. Introduction Coastal Access – Bruce Cutts CA 

Bruce Cutts asked for a robust discussion on coastal access issues and introduced speakers who would be outlining coastal access arrangements in Scotland, Wales and Europe to provide a context for considering issues relating to improving coastal access in England. 

6. NCAF 22/3 Coastal Access for Wales and NCAF 22/4 Coastal Access for Scotland 

Jont Bulbeck for CCW and Mark Wrightham for SNH outlined the position with regard to coastal access in Wales and Scotland. Members asked the following questions:

Q. Do the provisions of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 under which access is excluded from land on which crops are sown include hay and silage in the definition of crops?
R. Yes. The 2003 Act excludes land on which crops are sown except for field margins, which the public can use for access.  

Q. If a landowner has an access-related problem what can they do?
R. The Access Authority will try to find a local management solution working with the LAF. 

Q. Has SNH made funds available to facilitate management measures?
R. Yes funds have been made available by the Scottish Executive but these are not ring fenced.

7. NCAF 22/5 Coastal Access in selected European Countries

Peter Scott presented his findings on a study commissioned by the Natural England partners on coastal access arrangements in  Denmark, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Portugal, Scotland and Sweden. 

The key lessons from this work were that:

• Most of the countries studied have secure public rights of access to the foreshore and beaches;
• Access in most countries is subject to responsibilities on users and have some limitations on access e.g. restrictions or exclusions for nature conservation;
• Most countries have restrictions for dogs, especially on beaches;
• Most countries have some restrictions on horse riding e.g. in the summer;
• Legislation in all the countries studied avoids a definitive mapped approach, providing some flexibility of interpretation on the ground and allowing for the natural dynamics of the coast; 
• Positive management of access is often adopted in sensitive wildlife and landscape areas, rather than restricting access. Most countries have linear access along the coast, by access rights or by more or less continuous routes;
• In most countries legislation specifies that access is at the users’ own risk so people need to take responsibility themselves   – occupiers’ liability is therefore seldom a concern. 

8. NCAF 22/6 Enhancing Access to the Coast – Ministry of Defence

Martin Coulson and Richard Brooks presented the MOD approach. MOD has a policy to promote public access. There is a presumption in favour of safe public enjoyment of the MOD estate wherever this is compatible with military training and operational requirements. The key issues are:

• Safety
• Security
• Conservation
• Interests of tenants 

Defence-Estates is working actively with Natural England and has consulted widely on a new Access and Recreation Strategyand has a revised website for access http://www.access.mod.uk

MOD has some 140 sites on the coast of the UK and is willing to develop and enhance access to the coast.

9. NCAF22/2 – Access to the English Coast

On behalf of the coastal access team, Ros Love thanked those who had sent comments on the ‘think piece’ paper (NCAF 22/2) previously circulated to NCAF members. The coastal access team was now seeking advice from NCAF members on the following:

• Validity of the success factors identified for improving access to the English coast:
• Validity of the key additional issues that need to be addressed with regard to improving access to the English coast;
• The relative merits of the various options available to improve access to the English coast.   

Key drivers and success factors for improving coastal access:

• There is demand for secured access on beaches and the foreshore, and along the length of the coastline;
• Other European countries enjoy such rights;
• A changing coastline makes managing linear access very difficult;
• Access gaps along the coast need to be addressed within a much shorter timescale than has previously been possible; 
• There is limited evidence of a widespread need for additional access links to the coast;
• There is enthusiasm for a national initiative;
• The vision for integrating access and land management along the coast is well supported; and
• Estuaries present different issues and opportunities from the open coast. 

In the light of the evidence gathered, we conclude that the key success factors  to achieve improved coastal access, emerging from this work are:

• Security(a legal right of access to beach and foreshore and along the coast above Mean High Water (MHW));
• Permanence (access in perpetuity);
• Continuity (at any point of the coast the ability to walk in either direction above MHW));
• Flexibility (to cope with coastal change and accommodate nature conservation);
• Clarity (public understanding and confidence that, in turn, encourages the public to visit the coast [1]);
• Timescale (can be achieved within reasonable timescale);
• Cost effectiveness;
• National framework (to facilitate local management and action);
• Potential for integrated environmental management. 

Main points made in discussion on key drivers and success factors 

• There seems to be an assumption that more access to the coast on foot is an improvement. There are many other users e.g. surfers, kite flyers, motor sport enthusiasts to consider too in relation to access to the foreshore; 
• The current concentration just on improving opportunities for walking at the coast does not address everyone’s needs.   If the objective is to get more people into the countryside, there is a need to consider other activities too. Young people in particular tend not to be interested in walking.   The Chair clarified that the brief to the Natural England partners from Defra was to consider options for improving access to the English coast on foot, although there was no intention to disadvantage any other activities;
• In the context of a changing coastline, it is difficult to reconcile flexibility and permanence in providing access. Access rights need to accommodate coastal dynamics. Lines on maps may not be the best solution. The examples from Europe of the corridor concept are interesting and may be a good way of addressing this issue;   
• There needs to be feedback on demand from the general public. It is important to look at what is stopping people coming to the coast and what activities they want to do when they get there. Meaningful access would be that which gets people fit. CA officers explained that a use and demand study is being undertaken. This study has not been completed yet but initial findings from this work and discussions at local stakeholder meetings indicate that there is enthusiasm for better and clearer access to the coast. Poor quality management of existing access to the coast is a deterrent to visitors. Analysis of the England Leisure Visits Survey 2005 will also give further information about visits to the undeveloped coast;    
• It is important that increased visitor numbers to the coast bring benefits for the rural economy;  
• Improving coastal access needs to take account of local needs and priorities;
• People need certainty about where they can go. There also needs to be simplicity, avoiding conflicting regulations from different bodies; 
• Integrated management of coastal access will be very important.   Research indicates that, in places, existing access at the coast is impacting on coastal birds e.g. terns.    An integrated approach may provide opportunities to “roll back” intensive agriculture on cliff tops to create areas of unmanaged cliff, which would deliver conservation benefits. Improved access to coast should not just focus on linear access; the access corridor approach adopted in some European countries is a good model; 
• Occupiers’ liability is an important issue, especially in relation to natural features. The European approach is interesting and consideration should be given to amending legislation in England to address this issue;
• Links should be made with the current Diversity Review work to ensure improved coastal access will provide what the majority of the public want.  

Key issues to resolve

The coastal access team have identified the following key issues that need to be resolved in their own right and which provide a context for achieving the success factors: 

• The need to accommodate a changing coastline (especially on coasts subject to erosion and flooding);  
• Provision of access across/around estuaries, natural harbours and tidal rivers; 
• Blockages to continuous access;
• Gaps in continuous access;
• Access along cliff tops.  

Main points made in discussion on key issues to resolve 

• In relation to ‘continuous access’, there is a need for a toolkit of management options (legal and voluntary) to address local issues; 
• We need to learn from the CCW approach to define secure public access;
• Scale and people’s expectations need to be borne in mind. For example, people tend to accept estuaries as blocks on access; 
• Is continuity a high priority? The focus should be on filling gaps in existing access; 
• Currently, LAFs tend to focus on policy, so careful management would be needed if LAFs were to become more involved in case work; 
• It should not be assumed that public access on Local authority owned land is secure;
• Safety is an important consideration, especially for example in estuaries like Morecambe Bay where ‘safe routes’ move and shift over time; 
• Care is needed with regard to the definition of ‘undeveloped’ land since such land may form part of an agriculture business;  
• Liability under the Animals Act 1971needs to be addressed so that improved access at the coast does not impose unfair burdens on landowners.  

Wider Environmental Benefits

Wider environmental benefits need to integrate fully with improved coastal access and we need to think broadly about possible approaches.   Agri - environment schemes will have a key part to play, which NE will need to take forward. Additional resources must be made available to deliver these benefits.

Options to improve access to the English coast 

Ros Love then introduced the discussion on options for improving coastal access. She noted that NCAF Members were already familiar with the access options under consideration from the ‘think piece’ paper (NCAF 22/2) previously sent to them.   Members were asked to note that, for greater clarity, the coastal access team had revised some of the terms used e.g.   ‘non-compulsory’ is now used rather than ‘non statutory/permissive’.

From work undertaken to date, the coastal access team’s current thinking on each of the access options was outlined, as follows: 

• Non-compulsory    This option includes Environmental Stewardship, management agreements, permissive paths and dedication under section 16 of the CRoW Act. These are all based on agreement with the landowner and are time limited. They would not therefore be appropriate for a national approach, but will be an important means of resolving local issues
• Existing Rights of Way legislation    Adopting this option would mean little change from the existing situation. New PROWs can take a long time to achieve and fixing a legal line is unsuitable in areas subject to coastal erosion and so is not a sustainable approach in the long term.   PROWs do not allow flexibility to respond to nature conservation issues. For these reasons, using existing PROW legislation would not be appropriate for a national approach to improving coastal access. 
• New Rights of Way legislation    This could give potential to introduce the ability for a right of way to move to accommodate coastal change. It could address provision of a permanent linear right of access. Implementation would be dependant on local resources.
• CROW Act – mapping   This approach could deliver improved coastal access in a relatively short time scale and provide flexibility to address nature conservation issues. Good quality access would depend on proper management. Use of the CROW Act could also allow for the introduction of higher rights. The overall outcome for access could however be patchy due to land not being included following successful appeals. There are also practical difficulties in mapping a narrow coastal strip of land. Cliff top access would be a difficult issue to resolve using a CROW mapped approach. 
• CROW – non mapping    This could be a relatively simple solution although communicating the new right to the public would be challenging and a code of conduct would be needed. It would not deliver access links to the coast.

Discussion on Options and Way Forward

• The Ramblers’ Association noted that Government had indicated previously that it would not favour primary legislation and would prefer a solution using existing legislation. The RA had given considerable thought to the legislative issues related to access during the passage of the CROW legislation (including drafting their own Bill) and acknowledged the difficulty of resolving many of the issues currently being considered in relation to coastal access. For example, how would disputes be resolved if a CROW non-mapped approach was adopted? There would also be difficulties in legally defining the term “adjacent” included at Section 3 of the CROW Act. The devil is in the detail and there is no quick solution; 
• Dealing with problems of coastal erosion might be resolved by compiling a register of ‘at risk’ sections of coast to show sections where access will need to be reviewed more frequently than others;
• With a linear approach, paths could be routed around estuaries in a way that would cause minimum impact for nature conservation; 
• A descriptive approach would lack certainty and may not be appropriate for a crowded island;
• Alternatively money could come directly from grant in aid through a grant scheme such as the Access Management Grant Scheme (AMGS); 
• If an approach based on the CRoW Act is adopted there will be gaps in access because some of the coast will be excepted land;
• There will be a need for information which can help provide clarity and certainty to users and land owners on the coast;
• Is there a requirement to undertake a statutory SEA (Strategic Environmental Assessment) at this stage?
• It is important to use appropriate legislation to achieve the outcome desired – CROW legislation is not the appropriate way to achieve the onward journey; 
• Who is going to be responsible for long-term management of the proposed new arrangements?
• Mapping under the CROW Act was expensive but did provide certainty for users and landowners;
• A non-mapped or word based definition of coastal access is likely to lead to disputes and confusion.   The public may not read or understand the description. A mapping based approach will need to have flexibility to cope with changes due to erosion and nature conservation sensitivities;
• Simplicity and clarity is needed to enable users to make an informed choice; On the South West Coast Path for example, people know that they can walk along the coast in either direction and a high standard of coast path management gives users certainty and confidence, helping to encourage more users; 
• A CRoW Act based approach to coastal access could provide flexibility to deal with nature conservation sensitivities, enable local access management, and accommodate the impacts of climate change on coastal areas;
• Does mapping always mean certainty? Foreshore is already mapped. Need to overcome difficulty of clearly defining access on cliff tops for users. Walkers normally use 1,25000 maps; access of less than 50m is not going to be discernible on maps at this scale.

10.Oral Presentation from Birmingham LAF

Bob Hunt and John Hall representing the Birmingham LAF were invited to give a presentation on the LAF and its role. The presentation outlined the role a LAF had in a city and the difficulties it faced.

Action paper from John Hall to be circulated to members.

John gave an honest presentation on the difficulties of being the secretary to an urban LAF. 

Negative issues to be tackled:

• Recruitment of members
• Involvement of local councillors
• Legislation refers to countryside does not reflect urban areas
• No definitive map for Birmingham

Positive issues that LAF have tackled to date

• Excellent working relationship between LAF members and Rights of Way Officers
• ROWIP well under way

11. NCAF 22/7 Nature Conservation and Access

Main points made in addition to the PowerPoint presentation made by Graham Bathe 

• CROW Act makes provision for access to certain mapped land to be restricted or excluded for the purposes of nature conservation.
• Need to learn lessons from the past in order to plan for the future;
• CROW Part 1 does not always help nature conservation;
• Million Ha of SSSI and access land;
• Areas of land that have multiple benefit;
• 307 million visits a year to SSSI land;
• 75% SSSI have rights of way through them;
• EN/CA work together based on access and conservation (signed agreement in 2000);
• Wildlife and access advisory group set up in 2000 which is a mix of voluntary and statutory agencies, agreed levels of sensitivity, mechanism to protect, identified shortfalls and judgement to be under laid by science;
• Need to know anticipated pattern of usage. 1000 SSSI looked at.
• Most cases nature conservation issues are best addressed by management rather than restriction- wardens, signposts;
• Access management Grant Scheme have been fundamental in the implementation of CROW. Value for money;
• Information management a key – clear signage which gives an explanation;
• Belief system to be replaced by evidence, i.e. science;
• Birds are the central issue of nature conservation in the countryside.

Main points made in addition to the PowerPoint presentation made by Dr Rowena Langston

• Crow Act identified the paucity of information available and the need for robust information;
• Provided the opportunity and funding for a research programme;
• The biological research programme was funded largely by EN, with additional funding from RSPB;  
• Education and information for recreationists on heaths;
• Stone curlew – softer management techniques may avoid disturbance;
• Tools such as SCARE
• Responsible access needs - good information to the public.

12. NCAF 22/8 ROWIP

At the last NCAF meeting a request was made for a paper on Rights of Way Improvements. Lucy Heath gave a brief overview of how ROWIPs were progressing:

• Questionnaire sent to LHAs to which 87% responded.   Most wanted more advice on how to produce a good ROWIP, support in producing an action plan and publishing the plan.   CA responded with further guidance and planned training support.
• Over 60% of LHAs are accessing external funding sources to implement ROWIP actions.   Over 50% already receive some LTP funding for PROW work.
• ROWIP Implementation Grants are available from CA regional offices for early wins and to raise awareness of ROWIPs  

13. NCAF 22/9 Cycling

Main points made in addition to power point presentation

• Current rights of way network could and should be developed in ways which would make it much more useful for cyclists;
• Does not adequately support the Government's policy to increase access and thereby raise levels of physical activity and reduce car use;
• Improvements to the information available to users;
• Signage needs to be clear and maintained;
• Potential value of rural footways for the use of others rather than just walkers;
• Maps that show roads that are suitable for cyclists and those that are not;
• Trail grading – volunteers could be involved;
• Very fragmented network of routes;
• Cyclists denied access to rights of way;
• Important to encourage a wider range of activities rather than just walkers;
• Cyclists worth £600,000,000 to rural economy;
• Fun/healthy;
• Best to make legal framework meet 21st century needs;
• Work with what we have and NERC Act may help;
• Establish a framework to include equestrians as well;
• Or adopt Scottish regime and allow people to make decisions themselves;
• Important to identify nature of trails with access code;
• Is there a role for LAFs?
• How do you get in progress the legal framework?  

PW – As we take forward outdoor activities and recreation into Natural England we need to know how we can influence others including Government and members of the public. We need to have a comprehensive approach to infrastructure and engagement. We need to encourage diversity

• BETA survey numbers of riders are 2.3 million in 2006 worth billions to local economy – request presentation from horse riders- advantage of having a minister. BHS would like to submit a paper and presentation;
• ROWIPS will lead to increased use for horse riders and cyclists. Cycling has a potential for short journeys on a cycling network and there is a demand. Health is a by product of this as well as transport;
• Ramblers support cyclists;
• Nobody has mentioned Sustrans – £54 million for upgrading cycle ways.  

A.O.B

• JL:   Dogs in the Countryside – after discussion with EN, the situation with dogs is chaotic. A suggestion is for a sub committee to look at dogs including the Kennel Club and to comprise 8 members.  

PW: Not sure that at this stage we should constrain how this is developed in the future as the CA moves towards Natural England – not going to take from chair that a sub committee is formed. Need to make people aware about the issue surrounding dogs.

Paper will be circulated and just because we are not sure what is happening to NCAF in the future this should not stop us now addressing some of these issues on access.

• TM raised concerns about the NERC bill and its non-inclusion on the agenda.  

The meeting closed and was followed by a presentation by Ken Taylor of Asken who has been commissioned by Defra to undertake a partial Regularity Impact Assessment (RIA) of the social, environmental and economic benefits of improving coastal access.  

[1] This in turn enhances social and economic benefits to the coast as demonstrated by the South West Coast Path National Trail.   Defra have commissioned a partial Regulatory Impact Assessment to explore social, environmental and economic benefits arising from improved access to the English coast.