Natural England

Minutes of the 2nd meeting of the NCAF

(c30 members of the public attended the meeting) 

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE were received from Professor Ian Mercer. 

CHAIR'S INTRODUCTION

1. The Chair welcomed the following new permanent members to the Forum:

Mr Jim McQueen (British Horse Society)
Cllr Chris Heinitz (Local Government Association)
Mr Barry Leathwood (Transport and General Workers Union)

and to the Observers Panel:

Frances Radcliffe (MAFF - substituting for Mr John Osmond)
Mr John Mackay (Scottish Natural Heritage)
Mr Andrew Graham (Environment Agency)
Mr Steve Trow (English Heritage)

MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING OF THE NCAF: 21 JULY 1999

2. The Country Landowners Association, the Moorland Association and the Local Government Association pressed for inclusion of explicit reference to occupiers liability and costs in the revised Terms of Reference (Minute 6g).

3. After some discussion the Chair took the view expressed by some members of the Forum that advice on these topics was possible under the terms as drafted.

4. Members confirmed their approval of the Minutes and Terms of Reference.

MATTERS ARISING

5. The Cyclists Touring Club drew attention to the difficulty of accessing the Countryside Agency's website and suggested that all the Agency's literature should carry the website address.

ACCESS TO OTHER LAND (NCAF 2/1)

6. Paul Johnson introduced the paper. He drew members' attention to a change in the 'Next Steps' section: the Countryside Agency Board would now consider a paper on its advice to Government on the options for 'other' land types at the October Board meeting. He reminded members that the Agency was working closely with a number of Government agencies on 'other' land types. Both those involved in the delivering the advice (Forestry Commission and Countryside Council for Wales) and other agencies with a major interest (eg Environment Agency and English Nature).

7. The following points were raised in discussion:

a. commenting on an initial summary of the consultants' research (Annex 2), Forum members were concerned about the timescale in which the work had been completed, and the limited opportunity for them to comment on it and the recommendations that the Agency will make to Government. They stressed that if it were at all possible in future, earlier and more detailed information would allow for a better informed view. It was accepted, however, that the Agency has had to work to a timetable dictated by Government;

b. concern was also expressed about the consultants' 'generalised' approach to their brief. Several members questioned whether the data collected by the Surrey team about the accessibility of other categories of land provided enough information on which to base a realistic appraisal. Members asked to see the detailed reports when available. 

c. referring to Annex 2 of the paper, the CPRE said that it was clear that the consultants' initial analysis of the research implied less provision for cyclists, horse-riders and water users, whereas there should be more;

d. CPRE would be concerned if the desire for more positive management of land types and activities, and an increase in signage, led to further urbanisation of the countryside;

e. the British Horse Society stressed that riding horses is not, as the paper implied, a 'specialist' occupation;

f. the RSPB and the National Trust reiterated their concern at the complexities of adding 'other' land types and also the decision by the Agency to consider different recreational requirements alongside access on foot;

g. the Moorland Association suggested that whilst the responses analysed at Annex 2 provided a useful foundation of the views of the main interest groups on access to 'other' land, Annex 1 was less impressive. Other areas of the Forum's work should take priority over work on access to other land types.

h. several of the user groups wished to see improved access for activities other than on foot. There was also strong support for increased access to coastal areas and waterside and waterways. It was agreed that there was a need to address concerns about damage to these fragile environments and to establish the validity of these concerns. 

LOCAL COUNTRYSIDE ACCESS FORUMS (NCAF 2/2) 

8. Nadia Little introduced the paper. She said that no proposals had yet been put before the Agency Board. This was an initial discussion on the issues and a chance for the Forum to offer advice on the proposed role, membership and operation of the Local Countryside Access Forums.

9. The following points were raised in discussion:

a. it was agreed that the local forums could potentially advise on both strategic issues and cases. They were expected to be very influential, but were not decision-making bodies. Powers would remain with the Countryside Agency [or the Countryside Council for Wales] and local Authorities;

b. there was some concern that this dual accountability could pose difficulties for local forums. The National Trust and RSPB suggested that, initially, there may be a case for the forums' remit to cover only strategic issues tied to the Government's access agenda. This role could then be reviewed once the implementation stage of the new policies had been reached; 

c. members suggested that a formulaic or over-regulatory approach to the establishment of the local forums should be avoided. It should be left to local authorities to determine the boundaries which will work best in their areas.

d. guidance prepared by the Agency should be flexible enough for local forums to be integrated with other local government mechanisms for consultation and liaison.

e. Nadia Little confirmed that the proposed research contract had still to be put out to tender. Staff would welcome members' comments on the tender brief. 

COMMUNICATING THE WORK OF THE FORUM (NCAF 2/3)   

10. Nadia Little introduced the paper which invited members' advice on the ways in which the work of the Forum could be communicated to others. She said it was important to the success of the Forum to develop an information strategy that would communicate its message to a wide audience and help members to network effectively with their constituents.

11. The following points were made in discussion:

a. the CLA said that delivery of a communication strategy should be the responsibility of the Agency not the Forum directly;

b. it was agreed that a national conference on access would be a good mechanism for disseminating the Forum's work and listening to a wider range of contributions. It was also suggested that the Agency take advantage of existing conferences and seminars run by others (LGA, Sport England, CCPR and the Association of Head Teachers Conference were amongst those put forward) to communicate the Forum's work;

c. members were unenthusiastic about regional events. They will use their own network of contacts to give information to affiliated groups. Several had established report back systems on their websites. But one or two members pointed out the practical difficulties of communicating with what could amount to hundreds of affiliated contacts;

d. it was agreed website linkages were an important and effective means of spreading information and getting wider views. However, in order to be effective website pages must be simply designed and easily accessible. Further thought should be given to improving the Countryside Agency's website.

e. in view of the current limited availability of the website, it should be used in conjunction with the other publicity mechanisms, such as Countryside Focus and pieces in other media outlets;

f. members agreed that site visits would be a good way for members to develop a wide perspective on access. At the suggestion of the Chair, it was agreed that a site visit to the South East should be arranged for 31 October, the day before the next Forum meeting. The purpose of the visit would be to look at open countryside and its management.

g. The Chair suggested that the Forum should consider Air Commodore Bostock's suggestion of a visit to the Yorkshire moors early next year. This may also provide an opportunity to hold a Forum meeting in the North of England. 

DETR RIGHTS OF WAY PROPOSALS (NCAF 2/4)   

12. Roger Ward introduced the paper, which invited the Forum to comment to the Countryside Agency on the Government's proposals for improving rights of way in England and Wales. He explained that each of the member organisations had been consulted separately in the consultation process. The Forum meeting provided an opportunity for members to look for a strong element of common ground. He suggested that discussion should focus on the Government's objectives, the implementation of these objectives, and any issues that had been omitted from the proposals.

13. The following points were raised in discussion:

General Points: 

a. there was a view amongst the majority of the organisations represented on the Forum that the Countryside Commission's package of recommendations would be more effective in improving the ROW network than the Government's proposals; and that a number of the Government's proposals would not, in practice, achieve their stated objectives;

b. there was agreement that the Government had largely avoided the important group of issues concerning vehicular use of rights of way;

c. several members expressed concern that the Government's proposals to provide for the diversion or closure of ROW for reasons of crime prevention and, especially, nature conservation, were over-reactive and likely to be abused; and proposals should be based on verifiable evidence;

d. organisations representing equestrians and cyclists believed that, in practice, the Government's proposals were likely to damage rather than improve access opportunities for their members;

e. future changes to the network should be underpinned by the criteria of "no net reduction in the extent or quality of the network";

Specific Issues:

The Ramblers Association 

f. provisions for dealing with obstructions to ROW should focus on the key issue of getting the obstruction removed and the path open as quickly as possible;

g. the proposal to set a cut-off date by which all claims for the existence of ROWs made solely on the basis of historic documentary evidence must be made, was not acceptable. Nor was it reasonable to rely on members of the public to undertake the necessary research;

h. supported proposals for mediation; a useful model might be the new proposals for modernising the Public Inquiry system;

i. the requirements of the EC Habitats and Birds Directive were not intended to cover ROW on SSSIs. There was a strong danger of misuse of the Directives leading to the closure or suspension of ROW. Article 6 of the Habitats Directives and its transcription into UK legislation is confusing and must be clarified;

j. some of the other proposals in the DETR paper needed clarification;

Cyclists Touring Club:

k. the objectives of the consultation paper should be to improve the network and provide better access. The Government's stated intention to encourage the creation of new routes including more provision for cyclists and equestrians was not supported by the detailed proposals;

l. an important omission was the lack of proposal to allow cyclists to claim bridleways on the same basis as horseriders. Cyclists will not gain from the suggested reclassification of RUPPs as bridleways, unless there is a guarantee of suitable surface conditions. There was a case for introducing in legislation responsibility for the surface and boundary of bridleways;

m. the CTC felt that Forum consensus could be reached on the crime prevention proposal which could lead to the closure or diversion of rights of way. The Forum should stress that any proposal to close a right of way should be based only on solid evidence and facts.

Forum members were generally agreed on this. The CLA suggested guidance to Local Forums to ensure the correct procedures are put in place.

British Horse Society:

n. were unable to support many of the Government's proposals which they felt did little to secure and improve the ROW network, and abandoned the principle of 'once a highway always a highway'.

o. supported the CTC's concern that the reclassification of RUPPs as bridleways could be a retrograde step. The BHS were also concerned that such a measure would exclude carriage-drivers and others from access. All equestrians were united that the majority of proposals did not meet their needs and failed to recognise that horses are a very sustainable form of transport;

Local Government Association:

p. the representative pointed out that as a single member of local government he had no brief to speak on behalf of the Highway Authorities. His personal view was that the relationship between the ROW network and the Highway Authorities was an historic anomaly. Problems lay in the custodianship and interests of those charged with looking after them which led to issues of rights of way constantly falling off the agenda of Highway Authority priorities. He suggested that responsibility for rights of way would sit more comfortably under a recreational mandate.

Country Landowners Association: 

q. welcomed the consultation paper as a package but would not wish to see it "cherry-picked". They also welcomed proposals that brought the administration of rights of way closer to the planning system.

r. were content with the Government's proposals of a time limit of (say) 5 years from the date the right of way came into dispute to recording it on the definitive map;

s. suggested that caution was needed in taking account of the effects of rights of way on SSSIs. Those designated on geological grounds would not be adversely effected. But there could be good conservation and environmental reasons for protecting some vulnerable sites. A voluntary, not compulsory, approach should be taken. It was important to ensure sensible guidance and criteria to avoid misuse and closures.

Moorland Association: 

t. questioned the extent of need for closure of rights of way through SSSIs for nature conservation reasons and suggested that this was unlikely to be a problem in the future. He stressed, however, that the powers required for closure of rights of way should not be linked to those for open countryside where there are good reasons for closures. There was a need for further debate on the issue of closures and information on the extent to which users see closures as contentious.

Council for the Protection of Rural England:

u. disagreed with the LGA representative that responsibility for rights of way should be removed from the Highway Authorities. The present day imperative was to ensure that recreational enjoyment was firmly linked to sustainable transport priorities;

v. regretted that the Government had not addressed the Commission's recommendation that the Secretary of State should appoint a rights of way regulator. This would seem to be a sensible way forward.

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds: 

w. were supportive of the UK Government's view that proposals 8-11 were necessary to apply the requirements of the Habitats and Birds Directives in respect of rights of way. The potential for misuse was accepted, but it was felt that the Consultation paper provided safeguards against this. The RSPB disagreed with the Moorland Association's view, and believed that powers should be identical for both rights of way and open countryside.

x. suggested that upgrading or resurfacing of bridleways could be put forward for consideration as a plan/project under the terms of the Habitat Directive.

14. In response to the concerns about the Habitat Directive, Dr Brown explained that Article 6 was extremely complicated and its practical effect was currently not well understood by anyone. However, wildlife was under pressure from intensively managed countryside and whilst English Nature were supportive of people learning, experiencing and appreciating the countryside it accepted the technical and precautionary measures proposed by Government.

15. Susan Carter confirmed that CLA were correct in their understanding that ROW legislation was being changed to bring it closer to planning application legislation.

COSTS/CREATIONS 

16. In response to Bob Roberts' question on costs and accountability:

a. the National Trust suggested a target-driven approach;

b. the British Mountaineering Council believed that footpath creation should be flexible, taking into account changing uses, and flexibly tied in to local transport plans. Creations would be important in providing access to otherwise inaccessible islands of open countryside;

c. the Cyclists Touring Club stressed that creations should include extension of links with existing rights of way to make more sense of the network. 

MAPPING OPEN ACCESS LAND (NCAF 2/5)  

17. Roger Ward introduced the paper. He explained it was a progress report only. Detailed discussion of mapping issues would take place at the Forum's meeting on 1st November. At the meeting the Agency's consultants, the Geodata Institute, would make a presentation on the results and conclusions of the Stage 1 contract due to be completed by mid October.

18. Members noted the progress report on the consultant's contract and asked Agency staff to advise them of the exact location of the test areas.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS 

Grouse Moors: management and access

19. Air Commodore Bostock introduced a paper he had written, on behalf of the Moorland Association, on Grouse Moors, their management and the provision of practical access arrangements. He had arranged for the paper to be distributed to Forum members.

20. The Chair invited members to send their comments on the paper direct to Air Commodore Bostock.

Other Initiatives 

21. Pam Ashton, for the CTC, wished to see Forum discussions include other important issues that were running in parallel with its work. She stressed that this was the correct forum to consider the broader issues of access to the countryside. These might include the Government's Rural White Paper, the Agency's Greenways and Quiet Roads initiative and the DETR 'Slower-speed' initiative.

22. The Chair agreed that if any of these issues impacted on the main core business of the Forum they would be introduced into its agenda. But they were already being debated in other fora.

23. Margaret Clark said that relevant issues in the Rural White Paper would be flagged up in the Forum papers where appropriate.

Byelaws 

24. The Chair accepted the CLA's suggestion that the Forum should be looking at national regulations, not byelaws.

The Chair closed the meeting by thanking all those attending for a positive contribution.

DATE OF NEXT MEETING: Monday 1 November 1999 preceded by a site visit on Sunday 31 October.