Natural England

(about 40 members of the public attended the meeting)

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE were received from Kate Parminter (Council for the Protection of Rural England), Ian Mercer (Association of National Park Authorities), Pam Ashton (Cyclists Touring Club), Jo Burgon (National Trust), Susan Carter (DETR), Chris Braun (DETR), John Osmond (MAFF), Eileen McKever (Environment Agency).

CHAIRS INTRODUCTION

1. The Chair apologised for the late start to the meeting and welcomed everybody to the meeting.

MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING

2. The Country Landowners Association (CLA) representative said that the wording in paragraphs 19 and 21 were not strictly true, as he felt that no general consensus had been agreed. He asked for the minutes to be changed to reflect his views that access at night should be with the agreement of the owner.

MATTERS ARISING

3. The Moorland Association (MA) representative asked if the Countryside Agency Board had recommended the Forum's advice on dogs and access at night to the DETR. The Chair replied saying that the Agency board had been informed of the Forum's views. On access at night the Board had been told that the Forum felt that there should be no general blanket ban on access at night, but there were grave concerns about night access on certain landscape types. On dogs, the Chair reported that the Forum's views had been put to the Board, and also to the DETR, but that the debate on dogs was still going on and no final decisions had yet been made. 

NCAF 7/1 UPDATE ON THE COUNTRYSIDE AND RIGHTS OF WAY BILL

4. The paper was introduced by Andy Wistow. He invited the Forum to make general observations.

5. The Ramblers Association (RA) representative noted that the wording in paragraph 3 was not accurate as the promises made by the Government related to use. He also expressed disappointment that the Government had not taken the RA's concerns over green lanes on board. He said that this was particularly disappointing given that it was an area in which the RA and the CLA were united.

6. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) representative said that they did not believe that payment under clause II part 1 and 2 would cause a problem. He said that this had been made known to the DETR.

NCAF 7/2 RESTRICTIONS GUIDANCE

7. The paper was introduced by Andy Wistow. He explained that this was a continuation of the paper that the Forum has discussed at the last meeting. He said that the paper was very much a first draft as it set out the areas to be covered by the final document but lacked the detail. He explained that the detail would be provided once the research the Agency has commissioned on the impacts of access on livestock and also fire had been completed. He also said that the completed document will be presented to the Forum later in the year.

8. There was a general debate on the paper with the following specific comments being made:
a. the CLA representative :
i. asked who would draft the specific criteria referred to in the paper. Andy Wistow replied saying that the Agency would be drafting them, but they would be brought back to the Forum for discussion once they were completed; 
ii. said that the criteria should not restrict land management in any way as this was the basis for not paying compensation under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); and
iii. that the proposals in 12a may result in people applying for longer closure than necessary. This point was supported by the MA representative;

b. the MA representative said that in relation to paragraph 10c it would be difficult to set a specific date for bracken spraying as much depended on the weather, and as such landowners may apply for longer closure periods than they actually needed. In relation to paragraph 12 b and c he noted that the Government needed to clarify the legal rights between ownership, tenancy and commoner in respect of restrictions. In particular he said that the Government needed to determine who has priority when applying for restrictions.

c. the British Mountaineering Council (BMC) representative said her main concern was that the paper did not clarify the procedure for the public or representative bodies to comment on applications for restrictions. She stated that there would be more likelihood of successful observance of restrictions if users felt they had been consulted in some form. The RA representative supported this view and added that a one sided appeals process was probably in contravention of the ECHR;

d. the RA representative expressed a concern that linear access was becoming the default least restrictive option;

e. Tim Marshall said that it was important that information provision was taken into account when considering additional restrictions.

9. Andy Wistow summed up the discussion saying that some useful points had been raised, and that these would be considered as the document was developed further. In answering the questions raised during the discussion he said:

a. linear access had perhaps become short hand for management options and agreed that the Agency should move away from using it as an illustrative example quite so often; and

b. including public consultation options within the restrictions process would require a longer period for notification which may not be practical.

NCAF 7/3 - INFORMATION PLAN

10. The paper was introduced by Andy Wistow. He said the Agency were acutely aware of the need for land managers and the public to be aware of their rights and responsibilities, therefore it was vital that the information plan was right. He asked for comment on the general principles as well as the detail. In particular he asked the forum members to consider whether the objectives were complete, if the right audiences has been targeted and if the timetable was realistic.

11. There was a lively debate with all forum members agreeing that information was key to the successful implementation of the new access rights. The Chair noted that this paper presented an opportunity to discuss integrating access into the education system, and invited the Forum members to consider this when discussing the paper. In the discussion the following detailed comments were made:

a. The CLA representative said:
i. signage and site information should be elevated to a primary objective;
ii. the monitoring and evaluation programme should take into account the effects of access on land management; and
iii. he asked how a national plan was to be implemented when the land was to be opened up sequentially;

b. William Bird said that speaking from experience of the healthy walking campaign, leaflets were not the ideal solution as people did not read them. He recommended that the press should be the primary target as press coverage was more likely to have an impact than leaflets;

c. the BMC representative said that:
i. the proposed print run for the leaflets was too small. She said that the BMC would be happy to circulate leaflets to their membership which was in excess of 40,000;
ii. outdoor education centres had already expressed an interest in training young people in open access. The BMC had strong links with the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme and other similar organisations which could be approached to incorporate open access into their outdoor events curriculum;
iii. the Black Environmental Network could be approached to take the open access message to some socially excluded sectors of society;

d. the RSPB representative said:
i. landowners had to be careful not to put up signs which could be misleading and therefore in contravention of the Act;
ii. he asked if on site signage would be the responsibility of the Agency or the landowners;
iii. existing site based information should be integrated into any new signs rather than add more signs;
iv. the 'How to read a map' print run is too small, he said he felt it should be large enough so that every child could take one home. He also said that the timing of this publication should be bought forward to as early a date as possible particularly as the Agency were adopting a map based approach to marking out open access land;
v. the open access symbol should be adapted to form a range of symbols which could be used to indicate where restrictions may exist, he explained that the National Trust had a similar mechanism in place which may be worth investigating;
vi. access points should be indicated on ordnance survey maps;
vii. he expressed concern about the possibility of fast track access to common land and land over 600m before an information framework was in place, he strongly recommended that the new rights should become available on an area by area basis; and
viii. he said that it may be possible to organise an editorial article to be carried on open access in the RSPB publication Birds;

e. Tim Marshall said that if the symbol was adapted to indicate restrictions it was important that these were implemented nationally to avoid confusion;

f. Bishop Alan Chesters emphasised the importance of resources, in particular he stressed that print runs should not be limited by financial constraints. He also said that school visits to open access land should not be inhibited due to financial constraints as this was a primary link in informing socially excluded children about the countryside and their rights and responsibilities;

g. the RA representative said:
i. he was pleased to see the information plan did not solely focus on open countryside;
ii. the publication 'Out in the Country' should be reprinted to include open access land;
iii. paragraph 18 - he hoped that the Agency considered the RA partners, and that they (the RA) would be pleased to produce a joint publication;
iv. Annex A item 18 - the PROW target should be set in context with the PROW improvement plans;

h. the National Farmers Union (NFU) representative said:
i. the NFU have a great deal of experience in getting educational material into schools, he said that the key is to provide information which fits into the existing national curriculum;
ii. it is important to get children out into the field to experience what they are learning about first hand, however budgetary constraints were such that this was becoming increasingly difficult; and
iii. the NFU would be willing to run articles in their own magazines;

i. The Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU) representative said 
i. that the majority of the population were unaware of the new access legislation, and as such there was a need for a general awareness campaign. He suggested that tapping into free resources such as the media would be the most beneficial means of conveying information;
ii. there was a need for ongoing publicity with the information being reinforced every year;
iii. the trade unions had a membership of 8 million, most of these members received trade union journals. The Unions would be more than willing to pass out information with these.

j. William Bird said that the British Heart Foundation was already working with the Agency and that this presented an opportunity to spread the message wider as 97% of the population visited their G.P;

k. The MA representative said that some of the expenditure on information should be available to landowners for signs. The Chair replied that the Agency was encouraging DETR to consider an incentive scheme which might include support for signage and access furniture;

l. The CCW representative said that it was important that the message was relatively consistent between England and Wales and that it was important that officers liased about new publications and also about the revised country code;

m. The RSPB representative said that the Agency's information plan should not be constrained by resources and that they should work out what was required and then find a budget to fit. Margaret Clark replied saying that the Agency had been allocated an additional 10% in the comprehensive spending review for spending on access to open country.

NCAF 7/4 IMPROVEMENT PLANS

11. The paper was introduced by Andy Wistow. He asked for comment on the tone and the detail of the paper.

12. There was a wide ranging debate on this paper. Bishop Alan Chesters pointed out that presenting this paper to the Forum provided a second opportunity to comment as many of the organisations represented on the Forum had already commented when the paper was put to the Rights of Way Review Committee. During the debate the following detailed comments were made:
a. William Bird said:
i. he could not see any reference to no net loss, this was an important omission and should be rectified;
ii. p8 paragraph 20 - he was surprised to see that the document was recommending that improvements to benefit walkers, cyclists and horse riders should not be at the expense of off road drivers. He said that as far as he was concerned consideration of a few off road users should not stop improvements for other users;
iii. page 16 - Health Authorities should be added to the list of consultees; and
iv. Appendix A - People who are so unfit they can not walk up a 5% incline should be included as a special group;

b. the RA representative made the following comments:
i. there should be a change of emphasis within the document so that different user groups are addressed separately rather than lumped together under one category;
ii. paragraph 18 - he referred the Agency staff to Kate Ashbrook's letter to Bob Roberts which contains a list of things the RA would like to see included in the guidance - paragraph 18 could be expanded to reflect these;
iii. paragraph 19 - reference to clause 49 not clear;
iv. paragraph 22 - not clear where scheme comes from - he asked if it was from the draft regulations;
v. paragraph 25 - the meaning of need must be specifically defined;
vi. paragraph 27a -contained an inconsistency over restrictions to the definitive map;
vii. paragraph 35 - the reference to permissive paths was a contradiction in terms and should be omitted;
viii. paragraph 49 - Local Access Forums should consult recreational interest groups;
ix. paragraph 58 - rather than the draft plan being strategic it should concentrate on local matters;
x. paragraph 67 - any idea that it was reasonable that a presumption was that new rights of way would be established by agreement in most cases was anything other than "pie in the sky";
xi. Appendix B - Compensation -is the reference to DOE circular on costs relevant to this paper;

c. the BMC representative said:
i. P8 paragraph 20, there should be no reduction in rights of way because of off road vehicular rights, and that vehicle rights should be further restricted where they caused unacceptable levels of damage to the surface of the PROW; and
ii. p7 - diverse interests should be consulted when the plans are put together;

d. The CLA representative said:
i. it was important to recognise that improvements can be made with no significant loss to users or land management;
ii. paragraph 19 - should not rule out the possibility of a package of schemes which have an overall positive effect on area;
iii. paragraph 27 - possible for small scale improvements to also include an extinguishment;
iv. paragraph 48 - when considering improvements the extent of demand should be looked at;
v. paragraph 39 - the backlog of issues on rights of way which are now defunct e.g. ones which now run through peoples houses, should be added to the list;
vi. paragraph 39f - there should be no automatic application of PROW to or across statutory monuments;
vii. paragraph 67 - local authorities need to be flexible in their approach to negotiations; and
viii. Appendix B - when considering compensation land management should be taken in to account. There also should be a reference to the fact that land tribunals are very expensive and should be avoided if possible;

e. The RSPB representative said:
i. they welcome the measure to increase access, however they had concerns that nature conservation measures were treated unevenly;
ii. paragraph 39f - English Nature should be added as a statutory consultee;
iii. paragraph 3 and paragraph 46 conservation is not reflected - conservation organisations should be added;

f. the English Nature (EN) representative felt that the comprehensiveness of the paper could provide highway authorities with an opportunity to neglect certain areas. He said that the paper may be better if it focused on a more specific range of targets and measures.

g. Tim Marshall offered his assistance in drafting Appendix A;

h. The British Horse Society (BHS) representative said:
i. paragraph 11 - milestone targets are a useful way of ensuring that adequate resources are made available;
ii. paragraph 68 - not clear where the money is coming from;
iii. paragraph 23 - 'should' is an excuse for doing nothing;
iv. paragraph 71 - needs to be more definite to ensure highway authorities carry out their duty

i. The MA representative said that there was a need to harmonise ROW improvements with open access information points, and that the creation of new PROW offered the opportunity to route them via information points;

j. Bishop Alan Chesters noted that it was an incredibly complex area and that the detailed comments put forward by the Forum were extremely useful for officers doing the work. He advised the Forum that they should not underestimate the technical detail that was required to compile a document such as this;

k. the Cyclist Touring Club (CTC) representative supported the views expressed by the BHS representative and echoed his concern at the lack of compunction in the Bill to force highway authorities to carry out their duties. He also said it was not clear where the funding would be coming from and that it would be useful to have this expressed in greater detail.

13. The Chair summed up the debate saying that it was important that the emphasis on resources was conveyed to the DETR. She said that there was also a considerable opportunity to develop partnerships for securing funding from alternative sources.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

14. The MA representative drew the Forum's attention to the agreement between the EN and Countryside Agency. He said he was disappointed to see that the document did not make reference to seeking discussions with the landowner or taking into account land management interests.

15. The EN representative explained that it was an agreement between EN and the CA on how they would work together on issues concerning nature conservation, which was why landowners were not mentioned. He said that it would be possible to set up similar agreements with organisations such as the MA or CLA if it was felt to be necessary.

16. The MA representative said he understood the explanation, but still had some concerns as the agreement included a method of working, and should therefore include working with the landowner.

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

17. The date of the next meeting is the 26th and 27th September in the south west. The NCAF meeting will be held on the 26th with a site visit to Dartmoor arranged for the 27th.

18. Next years' NCAF meetings will be held in March, June, September and December, dates will be circulated before the next meeting.