Natural England

Minutes of the 9th Meeting of the NCAF

Chair: Rt. Reverend Bishop Alan Chesters (Countryside Agency (CA))

Dr William Bird (Independent Member)

Ms Pam Ashton (Cyclists Touring Club (CTC))

Mr Simon Bostock (Moorland Association (MA))

Sir Edward Greenwell (Country Landowners Association (CLA))

Mr Chris Heinitz (Local Government Association (LGA))

Mr Barry Leathwood (Transport and General Workers Union)

Mr Andrew Clark (National Farmers Union (NFU))

Prof Ian Mercer (Association of National Park Authorities (ANPA))

Mr Iain McMorrin (British Mountaineering Council (BMC))

Mr Jerry Pearlman (Ramblers Association (RA))

Mrs Stephanie Wheeler (British Horse Society (BHS))

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

Observers

Graham Bathe (English Nature)

Chris Braun (DETR)

Stephen Cane (MAFF)

Gail Dyson (DETR)

Quentin Grimley (CCW)

John Mackay (SNH)

Eileen McKeever (Environment Agency)

Chris Probert (Forestry Commission)

Countryside Agency Staff

Bob Roberts

Paul Johnson 

Nadia Little

Roger Ward 

Susanna Perkins

(about 40 members of the public attended the meeting)

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE were received from Pam Warhurst (Chair), Tim Marshall (Independent Member), Kate Parminter (Council for the Protection of Rural England), Tim Bennett (NFU), Susan Carter (DETR), John Osmond (MAFF), Gareth Roberts (CCW), Margaret Clark (CA).

Apologies for Absence due to travel delays  were received from Jo Burgon (National Trust) 

Chair's Introduction

1. Bishop Alan Chesters welcomed everybody to the meeting. He conveyed special apologies from Pam Warhurst who was unable to attend and explained that he would chair the meeting.

Minutes of the Last Meeting

2. The minutes were approved.

Matters Arising

3. There were no matters arising.

NCAF 9/1 - COUNTRYSIDE AND RIGHTS OF WAY ACT - WHAT NEXT?

4. The paper was introduced by Bob Roberts. 

5. The MA representative reported that articles had appeared in local newspapers which could be misinterpreted to mean that new access rights would come into effect in 2001. He asked the Agency to put out correct information urgently. He offered the MA's assistance in supplying details of landowners to be contacted in the consultation process. He also asked for further information on the work and membership of the Restrictions Working Group. Paul Johnson explained that the Group comprises representatives from those organisations responsible for administering closures and restrictions under the CROW Act (i.e. the Forestry Commission, National Park Authorities, CCW and CA), together with DETR.

6. The BMC representative expressed support for the fast track approach to registered common land and land over 600m and asked for the Forum's support for these powers to be used. 

7. The BHS representative welcomed the provision for dedication of land for access and hoped this would promote access for horse riders. 

8. The CTC representative welcomed the Agency's intention to improve access for a wider range of people and asked for details of CA's integrated access projects. 

9. The CLA representative asked that more information be made available to the public. He suggested that the effectiveness of local authorities in carrying out their duties under the CROW Act might form part of the Agency's monitoring and evaluation. He did not support the use of the fast track provisions and urged CA to resist this. He supported the idea of convening a Mapping Steering Group. Commenting on Annex A (para 5), he suggested that further overlays to draft maps should be developed, for example for land with mines and quarries.

10. The LGA representative reported that discussion between central and local government regarding finance seemed to be going well, and that he thought it likely that adequate financial arrangements could be agreed for local authorities.

11. The RA and BMC representatives welcomed the Act and offered their organisations' assistance in its implementation.

12. Bob Roberts responded to questions:

1. Work was in hand to prepare comprehensive information for the public, (based broadly on the information plan previously discussed by NCAF). This includes information on when new rights may come into force - though that decision was ultimately for the Secretary of State.
2. The decision on whether to use the fast track measures was also in the hands of Ministers.
3. Integrated Access Projects would be considered as an agenda item for a future meeting.
4. Formal monitoring of local authorities' effectiveness was for DETR and Government generally, rather than the Countryside Agency - though the Agency would, naturally, take a strong interest in the performance of LA duties from the CROW Act. 
5. A Mapping Steering Group already exists to advise on the technical aspects of the process. The usefulness of additional steering arrangements would be considered carefully immediately the contract was let.  

UPDATE ON MAPPING

13. Roger Ward reported that six consortia had been interviewed. CA was discussing detail with a preferred bidder, and he hoped that the contract would be signed very soon.

NCAF 9/2 - LOCAL ACCESS FORUMS - AN UPDATE

14. The paper was introduced by Nadia Little. 

15. The MA representative asked that AONB boundaries should be considered as one option for the geographical coverage of LAFs. He asked how CA would ensure that LAFs had a reasonable balance of membership between landowners and users. The BMC and BHS representatives also expressed this concern.

16. The BMC representative commented that the Peak District National Park LAF had had its first meeting recently. The membership was well balanced and he felt the meeting had been very successful.

17. The NFU representative suggested that LAFs should have a role in advising on Rights of Way issues.

18. The RSPB representative asked to what extent English Nature would be involved in advice to LAFs.

19. Nadia Little replied:

1. The question of boundaries and the balance of membership would be discussed with DETR, and may well be dealt with in Regulations;
2. The Peak District National Park LAF was based on CA's earlier guidelines and she hoped this model would be translated into Regulations, with suitable modification to reflect the final content of the legislation; 
3. The CROW Act requires LAFs to be consulted on Rights of Way improvement plans, but it might not be appropriate for them to get too closely involved in rights of way casework;
4. Advice to LAF members on nature conservation restrictions could be included in training.  

20. The RA representative welcomed the emphasis in LAF's role on strategic policy matters and asked whether the Forum would be consulted on draft Regulations before they are submitted to parliament.

21. Chris Braun explained that drafting of Regulations would have to be carried out quite soon, and that the tight timetable would have implications for the extent of consultation. Forum members' comments would be considered in the process. Regulations would reflect the need for LAFs to accommodate local needs.

NCAF 9/3 - LOCAL RESTRICTIONS ON ACCESS LAND

22. Paul Johnson introduced this paper. The Chair asked for members' comments on the questions raised, with comments on question 12 (e) be given with responses to questions in paragraph 19. 

23. Para 9 - Applying access to smaller parcels of land 

1. The RA representative submitted a paper giving detailed comments on the NCAF 9/3 paper for CA's consideration. He added that walkers require certainty about restrictions, and often use the same local walk regularly. He supported registration of a pattern of parcels of land. The pattern should relate to physical boundaries or features. The register of use of the 28 discretionary days should be checked and monitored. If registration of parcels had not been undertaken by the landowner, then any closure should apply to all the land. 
2. The CLA representative was concerned about any reduction in flexibility for landowners' use of the 28 days. He said that registration of parcels should be an option but not a requirement.
3. The MA representative commented; 
   • (Para 9.a.) Although the Act did not require pre-notification of parcels of land, he did not see any other way of achieving certainty for landowners and walkers. He believed that estate boundaries should be mapped, and pre-registered parcels of land could be mapped also. 
   • Referring to Para 9.b., walkers should be required to look at a map to ascertain which areas of land were open. He drew attention to the paper which he had sent to CA in Aug 1999, which contained some advice on this and other issues. 
   • He felt that the proposal at Para 9.c. was too severe; pre-registration should be encouraged as good practice.
     1. The NFU representative said that there should be no requirement for pre-registration but that it should be encouraged as good practice. He felt that the use of physical boundaries would increase clarity and should be encouraged.
     2. The CLA representative said that there should be a national system of signing land which is closed for access, with space on the sign to indicate date of closure. Bureaucracy should be kept to a minimum. He added that some landowners might not have the ability to pre-register parcels of land and they should not be under a requirement to do so.  

24. Paras 11 and 12 - Allowing minor restrictions to be notified at short notice

1. The RA representative supported the idea that one-off registration should be a pre-condition of telephone or email notification. There should be a central point which the public could telephone for information on closures, as under the Scottish deer stalking arrangements. Where smaller areas were to be closed, shorter notice would be acceptable, but the minimum period of notice should be 24 hours. It would make sense to restrict short notice notification to cases where nearby access land remains open.
2. The CLA representative felt that making one-off registration a pre-condition might be unduly bureaucratic, and that the owner would not always be in a position to ensure that alternative land remained open nearby.
3. The ANPA representative felt that Regulations should give the flexibility for review and revision in the light of experience.
4. The MA representative accepted that landowners should have responsibility to notify the public of short notice closures but the extent of this should be limited. He agreed with the overall thrust of the proposals in para 12, and added: 
   • in some cases (eg. bracken spraying) landowners would not be able to give early notification of exact closure dates for relatively large areas. 
   • He supported a two-stage closure procedure, under which notification could be given that a closure would occur during a specified period, followed by short-notice notification of the date. The public could be notified where information on the actual closure date could be found. 
   • Only the day on which the closure actually occurred should count against the 28 day entitlement.
   • Keeping adjacent land open for access was not specified in the Act and should not be a requirement, though it might be encouraged as good practice.  
5. The CTC representative stressed the importance of placing notices on site to alert the public to a closure.  

25. Paras 14 and 16 - Additional restrictions and restrictions for safety and fire

1. The RA representative suggested that different weighting should be applied to different reasons for a land management closure. Restrictions for fire risk and safety should be given greater priority. Use of 28 day restriction powers for purposes not associated with normal land management (e.g. pop festivals) should be taken into account when considering applications for additional restrictions.
2. William Bird was concerned that the system was very complex and could be vulnerable to misuse. The public should have information on the reason for a closure as this would encourage observance. LAFs could be involved in this.
3. The CLA representative said that "land management" should be interpreted as widely as possible, as Government had indicated it would be, including commercial activities like pop festivals. Landowners should be allowed to keep some of the 28 days available for unanticipated needs when applying for additional restrictions. Restriction for fire or safety reasons should not erode the 28 day allowance.
4. The ANPA representative said that CA's advice to relevant authorities on their duty to have regard to use of the 28 days (para 14.b.) should give nationally applicable guidelines, with flexibility to accommodate local circumstances. The Flood Watch system might provide useful lessons. He agreed that the 28 days should not be used to manage for fire risk.
5. The MA representative said that under the Act landowners have the right to use the 28 days as they wish. He accepted, though, that if the owner sought additional restrictions, he should explain how the 28 day allowance had been used. He stressed that landowners cannot predict future requirements for discretionary days with complete accuracy. He added that restrictions for fire risk should be treated separately.
6. The NFU representative believed that use made of the 28 days should not weigh against the landowner when seeking additional restrictions, but that land management organisations should promote good practice.
7. The BMC representative agreed that the issue was complex and asked that the Forum be given an opportunity to review the decisions reached on this paper as the issues develop. He added that restriction of public access on safety grounds because of concern about occupiers' liability should be avoided wherever possible. Fire restrictions should draw on the local knowledge of wardens and keepers as well at meteorological data.
8. The RSPB representative commented that use of Meteorological Office indices for monitoring ground condition had proved difficult in the past, due in part to a reduction in the number of manned stations collecting data. The same problems could exist for a fire risk index unless the relevant data were collected on an automated basis. The local fire service might make an input. Flammability varies widely with vegetation type, fire history etc.  

26. Para 19 - the role of criteria tables

1. Bishop Alan Chesters suggested that Forum members write to CA with specific comments on these issues and the paper generally. The RA representative tabled written comments.
2. The BMC representative argued that the criteria tables must be designed to ensure that local restrictions are not made lightly or frivolously. 
3. The MA representative said the criteria should be as detailed as possible. Where they did not cover the circumstance described in an application, the relevant authority should have discretion to judge the case on its merits.  

27. Bob Roberts explained that, following receipt of any written comments, this paper would be developed into a set of proposals for discussion with DETR. This may be circulated to members for comment prior to the next NCAF meeting.

NCAF 9/4 - ACCESS AND NATURE CONSERVATION

28.  Roger Ward introduced this paper and thanked Graham Bathe and other EN colleagues for their help in developing the approach set out in it.

29. The BMC representative said it was an excellent paper, reflecting that access and nature conservation can work together harmoniously. 

30. The RSPB representative also welcomed the paper but suggested that it should deal more specifically with European sites which might require appropriate assessments in accordance with the Habitat Regulations. 

31. The ANPA representative asked that National Park Authorities be consulted at an early stage whilst guidance is being drawn up for the other relevant authorities (para 13).

32. The MA representative was disappointed that there was no landowners' representative on the Wildlife and Access Advisory Group (WAAG). He asked EN to consider landowner participation. 

33. The BHS representative asked whether the measures proposed in the paper also applied to Rights of Way.

Roger Ward replied:

1. the approach set out in the paper has been developed to take account of the statutory tests required by the Habitats Regulations for European sites.
2. WAAG is a mechanism to collect input from the wider nature conservation community. Other means (including NCAF) were available for other interests to advise the Agency.
3. Provisions in this paper apply to access land only and not to Rights of Way.  

[Bishop Alan Chesters left the meeting and William Bird took the chair.]

NCAF 9/5 - A NEW COUNTRY CODE

34. This paper was presented by Paul Johnson. The following comments were made on Annexes 2 to 4:

1. The RA representative:
   • Users code - some of the language is inelegant, e.g. points 6 and 7; point 10 is too threatening.
   • He liked the way the Code developed the main points in more detail, though "never light an open fire" is too restrictive. "Wildlife restrictions" in point 9 would only be meaningful if people could ascertain what they are.  
2. The CTC representative:
   • The Agency must ensure that this code reaches people unfamiliar with the countryside, and the messages in it must be simple.
   • Users' code - she liked point 6; the statement in point 10 is not entirely true, as some responsibility for safety lies with others e.g. on rights of way. "You have responsibility for your own safety" might be better.
   • The material at point 9 should cover picking as well as uprooting wild plants.
   • Land Managers' code - add to point 7 that livestock should be controlled near rights of way.
   • Land managers' code - add that managers have a duty to notify others about restrictions; farming practices should not adversely affect rights of way; land managers should remember the needs of disabled people.
   • "Taking care on roads" should be covered; she will write with further comments on the use of roads.  
3. The BHS representative:
   • Users' code - point 6 was fine; something on 'noise' should be included.
   • Land managers' code - she liked this; she was concerned by the reference to aggressive stock on land people visit and raised the issue of wild native pony stallions.  
4. The MA representative:
   • He stated that the code had been greatly improved since the last draft and liked the concept of and approach to the land managers' code. 
   • Users' code: point 1 - users should consult maps and "find out" rather than "try to find out" about closures and restrictions"; point 2 - remove "try to" from the second point; add "do not interfere with equipment"; point 3 - stronger messages on fire; point 4 - leaving litter can cause fires; point 7 - state that dogs should be on short leads at the specified times; points 8 and 9 could be combined; "avoid trampling crops" should not be qualified by "wherever possible"; add "keeping to recognised paths, especially during the breeding season, will reduce disturbance"; re-instate that "in the country everything belongs to someone".
   • Land managers' code - point 5 - cost will be an issue if this becomes a legal requirement; point 6 - baler twine can be sufficient where gates are seldom used; point 7 - the code should not dictate what a landowner does with his dogs and wildlife message should only apply to users' dogs; point 9 - "work with nature, not against it" is too condescending; point 10 - should be reworded.  
5. The ANPA representative:
   • The codes should state where an activity is illegal, or a legal requirement. 
   • The codes should state the precise dates that dogs should be on leads. 
   • The wording should be stronger, by removing phrases such as "try to ..."
   • Land managers' code - the content was relevant but the tone should be less patronising.
   • Remove words like "visit" and "visitor", which were also patronising.  
6. The CLA and BMC representatives undertook to send written comments.  

35. Bob Roberts said that, subject to endorsement by the Agency's Board the following day, the intention was to consult publicly in the new year on a further version of the Code material. Plain English consultants might be used to help hone the drafting.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS 

36. The BMC representative reported that he had asked the Duke of Edinburgh Award organisers if they would hold talks with MoD concerning disruption of wildlife by the Ten Tors Race. 

37. The CLA representatives asked for information on means to appoint voluntary wardens. Bob Roberts explained that work on a good practice guide for land management is in hand which will cover this issue. 

38. Bob Roberts reported that an Access Conference was likely to be held on 27 February, subject to confirmation of ministers' availability.

39. The CTC representative asked for information on the content of future NCAF agendas, and hoped this would include the opportunity to discuss access for users other than walkers. Bob Roberts said that proposals for agenda items were always welcome. 

40. The RA representative raised the following:

• Fast track process - would these powers be used?
• Mapping - would a map of all access land be published at one time, or would it be rolled out by region?
• Funding - are funds for local authorities to be ring-fenced?
• Regulations - could NCAF have an update on regulations are every meeting?  

41. Bob Roberts replied:

• Fast track - ministers will decide whether these powers will be used.
• Mapping - the mapping contract specification required the production of and consultation on maps region by region. Availability of Ordnance Survey data will strongly influence the sequence in which maps are available. The order of mapping should be known early in the new year. The decision on commencement was made by the Secretary of State.  

42. Chris Braun added:

• Funding - funding for local authorities is not ring-fenced but they are required by the Act to perform certain duties. 
• Regulations - the need for regulations to be drawn up quickly may limit the scope for repeated consultation. DETR and CA will discuss the issue.  

43. The MA representative asked that members be given more time to consider papers before, and to debate them at, NCAF meetings. He also stated that he had written to the chair of NCAF and of the Agency on a regulatory matter and had not received a reply. He hoped this would be forthcoming shortly.

44. The LGA representative hoped that measures to dedicate land for access would be used to enable people to gain access to land near where they live. He asked for this subject to be included in a future agenda. William Bird supported this request.

45. The NFU representative asked that Forum members be given information on the order of work anticipated by the Agency. Bob Roberts drew attention to Annex 1 of paper NCAF 9/1 but warned that there was some need for flexibility in project planning at this stage, and so the running order might change.

WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE

46. In response to written questions, Bob Roberts clarified that:

1. The Government may encourage small highway authorities to co-operate in running LAF's. The final decision will be taken locally.
2. The extent of the use of 28 'discretionary' days would need to be properly recorded to prevent abuse of this right. LAFs and other local networks should comment on and help resolve any significant problems experienced on the ground. 
3. The Secretary of State would determine the date for commencement of the right of access. 
4. The need for transparency in the mapping process would be emphasised to the contractors, including notification when the process was about to begin in any area, through national and local media.  

ARRANGEMENTS FOR NEXT MEETING

47. The next NCAF meeting will be held on Wednesday 14 March, preceded on 13 March by a site visit and meeting with members of the Wales NCAF. These arrangements are subject to confirmation.

48. Date for meetings in 2001 are:

13/14 March (note: location is subject to confirmation)

6 June in London

24/25 September in the North West

6 December in London