Natural England

Minutes from the 12th Meeting of the NCAF

Chairman: Pam Warhurst (Countryside Agency (CA))

Dr William Bird (Independent Member)

Mr Richard Brown (Local Government Association (LGA))

Mr Andrew Clark (National Farmers Union (NFU))

Mr Tim Marshall (Independent Member)

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

Mr Iain McMorrin (British Mountaineering Council (BMC))

Mr Jerry Pearlman (Ramblers Association (RA))

Mr Ben Thomas (Country Land and Business Association (CLA))

Mrs Stephanie Wheeler (British Horse Society (BHS))

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

Observers

Graham Bathe (English Nature (EN))

Hugh Craddock (Dept for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA))

Peter Hodgson (Defence Estates)

Robin King (National Assembly for Wales)

Chris Probert (Forestry Commission)

Roger Smith (DEFRA)

Countryside Agency Staff

Paul Johnson

Paul Mutch

Joanna Redgwell

Bob Roberts

Kirsty Shaw

Jon Tomlinson

Susanna Perkins (Secretary)

(About 40 members of the public attended the meeting.)

Chair's Introduction

1. The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. She said that NCAF had two new members - Mark Hudson (to represent the CLA) and Andrew Sutcliffe (to represent the Moorland Association (MA)) - but neither was able to attend this meeting. She extended a special welcome to Ben Thomas, representing the CLA in place of Mark Hudson, who was attending for the first time.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 

2. Apologies were received from: 

MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING (HELD ON 6TH JUNE)

3. The BMC representative expressed his continuing concern that the wording used in some official documents gave the misleading impression that activities not included within the new access rights were in some way prohibited. He recalled a discussion at the 11th NCAF meeting in which Hugh Craddock (DEFRA) had explained that the Act sets out what may be pursued as a statutory right but does not change or diminish freedoms enjoyed on a de facto basis in the past, or which may be enjoyed in the future. It was agreed that the minutes should be amended to reflect this. NCAF members requested a copy of this wording. Hugh Craddock agreed to provide this. 

ACTION. Hugh Craddock to write a guidance note on de facto access and send this to the Chairman. The Agency would then circulate this to members.

4. Commenting on paragraph 48 of the minutes, the RSPB representative said that the term 'non-statutory overlay' was misleading. Whilst overlays showing areas formally designated for their nature conservation interest were not 'statutory' in relation to the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act they may reflect statutory requirements under other legislation, such as the Habitat Regulations. 

MATTERS ARISING

5. Susanna Perkins confirmed that the action points arising from the last meeting (paragraphs 45 and 80 of the minutes) had been completed. Copies of the Agency's paper 'Sustainable Land Management' were available at the meeting.

ACTION. Copies of the paper would be forwarded to NCAF members who were unable to attend the meeting.

6. Referring to paragraph 13 of the minutes, the BHS representative asked whether the omission of BHS from a meeting held earlier in the year had been looked into, and whether BHS was on the list for all relevant meetings. Bob Roberts confirmed this to be the case.

7. The RA representative asked the Agency to inform NCAF members whenever relevant information on access issues was added to the Agency's website. Bob Roberts said that the website was updated frequently but any significant additions would be drawn to members' attention.

CROW ACT - ORAL REPORTS ON PROGRESS TOWARD IMPLEMENTATION

Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD)

8. Bob Roberts reported that:

• there have been no new cases of FMD since 30th September;
• the total number of cases was just over 2000;
• Devon, Lancs and Herefordshire were declared FMD-free on 27th November;
• the last 'Infected Area' designations were lifted on 29th November. These were in Cumbria, Durham and N Yorks. These counties would not be classified 'FMD free' until at least 90 days after the last case;
• 93% of Rights of Way (RoW) in England were now open;
• reopening of the remainder of the RoW network was related to local outbreaks and subject to veterinary advice;
• Agency grants from the RoW and Access Land recovery fund to assist with re-opening RoW totalled £3.8 million. This had been used to support 203 extra local authority staff and over 750 volunteers in England.  

9. The BMC representative asked that the Agency reconsider his request for NCAF to debate the Government's handling of countryside access during the FMD crisis. The Chairman explained that NCAF's role was to advise the Agency, who in turn would advise the Government. She would pass on any general comments to the Agency Board but felt it was inappropriate to debate this issue further within NCAF. 

10. The NFU representative supported the BMC representative in this. He also suggested that the views of the Rights of Way Review Committee be presented to NCAF for comment.

Local Access Forums (LAFs)

11. Joanna Redgwell reported that the Agency's had:

• encouraged appointing authorities in the lead mapping areas (lower north west and south east) to establish non-statutory forums; 8 and 4 had been set up respectively and were being consulted on draft maps for their area;
• advised DEFRA on the regulatory framework, drawing on draft guidance published in May 2000 and subsequent experience; and
• liaised with CCW to promote a consistent approach across England and Wales.  

12. The next steps were to:

• monitor the success of LAFs and consider guidance on best practice;
• encourage appointing authorities to establish LAFs in the south and upper north west (mapping areas 3 and 4); and
• produce generic training materials for forum members; it would be for the appointing authority to provide and fund this.  

13. She explained that DEFRA has responsibility for issuing regulations and other statutory guidance for local authorities and LAF members. The Agency did not intend to publish guidance to complement regulations.

14. Roger Smith (DEFRA) added that the consultation on the draft regulatory framework had ended in October. Some 350 responses were being considered, and regulations were likely to be made in early 2002.

15. The CLA representative was concerned that the Agency did not intend to produce guidance on the running of LAFs. He saw benefits in having consistency in the way they run. Roger Smith explained that DEFRA saw a need for two forms of guidance: (i) a circular to local authorities giving guidance on the establishment of LAFs and other constitutional issues; and (ii) guidance for LAF members, which could also be statutory. The content of these was being discussed with the Agency.

16. The LGA representative welcomed the proposals for generic training and suggested that the Agency liaise closely with local authorities or the LGA to ensure that work on LAFs was taken forward in the context of the new constitutional processes being developed through local government.

Restrictions

17. Paul Johnson reported that DEFRA's consultation paper on draft regulations and the Agency's on its guidance were likely to be published within the next two weeks. These reflected the principles discussed in the three papers put to NCAF on restrictions, and research undertaken into the impact of access on livestock and grouse management. Research into safety and fire risk issues was in hand to further inform the content of the final guidance. The consultation period would run for three months. He added that the Agency was developing ideas for a Desk-top Access Management System which would provide an instant and interactive system for processing, recording and publicising information on restrictions.

18. Roger Smith added that DEFRA's consultation paper would be published later than had been hoped due to the need to consider carefully the complex issues it addressed. Following publication, DEFRA intended to hold a number of meetings with the key interest groups to explain the approach taken and to receive initial reactions.

19. The BMC representative asked that literature be carefully worded to make clear that the restriction of activities under Schedule 2 of the Act does not prevent those activities being undertaken on a de facto basis with the implied consent of the landowner. 

Advice, training and incentives 

20. Bob Roberts reported on recent progress: 

21. The RA representative asked how the Agency would ensure that funding made available through an incentives scheme would provide good value for money. Bob Roberts replied that all such schemes funded by the Agency must be able to show this. Means would be put in place to ensure that incentives produced real benefits on the ground.

22. Graham Bathe reported that EN saw the incentives scheme as fundamental to the successful operation of the new access rights. He believed that careful targeting of this could reduce the need for local exclusion or restriction of access. 

23. The RSPB representative asked whether the Agency would monitor both the benefits of increased access and any impact on land management and wildlife. He felt it was important to monitor any changes in patterns of use, and whether these matched those predicted. Bob Roberts said the Agency was discussing with EN and others the extent to which existing schemes could monitor changes in visitor numbers and behaviour. The Agency would then decide what further monitoring need be undertaken, in light of limited resources. 

24. Roger Smith mentioned that consultation papers on draft regulations issued by DEFRA to date been sent to NCAF members representing an organisation but not to individual members. He apologised for this oversight and confirmed that papers would be sent direct to all NCAF members in future.

NCAF 12/1 MAPPING OPEN COUNTRY AND REGISTERED COMMON LAND IN ENGLAND - AN UPDATE ON PROGRESS

25. Kirsty Shaw introduced this paper. She drew attention to an error in the figures given in the third paragraph of the paper, which should be amended to record that:

Lower north west - 118,244 hectares (ha) of open country and 27,066 ha of registered common land had been mapped; andSouth east - 13,364 ha of open country and 18,592 ha of registered common land had been mapped.

26. She undertook to re-issue this paper.

ACTION. Agency to circulate the corrected NCAF 12/1 paper to members.

27. She reported that the mapping area of the Agency's website had received over 2 million hits to date. The roadshows, which had been running for two weeks, had been well attended and had stimulated lively debate. Comments on the draft maps were now being received and logged on the database.

28. The BHS representative asked for it to be made clear that the status of higher rights which already exist in an area is not affected by the mapping of that land as access land. Kirsty Shaw confirmed this to be the case. 

29. Bob Roberts said every parish council would have now received a copy of their local maps. He asked NCAF members to remind their members that these maps were available for inspection locally. A 15-minute video explaining the consultation process was also available from the Agency.

30. Tim Marshall asked whether land managers and users had shown similar levels of interest in the mapping process. Kirsty Shaw said this depended on the location - in areas with substantial amounts of open country responses had been dominated by land managers; where there was less open country responses had been dominated by users. 

31. The ANPA representative asked why access which already exists under other formal arrangements ('section 15 land') was not shown on draft maps. Kirsty Shaw said the exercise to compile draft maps was intended to identify the correct boundary of open country and registered common land. Section 15 land would not be shown on draft maps but the Agency hoped to show this as a non-statutory overlay on conclusive maps.

32. Bob Roberts said it was important to make people aware the location of excepted land and section 15 land. The Agency was discussing with DEFRA lawyers what could be shown on the conclusive maps and on the maps available on the website. Development of a National Countryside Access Database (NCAD) could play an important role in this and could record other details, including access available through schemes, where restrictions were in force, and other access opportunities. He saw the provision of wider information on access as being a key part of the Agency's work. DEFRA and the Agency were discussing resourcing of this work. The Agency was discussing with Ordnance Survey (OS) what information they would show on their maps.

33. Hugh Craddock explained that the Act required the Agency to map all registered common land and open country. In this way, where an existing statutory access scheme came to an end (such as on the expiry of an access agreement) then, provided the land were mapped as open country or registered common land, the new right of access under the CROW Act would begin automatically. He acknowledged the important role of the additional information on access which the Agency intended to make available in identifying access opportunities for other users.

34. The BHS representative asked whether the scale of overlays used in the mapping process would be the same as those used for Rights of Way work. Bob Roberts replied that the scale used by the Agency for maps issued under the CROW Act was determined by legislation. CROW Act maps may be on a greater scale than RoW definitive maps. NCAD could play a key role in bringing the two together. 

35. The LGA representative welcomed the plans for a comprehensive database which would be essential to local authorities in developing integrated access strategies and RoW Improvement Plans. He added that in some areas poor depiction of colour on maps had lead to confusion over the status of small areas of land. He felt that landowners should not be required to go through a formal appeals procedure where inaccuracy existed due to a cartographic error. Kirsty Shaw said the consultation process provided the opportunity for people to advise the Agency of any such errors. 

36. Susanna Perkins read out comments sent from the Moorland Association (Simon Bostock). His concern was that considerable amounts of 'in-bye' land had been included in the draft maps. Land managers would not have anticipated these areas being mapped as access land - which, he felt, was of little benefit to walkers - and the volume of comments was likely to be substantial. The CLA and NFU representatives endorsed this view. 

37. The MA representative was also concerned that the comment form for responses suggested that a map be attached but did not make this a requirement. He felt inclusion of a map was essential for clarity.

38. Bob Roberts said the Agency had tried to make it easy for people to comment on draft maps and felt that a requirement to attach a map would not benefit the process. He recognised that determining which areas of 'in-bye' land should be included was difficult. The Agency had used aerial photographs to help improve the mapping of these areas. This issue would be carefully scrutinised as mapping continued.

39. Tim Marshall asked whether any comments received so far had been difficult to interpret because no map had been enclosed. Kirsty Shaw had not received any such reports on this from the Agency's consultants.

40. The RSPB representative felt that the OS should produce maps showing consolidated information on access opportunities as these would be of more practical benefit to the public than the statutory conclusive map prepared under the Act.

41. The NFU representative commented that the yellow and green shading on draft maps for open country and registered common land respectively could not be distinguished on maps produced from the internet on black and white printers, or on photocopies. He suggested the Agency should alter the shading to differentiate between the two. He added that the maps available on the website should be annotated with the relevant scale. Bob Roberts acknowledged that some aspects of the presentation of maps were not perfect and the Agency was looking at amending the shading of maps on the internet. He said the Agency would discuss with their consultants whether the scale could be shown on internet maps.

42. The NFU representative said when internet maps viewed in fine resolution the proposed boundary of access land did not always correspond with a physical feature, such as a wall. This caused concern to land managers who were unclear as to the exact location of the boundary. He asked the Agency to review this before producing provisional and conclusive maps, and before commencing mapping in the next areas. Bob Roberts replied that the resolution on the background maps provided by the OS was not perfect due to the need for OS to protect the market for their own maps. This in turn affected the accuracy of the maps reproduced by the Agency on the website. However, the resolution of the definitive maps held on the Agency's computer was sharper. These were available for people to inspect on request. 

43. William Bird felt the launch of the first draft maps had been very positive and congratulated the Agency on this. He asked whether consideration of some comments on maps could be curtailed if it was felt not to be cost effective to research them in depth. He suggested that the Agency could discuss with NCAF how this process could be improved.

44. The BMC representative asked if the Agency would 'weight' the comments received, and whether there would be further opportunities to discuss the more substantive ones. Kirsty Shaw replied that all comments would be treated on their merits. Where a LAF had reached consensus on an issue this would be given suitable consideration. Regulations specified that no new comments could be considered after the close of the consultation period (11th February in the lead areas). Where comments already logged required further clarification this could be undertaken after that date. Bob Roberts explained that all comments would be treated equally, whether they came from an individual or an organisation.

45. The RA representative welcomed the publication of the first draft maps and the improvements to the consultation process suggested by the Agency. He applauded the Agency's efforts to inform agricultural occupants of the process individually through leaflets. He suggested that a representative from OS should attend the next NCAF meeting to respond to comments on mapping issues.

46. The Chairman thanked members for their comments. The Agency's Board would be briefed on progress, and the need for improvements would be considered.

NCAF 12/2 RIGHTS OF WAY HISTORICAL RESEARCH - DISCOVERING LOST WAYS

47. Joanna Redgwell introduced this paper. She added that the contract was now running and invited comments.

48. The BHS representative commented that she had received a detailed questionnaire arising from this research and felt that the date for response allowed insufficient time to carry out the depth of research required. Joanna Redgwell confirmed that responses to this questionnaire survey would continue to be logged until the end of the first phase of this contract (February 2002). She added that the response rate from questionnaires was good. 

49. The BHS representative asked the Agency to reconsider the scale of reimbursement for travel costs incurred by volunteers participating in the project. The Chairman agreed that this would be considered.

50. Commenting on paragraph 17 of the paper, the LGA representative agreed it was important that volunteers achieved an adequate standard of research. Local authorities would need to have confidence that the material collated was accurate. The CLA and NFU representatives supported this view. Joanna Redgwell replied that the Agency had asked highway authorities to indicate to what extent they would accept common standard. The response had been varied, and the Agency was considering views.

51. The NFU representative said the process should give farmers an opportunity to contest any claim that an unrecorded RoW existed on their land. 

52. Tim Marshall suggested that parish clerks could prove a useful source of local information. Joanna Redgwell agreed that this and other possible sources of information, including locally published village histories would be useful in Phase Two but there was insufficient time to do so in Phase One.

53. The RA representative commented on the length of time it could take for Definitive Map Modification Orders to reach a hearing and asked the Agency to look into this to ensure that it would not introduce delays into the process. He cited a case which concluded that the granting of a right of way was outside the powers given by the particular Inclosure Act. He added that this decision had been questioned by many people and it was possible that the matter would be appealed.

54. Susanna Perkins reported a comment received by the CTC representative, who drew attention to cyclists' knowledge of RoWs and was concerned that this may not have been adequately drawn on. 

55. The RSPB representative asked whether the Agency had considered whether the addition of previously unrecorded RoWs to the definitive map should be regarded as a 'plan' or 'project' and, where these ran across areas designated as Special Protection Areas or Special Areas for Conservation, whether they would require an assessment of any potential impact on their nature conservation value. Bob Roberts said the Agency had been advised that addition of established rights of way to the definitive map should not be regarded as a plan or project for these purposes. 

NCAF 12/3 INTEGRATED ACCESS DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

56. Paul Mutch introduced this paper. He reported that some delay in the research had arisen due to the FMD outbreak. A leaflet with further information on the projects was available from the Agency. 

57. Paul Mutch drew attention to the south-east Hampshire project, which focused on access for the 11-15 year age group, a group which has not previously been researched. Results so far showed a high demand for access within this group but also significant barriers to access. Generally, these young people were not well informed about access and the country code. 

58. Tim Marshall congratulated the Agency on taking this challenging work forward and acknowledged the difficulty of securing robust data.

59. William Bird also welcomed the research. He said that co-ordination of the projects was essential to make best use of the results and was concerned that the wide range of issues investigated could complicate analysis. 

60. The NFU representative asked whether the project would include research into access for people with young children (in push chairs). Paul Mutch confirmed that this was being looked at on a local scale and would be included in the final report.

61. The Chairman drew attention to the Agency's publication 'Sense and Accessibility' which contained relevant information on this and asked for copies to be circulated.

ACTION. The Agency to send copies of the publication 'Sense and Accessibility' to all NCAF members.

62. The RSPB representative suggested that the research should identify measures with positive benefits both for access and for nature conservation - for example, reversion of land to lowland heathland. Paul Mutch said that the project run with Yorkshire Water would look into these opportunities.

63. The LGA representative commented that this research would provide valuable information for local authorities developing access strategies and RoW Improvement Plans. He added that other authorities had initiatives in hand which would complement the Agency's research. Paul Mutch added that the focus of the Agency's work was to demonstrate practical results on the ground. Advice and guidance would be based on this.

64. Tim Marshall said the final report should highlight which strategies were unsuccessful in practice as well as those that worked well.

65. The BHS representative asked that the final report include recommendations appropriate to all access users.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

66. Susanna Perkins reported a comment received from the CTC representative, who asked whether the number of draft maps made available to LAFs to assist with local consultation could be increased. The West Yorkshire Pennine LAF felt their potential to network with a wide variety of local groups would be improved if more maps were available. Bob Roberts replied that the Agency was constrained by the budget available, and the decision had been taken to provide two of each local map free of charge to LAFs. Further copies could be obtained at £15 per sheet + postage and packing.

67. The NFU representative asked how the Agency intended to ensure that all people with a legal interest in the land would be informed about the process of commenting on provisional maps. He said it was important to show where changes to the draft maps had been made so that people with a legal interest in the land could consider whether to lodge an appeal at provisional map stage. Bob Roberts said he could not confirm the Agency's approach as this would be determined by the regulations on which DEFRA was consulting. The Agency's current plan was to provide information over and above what was required by the proposals for draft regulations currently under consultation, subject to the budget being made available by the Government.

68. Hugh Craddock explained that the Act did not allow for statutory consultees to be prescribed in regulations, as had been done for draft maps. He said DEFRA would welcome comments from NCAF members on the process proposed in the consultation paper. The consultation period would end on 8 February 2002.

69. The RA representative asked why DEFRA's consultation paper on provisional and conclusive maps had not been included for discussion at this NCAF meeting. Bob Roberts pointed out that the paper had been produced by DEFRA, not the Agency. The consultation period would run until February, which provided opportunities for comment. The RA representative asked that this and similar issues should be included on the agenda of future NCAF meetings.

70. Reporting on a recent meeting with landowners' representatives, Graham Bathe said it had been suggested that some landowners would plough up land to prevent it becoming access land. He added that English Nature would take enforcement action if this occurred within Sites of Special Scientific Interest and would strongly condemn it elsewhere. He saw an important role for incentives to deflect any such activity. 

71. The CLA representative said the CLA would not endorse any ploughing up of access land for this purpose.

ARRANGEMENTS FOR NEXT MEETING AND DATES FOR 2002

72. The Agency had consulted NCAF members on convenient dates for meetings in 2002 and suggested Wednesday 20th March, Thursday 20th June, Thursday 19th September and Tuesday 26th November. Some problems were identified with these dates. Susanna Perkins agreed to look at them again and write to members as soon as possible to confirm the final dates.

ACTION. Susanna Perkins to review and confirm dates for meetings in 2002.