Breadcrumbs
Minutes of the 13th Meeting of the NCAF
Chairman: Pam Warhurst (Countryside Agency (CA))
Mr Richard Brown (Local Government Association (LGA))
Mr Jo Burgon (National Trust (NT))
Ms Sue Hilder (Association of National Park Authorities (ANPA))
Mr Mark Hudson (Country Land and Business Association (CLA))
Mr Tim Marshall (Independent Member)
Mr Brian McLaughlin (National Farmers Union (NFU))
Mr Iain McMorrin (British Mountaineering Council (BMC))
Mr Jerry Pearlman (Ramblers Association (RA))
Mr Andrew Sutcliffe (Moorland Association (MA))
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))
Quentin Grimley (Countryside Council for Wales (CCW))
Vince Holyoak (English Heritage)
John Mackay (Scottish Natural Heritage)
Chris Probert (Forestry Commission (FC))
Dominic Rowland (DEFRA)
Roger Smith (DEFRA)
David Waterman (DEFRA)
Judith Williams (Defence Estates)
Countryside Agency Staff
Terri Edwards
Paul Johnson
Bob Roberts
Wendy Thompson
Susanna Perkins (Secretary)
(About 40 members of the public attended the meeting.)
Chair's Introduction
1. The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. She extended a special welcomed to members attending for the first time:
Mark Hudson - representing CLA;Andrew Sutcliffe - representing MA;Sue Hilder - representing ANPA in place of Ian Mercer; andBrian McLaughlin - representing NFU in place of Tim Bennett.and observers attending for the first time:
David Waterman - DEFRAJudith Williams - Defence EstatesAPOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
2. Apologies were received from:
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING (HELD ON 6TH DECEMBER)
3. Hugh Craddock asked that para 33 of the minutes be amended to clarify that where the Agency mapped land as open country and registered common land on which access rights already existed, those rights would prevail. If those rights came to an end, then new rights introduced by the CROW Act would cut in automatically.
4. The minutes were accepted, subject to this correction.
MATTERS ARISING
5. The BHS representative asked whether the Agency had reconsidered the scale of reimbursement for travel costs incurred by volunteers participating in the Discovering Lost Ways project. The Chairman said this would be looked into and the Agency would respond.
ACTION. The Agency to respond to the BHS representative regarding reimbursement of travel costs.
CROW ACT - ORAL REPORTS ON PROGRESS TOWARD IMPLEMENTATION
NCAF 13/1 Mapping open country and registered common land in England
6. Bob Roberts introduced a short paper updating members on the progress made with the consultation on draft maps in mapping areas 1 and 2. The consultation period had ended on 11th February and over 6,000 formal responses had been received on maps for the two regions, some of which contained multiple comments. The Agency was pleased with the way the consultation had run and the large number of people who had attended roadshows. Representations had been entered into a database and were being considered.
7. Commenting on the figures given in the paper, Bob Roberts said he had been surprised at the number of comments relating to common land. The Agency would look carefully at this. The Agency planned to purchase more aerial photography to provide additional base data on areas to which the consultation had drawn attention.
8. The CLA representative asked the Agency to take full account of the lessons learned from the first two mapping areas to minimise any difficulties in subsequent areas. Bob Roberts said it should not be overlooked that in the great majority of cases the methodology had been robust and the maps accurate. The Agency was analysing feedback from the first two mapping regions and would consider carefully any improvements to the consultation process before commencing this in subsequent regions. He confirmed that some changes to the draft maps in the first two regions were likely before publication of provisional maps.
9. The RA representative asked for an explanation of the reasons people had given in their responses as to why areas of land should be excluded from maps because they were so small as to serve no useful purpose. He also asked why people had commented that land was not open country, but has been shown as such on the draft map. Bob Roberts replied that on the issue of small areas of land, many people had not stated a reason. On the latter, no detailed statistical breakdown was available, but there were three broad reasons underlying people's responses:
- land had been mapped as open country in error;
- people did not understand the intricacies of the legislation, in particular that land which would be 'excepted' under Schedule One to the Act would nevertheless appear on the section 4 maps if it formed part of a parcel which was predominantly mountain, moor, heath or down; and
- people simply did not wish their land to be access land.
10. The RA representative said the comments form should ask respondents to state why they believed an area of land was too small to serve a useful purpose. Bob Roberts replied that the Agency should not appear authoritarian by asking people to respond in a certain way.
11. The RA representative asked for an assurance from the Agency that the mapping process would proceed on the published timetable. Bob Roberts said he saw no reason to prevent the Agency meeting the target to publish all maps by 2004, allowing commencement in England by 2005. The Agency was considering whether to amend to the detailed timetable for the next six months to enable full consideration of representations made on draft maps.
12. The RA representative asked whether at appeal stage the views of third parties could be taken into consideration, whether or not they had commented at draft map stage. Roger Smith said DEFRA's intention was to include provision for this in regulations. DEFRA was currently considering the 60 to 70 responses received on their consultation on the proposed regulations on provisional and conclusive maps and would make a final decision when these had been analysed.
13. The LGA representative asked that the Agency also take account of the experience gained by local authorities in their role in the consultation process. Bob Roberts said this would be done.
14. The NFU representative said that all parties had learned from the consultation process and urged the Agency to discuss widely the lessons learned. Bob Roberts confirmed that a meeting had already been set up with NFU and that further meetings to discuss the consultation were likely.
15. The MA representative was concerned that a situation might arise where a landowner would be unaware that land which had not been shown as access land on the draft map had been included on a provisional map. Bob Roberts was aware that this had been raised with DEFRA during the consultation on its regulatory proposals for provisional and conclusive maps. The Agency was considering what extra steps could be taken to get this information to landowners.
16. The MA representative asked that landowners be provided with a copy of the draft map for their area free of charge where this was requested, as many landowners would not have access to the internet to view maps. Bob Roberts said the Agency was unable to do this because of the potential cost. He drew attention to the maps lodged with Parish Councils and said the Agency would consider how these could be more effectively publicised.
17. The Chairman asked for an update on mapping in Wales and Scotland
Wales. Quentin Grimley said draft maps for the first areas - the Berwyn - had been produced. These were one month into the consultation process and no detailed feedback was available yet. Draft maps on the next four areas would be available in June. These included the Black Mountains, which would be the first border area to be mapped. He confirmed that CCW sends out free copies of draft maps to landowners but only on request. The cost of doing this was not yet clear. He added that it was the intention in Wales that the comments of third parties would be considered in the appeals process.The Chairman added that she had recently discussed cross-border mapping issues with the chairman of the National Access Forum for Wales, and CA and CCW would liaise closely as this progressed.Scotland. John Mackay explained that the access legislation in Scotland was structured differently. Mapping was not necessary because most land was affected. The Scottish Outdoor Access Code would specify the circumstances in which people would not be expected to exercise access rights. The Bill was currently before the Scottish Parliament.Local Access Forums (LAFs)
18. Terri Edwards reported that all (non-statutory) LAFs in England had commented on draft maps in their areas. LAFs for Hampshire, Isle of Wight, West Berkshire, Cumbria, Lake District, Yorkshire Dales and part of North Yorkshire were the next to be set up and would be ready when mapping started in those areas. She added that once regulations are made appointing authorities would have responsibility for establishing LAFs in their areas and the Agency would play a less active role.
19. The LGA representative said the LGA intended to work closely with all organisations involved in the establishment of LAFs, including the Agency, to ensure that links between LAFs and local authorities were clearly defined.
20. The NT representative asked whether a register of all statutory forums and their members would be produced. Bob Roberts explained that LAFs will be the responsibility of local authorities who would have the role of advertising and arranging meetings.
21. The ANPA representative said ANPA would be able to provide information on LAFs in national parks on their website. The LGA representative said similar information on LAFs - such as membership, agendas, papers etc - would be publicly available, as with other local authority committee processes. He suggested LGA and ANPA should discuss how to make collective details available.
ACTION. LGA and ANPA to discuss ways to publicise details of LAFs' membership and functions.
22. The BHS representative asked whether statutory consultees on Rights of
Way (RoW) matters would automatically be invited to participate on LAFs. Roger Smith said highway authorities and national park authorities would have responsibility to appoint members. This would not be prescribed but the legislation would require these 'appointing authorities' to achieve a balance between interest groups, both as users of access land and of RoW.
Restrictions
23. Paul Johnson drew attention to DEFRA's consultation paper on proposed regulations for restrictions and the Agency's complementary paper on its guidance on the restrictions system. He explained the relationship between the two papers, consultation on which would close on 22nd March. He drew particular attention to the Annexes to the Agency's paper. These contained the 'criteria tables' which, in their final form, would be included in the guidance the Agency will give relevant authorities on the operation of the restrictions system. He explained that research was in hand on safety issues and forecasting fire risk, and further work would be done on the criteria tables in light of this and the results of the consultation exercise. He encouraged NCAF members to submit detailed comments on the contents of the tables.
24. The BMC representative drew attention to the entry in Annex 2 of the Agency's consultation paper on "other commercial uses" (Table 2.E.), saying "If the degree of risk is still unacceptable, exclude the public from actual area of risk". He asked who would decide where risk was unacceptable. Paul Johnson said it would be for the relevant authority to decide. Research into safety issues which the Agency had in hand would provide detailed guidance.
25. The CLA representative recalled Ministers commenting during the passage of the Bill through Parliament that formal exclusion of access through the restrictions system would be available where necessary for land management reasons. He felt the Agency's emphasis on use of informal land management techniques would effectively rule this out, and would shift the land management problem and any associated cost onto the occupier to deal with.
26. Paul Johnson replied that many of the recommended informal management techniques would have no cost. He drew attention to para 3.4 of the Agency's paper which outlined examples of the sort of techniques which were likely to be useful. He acknowledged that some types of informal management had a cost. The Agency saw an important role for a scheme to help fund such management where it would be beneficial, and discussions with DEFRA on funding for this were in progress. Legal restrictions would be approved where necessary: if they were not necessary the relevant authority had no power to grant them. The criteria tables would give detailed guidance to relevant authorities on this. He again urged NCAF members to respond in detail to the content of these tables.
27. The MA representative supported the CLA representative's views. The MA was keen to make the new access arrangements work on the ground, but he was concerned at the lack of guidance on what type of informal management techniques would be appropriate in what circumstances. He stressed the value of placing information at access points and requiring people to use these. He cited a number of instances where informal management would not in his view suffice (e.g. predator control). He also referred to good practice developed in the Peak District on land under access agreements and asked why this was not reflected in the paper. Paul Johnson replied that the Agency had carried out detailed research to pull together best practice on informal management techniques, including those used in the Peak District. A publication summarising these would be available to land managers in due course along with guidance on the restrictions system.
28. The RA representative questioned the difficulties foreseen by the MA. He drew attention to the long history of de facto access in many areas and said that walkers already have a reasonable understanding of their responsibilities where land management operations are in hand. He did not foresee a practical problem with the approach to using informal management techniques suggested by the Agency's paper.
29. The Chairman suggested that further discussion with NCAF on informal management techniques could be considered when the Agency's research into good practice had been completed.
Information
30. Bob Roberts said that now work on mapping and restrictions was well under way the Agency was developing its thinking on the provision of information to land managers and users. Key aspects were:
Country code. The Agency has a duty in the Act to revise this. A wide group of people will be consulted on its content with the aim of ensuring that both visitors and land managers understand their rights and responsibilities. The Agency was working with CCW, FC and others on a series of signs and symbols, but would guard against any proliferation of unnecessary signage.Information for land managers. As reported earlier, advice would be issued to land managers on techniques known to be effective in managing access. Funds would hopefully be available under an incentive scheme for promoting positive forms of management. Public information. The Agency was considering the most effective publicity techniques, the role of information points, and the role of rangers and wardens.31. The BHS representative said experience suggested that people obey signs so long as the reason for the restriction is explained, and notices are promptly removed when the need for restriction has passed.
32. The RA representative said it was important that the Agency develop information systems other than the website which would enable people to find out where restrictions are in force. CEEFAX was one possibility.
33. The Chairman suggested a further discussion on provision of information at a future NCAF meeting.
ACTION. The Agency to present a paper on provision of information at a future NCAF meeting.
NCAF 13/2 PROPOSALS FOR REGULATIONS ON PERMANENT DEDICATION OF ACCESS LAND
34. Paul Johnson introduced the paper which gave NCAF members an opportunity to comment on regulatory proposals from DEFRA. He explained that regulations must be in place before any land can be dedicated.
35. The Chairman drew attention to paragraph 6 of this paper and paragraph 17 of the appended previous paper (NCAF 10/4) and asked for comments on these issues.
36. The RA representative asked whether land could be dedicated for access by vehicular users. Hugh Craddock explained that theoretically this was possible, though he felt it was unlikely in practice. Landowners could already allow vehicular access to their land. Paul Johnson suggested that driving a car might be outside the scope of "open-air recreation", on which the rights in the Act turned.
37. The BMC representative reported that the BMC intends to dedicate all three of its land holdings when provision for dedication is available. The Forum welcomed this positive initiative.
38. Referring to section 3.A of the consultation paper, the RSPB representative suggested that it should be a statutory requirement (rather than a matter of good practice, as stated in DEFRA's proposals) for a landowner intending to dedicate his land to notify the Countryside Agency/ Forestry Commission and English Nature in advance of commencing the process of dedication. English Nature might, for example, need to give consent under SSSI procedures for a proposed dedication.
39. The BHS representative felt that, where dedication for horse-riding was considered, riders would be content with dedication of linear tracks, particularly in woodland.
40. The RA representative queried why it was necessary for allow a 9 month period to elapse between a dedication being made and the commencement order coming into force. He suggested this be shortened to 6 months. Paul Johnson replied that the 9 month period was intended to allow time for people with a legal interest in the land to have an opportunity to apply for any restrictions before the rights took effect.
41. Chris Probert confirmed that FC had in principle made the decision to dedicate its freehold estate. The right of access would be on foot only. Funding of the dedication process was available in Wales but not as yet in England. Because of the scale of the task, FC would not be in a position to dedicate its woodland in England until sufficient funding was in place.
42. Judith Williams was unable to comment on whether the Defence Estates (DE) would use the dedication power. The Chairman asked her to report NCAF's interest in this to DE.
NCAF 13/3 RIGHTS OF WAY IMPROVEMENT PLANS
43. Wendy Thompson introduced the paper. She explained that DEFRA was currently consulting on proposed guidance on preparing Rights of Way Improvement Plans (RoWIPs), with a deadline of 28th March for responses. The Agency would work with DEFRA in drawing up the final guidance.
44. Wendy Thompson briefly summarised the contents of the paper. She explained that RoWIPs were intended to be broad based with the aim of improving the network for leisure, health, everyday journeys and tourism. They should be forward-looking, and also look beyond the present network for opportunities to improve access for horseriders and cyclists. She asked for comments on the issues raised in the paper.
Comments on paragraph 8
45. The BHS representative supported the overall approach taken in the paper but felt a weakness in the proposals was the lack of a duty on local authorities to implement RoWIPs. She said RoWIPs should be forward-looking and proactive. She suggested that the Discovering Lost Ways research should be more closely related to work on RoWIPs.
46. The NFU representative felt too much emphasis was placed on RoWIPs being forward-looking. RoWIPs should not take precedence over maintenance of the existing system.
47. The LGA representative said a balance would need to be struck between forward-looking RoWIPs and maintenance of the RoW network. He commented that RoW and access work often received low priority within local government, in part because the local electorate placed greater importance on other issues. To promote RoW work he felt it would be important to make wide-ranging and strategic connections between RoW and other mainstream aspects of local authorities' work - such as transport and health.
48. The RA representative contested the view that work on the RoW network was marginal and reported farmers in the Yorkshire Dales recognised the economic importance of the network. Referring to para 1 of the paper, he questioned the link between "transport" and RoWIPs, and suggested the Agency should look carefully at this.
49. The Chairman said that in her experience those who make financial decisions regard the needs of the RoW network as of marginal importance. She recognised the benefit of integrating the network with other aspects of local authority work.
50. The BHS representative supported the Chairman's comments and said that analysis of the effects of the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak on the local economy had highlighted the importance of the RoW network in this respect.
51. The LGA representative reported that RoW issues continue to be of low priority despite the evidence which emerged from the FMD outbreak. He advised the Agency to take a lateral approach towards promoting the importance of the RoW network and supported the approach taken in the Agency's paper (NCAF 13/3).
52. The CLA representative said improvements to the RoW network should include alterations to the current network to ensure this meets people's needs.
53. Tim Marshall said local authorities should have a duty to implement RoWIP in addition to their duty to draw them up but recognised the difficulty of amending the legislation on this point.
54. The RSPB representative said the nature of the work required in a given area would depend on local circumstances, and this should be reflected in strategic guidance.
Comments on paragraph 9
55. David Waterman clarified the last sentence of para 9, saying DEFRA did not intend to place limits on the scope of issues which local authorities could include in RoWIPs, but there were limits on what DEFRA could require them to do.
56. The BMC representative commented on the amount of effort often needed currently to persuade local authorities to take action to improve the RoW network. He suggested local authorities should be encouraged to disseminate advice to community councils on how local people could best contribute toward planning improvements to the network.
57. The NFU representative said the Plans would be most effective if farmers were encouraged to take ownership of the solutions needed. Land managers should have a higher profile in consultation over RoWIPs.
58. The LGA representative said Plans must be prepared on the basis of good information. The guidance should include advice on determining local priorities. An inclusive process should be developed.
Comments on paragraph 10
59. Tim Marshall suggested there was no simple answer to determining which interest groups should be included in consultation on RoWIPs as this would vary with local needs.
60. The BHS representative stressed that higher rights users should be included, and that their specific needs were not always fully understood.
General comments
61. The RA representative commented on references in several papers circulated for the meeting which referred to vehicular access. He was concerned that motoring organisations were looking for ways to increase access to the countryside for vehicular users.
62. The RSPB representative commented that where the need was established for a new RoW which fell within a site designated for its nature conservation importance, this might constitute a plan or project under the Habitats Directive for which an assessment would be required. He urged the Agency to talk to DEFRA and EN as to whether Article 6 of the Habitats Directive should be applied at a strategic level or at the point when specific proposals are taken forward - or both.
63. The ANPA representative said local authorities should look proactively at the RoW network for opportunities to manage access to the land better, either by creating new links or diverting existing RoW where this would improve the network. The CLA representative supported this approach. The RA representative did not support any such rationalisation of the RoW network.
64. The LGA representative commented on the benefits of the LGA and the Agency working together to draw up model RoWIPs. He welcomed the Agency's intention to influence local transport plan guidance which he felt was very worthwhile.
65. Wendy Thompson stressed that comments in the paper relating to "transport" referred to non-motorised transport. She said it was important to build RoW work into the local transport plan bidding process. She added that RoWIPs were designed to focus on improving the RoW network for public use rather than adjusting the network to address land management issues.
66. Wendy Thompson acknowledged that implementation of RoWIPs was non-statutory and said this presented both a danger and an opportunity. If there was a duty on local authorities to implement RoWIPs statutory funding would be provided but this would not be ring-fenced. Where no such duty existed statutory funding would not be provided which would leave local authorities free to apply for funding from other sources, such as the lottery and EU.
NCAF 13/4 WIDER WELCOME AND THE RURAL TRANSPORT PARTNERSHIP SCHEME
67. Terri Edwards presented this paper. She commented that for some years money had been available to support rural transport schemes, but since April 2001 dedicated funding was available with the specific aim to help people get out into the countryside. The Agency wanted to use this to combine visitor access with supporting rural communities. A series of criteria were in place which must be met before funding for projects could be released. These focused on integration of local transport, and improving access for people from rural and urban communities, and disabled and socially excluded groups. The Agency was working with voluntary, statutory and private sector bodies, and with rural transport officers to set up schemes across the country.
68. Commenting on paragraph 8, the NFU representative asked how the budget was allocated between the Agency's work areas. Bob Roberts replied that this decision was a matter of policy made internally within the Agency. He added that local authorities were also being encouraged to find ways to enable people to get out into the country.
69. The BHS representative asked whether the Rural Transport Partnership (RTP) applied to greenways and quiet roads. Terri Edwards replied that RTP was not intended to continue to support the Greenways Partnerships, but if a Greenways Partnership presented a new scheme which would extend an existing project the Agency would consider supporting this.
70. The RA representative suggested paragraph 5 be extended to improve opportunities for able-bodied people to access and enjoy the countryside having left their cars in towns. He supported the ideas of improving transport links to remote areas.
71. Tim Marshall said there was value in looking at opportunities to provide circular walks in popular areas which would reduce the need for car use.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
72. The BMC representative thanked Hugh Craddock for the helpful guidance notes on de facto and de jure access which he had provided following the previous NCAF meeting. He invited any comments from NCAF members on the contents of these.
QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
73. Two questions were tabled by members of the audience:
Richard Evans from Haslemere, Surrey asked what information related to access under the CROW Act Ordnance Survey would show of their commercial maps. Bob Roberts replied that no firm conclusion had been reached yet and discussions were ongoing.Vicky Allen from Loughborough, Leicestershire asked whether the Government had considered redirecting agricultural subsidies to land with public access, to make the presence of RoWs on the land a benefit. Bob Roberts said that the relationship of land management subsidies to accessibility warranted careful consideration by DEFRA.ARRANGEMENTS FOR NEXT MEETING AND DATES FOR 2002
74. The Chairman confirmed that the next meetings would be held on:
Wednesday 10th/Thursday 11th July - in Hereford. It was intended to hold a site visit, seminar and dinner on 10th July with members of the National Access Forum for Wales, followed by an NCAF meeting on 11th July.Tuesday 19th November - a 'normal' NCAF meeting, venue to be confirmed.