Natural England

Minutes

FINAL DRAFT

MINUTES OF THE 17TH MEETING OF THE NATIONAL COUNTRYSIDE ACCESS FORUM (NCAF) HELD ON TUESDAY 14TH OCTOBER 2003, AT THE QUADRANGLE CONFERENCE CENTRE, OXFORD

Present:

Pam Warhurst (Chair), Countryside Agency (CA)
Bob Cartwright, Association of National Park Authorities (ANPA)
Caroline Bedell, Country Land and Business Association (CLA)
Stephanie Wheeler, British Horse Society (BHS)
Iain McMorrin, British Mountaineering Council (BMC)
Jerry Pearlman, Ramblers’ Association (RA)
Jo Burgon, National Trust (NT)
Gwyn Williams, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)
Andrew Clark, National Farmers Union (NFU)
Richard Brown, Local Government Association (LGA)
Barry Leathwood, Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU)
Ian Mercer

Observers

William Crookshank , Environment Agency (EA)
Iestyn Thomas, Countryside Council for Wales (CCW)
Graham Bathe (EN)

Guests

Keith Wheal, Oxfordshire County Council
Christopher Gowers, Oxfordshire LAF
Robin Helby, Disabled Ramblers
Countryside Agency Staff:
Tracey Slaven
Jeremy Worth
Peter Ashcroft
Wendy Thompson
David Gear (Secretary)
Julia Bailey
Jane Yates
Emma Message
Adele Palmer

(approx. 35 members of the public attended the meeting)

1. CHAIR’S INTRODUCTION

PW welcomed everyone to the meeting, including Caroline Beddel (CLA), and Tracey Slaven, CA’s new Director B (Improving the quality of the countryside).

2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE  were received from members Tim Bennett NFU, Mark Hudson CLA, Pam Ashton CTC, Andrew Sutcliffe MA, and observers Chris Probert FC, Gareth Roberts CCW, Steve Trow EH, John Mackay SNH, Susan Carter DEFRA, Roger Smith DEFRA, and Dave Waterman DEFRA.

3. MINUTES OF THE 16TH MEETING (8TH MAY 2003) 

These were  agreed to be  a correct record.

4. MATTERS ARISING FROM 16TH MEETING

11&12 The Planning Inspectorate’s Guidance had been issued, and CA would ensure it was circulated. Action JW

15 In response to a query from IMc about progress towards an annual or bi-annual conference, PW said that owing to work pressures following the CROW Act, CA was unable to take forward proposals.

35 BC had forwarded to PW correspondence relating to boundaries on OS maps.

39 In response to a query from JP, WT advised that CA had included in its business plan, the seeking of counsel’s advice about legal issues arising from DLW Project.

72-148 (NCAF 16/3) In response to a request from AC about an Access Land incentive scheme, PW agreed that CA would circulate to NCAF members, the proposal put forward to Ministers, by CA, following its Board’s recent consideration of the issue. (Action PM) JW added that members could also find it on CA’s web site.

105 In response to queries from JP and JB about the closing date for CA’s signage consultation, it was agreed to extend by a week, the deadline for comments, and re-circulate the paper. Action JW 

208 IMc confirmed that the paper about traditional freedoms of access by Prof. Kevin Gray was in the public domain, and hence its circulation was not unauthorised.

209 PW reminded the meeting about the presentation given by OS (Wrexham, July), and said that discussions were ongoing. In response to the issue (mentioned by CB) of mapping of ‘Excepted Land’, she said that CA would keep a watching brief.

5. UPDATE ON WORK PROGRAMME OF CA’s WIDER WELCOME BRANCH

TS gave an update on the agenda of Wider Welcome Branch, and where CA saw it moving over the next couple of years. Essentially its present focus had been heavily driven by the CROW Act.

(a)  The mapping of open country was on schedule, and CA had just completed the eighth draft map, so that draft maps were in place for the whole of England. CA was in the midst of the project, and there was a lot of work still to do, but it was a major step for CA to have reached that point. CA needed to complete the mapping and, most importantly, get the open country into use, which meant focusing on access management as well. CA was in discussion with Defra about how to take that forward, which was seen as a key part of the agenda, as without active access management, that countryside wouldn’t be available to enjoy. 

(b)  Discovering Lost Ways (DLW) is a major, long-term project, and CA was about to tender for the Archive Research Unit (ARU), the first step in getting the lost ways onto the maps. 

(c)  There were a number of demonstration projects for recreational public transport which were underway and performing well.

(d)  The Diversity Review project was a major Rural White Paper commitment aimed at broadening access for all to the countryside. The business case was with Defra, and CA expected to start work very soon. The Diversity Review had to be completed by the end of 2005.

(e)  As for national trails, the Pennine Bridleway was under construction. 

(f)  NOF funding for the Walking the Way to Health Initiative (WHI) would end in 2005, and CA was beginning to plan how to ensure it was mainstreamed. Health and countryside was a subject brought up by the Prime Minister at the weekend, under the theme of the nation as a whole benefiting from countryside recreation.

6. NCAF 17/1 YOUR COUNTRYSIDE – YOUR HEALTH

PA introduced the paper by saying that CA would like NCAF’s feedback on its contents so that it could be strengthened and made more effective. 

(a)  He referred to CA’s leaflet Your Countryside, Your Health, copies of which had been circulated to all meeting attendees. This set out answers to the question of how the countryside can improve people’s health.

(b)  PA also referred to 12th October’s Observer,  the front page of which said "No 10 orders flabby Britain to get fit", and the Sunday Express, the front page of which talked of doctors sending flabby people to gyms to get fit. The serious message was that governments were worried that they would incur bigger health bills in the future, because of current life-styles.

(c)  NCAF 17/1 demonstrated how we can improve people’s health, particularly those with poor health at the moment, by encouraging them to use the countryside. The programme was intended firstly to work with communities, particularly in areas of poor health, and find out what they need in order to use and enjoy the countryside, and to give them the services, facilities, and motivation that they need; and secondly to improve some of the fabric of the countryside near where they live, so that their visits to the countryside can be more enjoyable and repeatable.

(d)  PW then opened the paper for discussion. In response to a query from SW about the leaflet’s status, PA confirmed that it was not a draft, but a final printed version, which set out facts about how the countryside contributes to better health, sharing what evidence exists, with everybody. SW said the leaflet was all about walking, and asked about all the other things people did in the countryside, such as cycling. PA said that although the leaflet was about peoples’ entire engagement with the countryside, there was an emphasis on walking because it was the most popular and accessible activity for people who do little exercise. However, it wasn’t simply a result of the WHI. The leaflet was produced to explain all the different ways in which the countryside can contribute to better health. PW said that CA would take on board SW’s point.

(e)  JP said that the ramblers were very conscious of this and commended the new RA guide on health and walking, especially for its lyrical quality. He said that NCAF 17/1 seemed to omit some things, such as the proposed ‘walking strategy’. Also, as the basis of the subject is enabling people to get from towns into the countryside, the question of public transport must first be solved, eg in the Yorkshire Dales, some transport facilities were being lost. For those people who feared going into the countryside, things could be made easier, such as waymarking, and better information on signposts, eg the time walks might take.

(f)  RB felt there was a lot in NCAF 17/1, and much which could be built on from existing work and projects, although he was slightly concerned about the notion of the ‘fat police’ in the form of specially appointed facilitators, as it was important to build on the capacity of existing organisations and networks. It was also important that this was enjoyable and indispensable; people have got to be motivated, not socially engineered, an impression given by NCAF 17/1. RB added that the work needed to link with ROWIPs, and ensure that any new investment 

ensures there was ongoing maintenance of both existing and new facilities. There shouldn’t be a spending spree, with new infrastructure falling into disrepair in later years.

(g)  IMc emphasised the cross-over between the three papers, NCAF 17/1, NCAF 17/5, and NCAF 17/6, and that education and training activities on countryside Access Land was of vital importance to all three. The organisations which took people out into the countryside were responsible for introducing about half a million young people to the countryside every year, which was omitted from both NCAF 17/1 and NCAF 17/6.

(h)  GW felt that if the quality of the countryside was seen as a motivator for people to take up and sustain exercise, then NCAF 17/1 contained little about improving the fabric of the countryside per se  as opposed to improving access opportunities in those areas. So it was important to examine the quality of the countryside in the pilot 200 community areas, and if it was inadequate or ‘under par’, consider targeting it with agri-environment measures and habitat creation initiatives to genuinely improve its fabric. This would make some of the links between people and biodiversity, and re-justify some of the investment.

(i)  BL added his support to NCAF 17/1 and what had been said about it, but was slightly concerned that it seemed to be aimed at people who’d had health warnings. If the health problems of the country were to be tackled, it was important to reach people of a much younger age, the messages for whom needed to be ‘cool’ and enjoyable, and emphasise the attractiveness of the countryside.

(j)  JB echoed the need to look at the range of people in society, consider their different needs, and adopt more of an audience perspective. He mentioned the HLF example of audience approach, where the social perspective was addressed. The images used in any literature needed to reflect the range of opportunities. FC, for example, were doing some interesting work in terms of woods and health, and there were also organisations such as Go Ape which involved aerial walkways and challenge courses. So other than walking, there were a range of challenging activities which would suit particular parts of the community. Hants CC had commissioned some work about why the countryside was seen to be boring by young people, and it was found important that the countryside should be made accessible for different uses. 

(k)  BC was struck how the OS revealed at the July (Wrexham) meeting that it was re- branding its maps to have a more action-orientated image, aimed at a much younger audience. So, instead of photos of ‘chocolate box’ landscapes on map fronts, there were mountain-bikers, rock climbers, etc.

(l)  CB pointed out that this was aimed at urban people coming into the countryside, and that it was important also to connect with rural people. Although it was ‘urban-focussed’, rural people at very similar health issues.

(m)  PW asked PA how he saw NCAF 17/1 sitting in the broader agenda. PA said the single most important thing was how to convince and motivate people to become more active. It was well enough to have a countryside with good infrastructure and waymarking, but to engage with people who don’t use the countryside, ‘triggers’ to motivate them as individuals needed to be found, and there were different triggers for different sorts of people. More attention needed to be given to understanding potential countryside visitors, looking at all age groups and ethic minorities. Although the infrastructure was largely in place, people often weren’t using it because the motivation was missing. Useful lessons were being learnt from initiatives such as 'Walking the way to Health' and there was potential to work more closely with the Dept of Health and Sport England which also had an interest in getting more people healthy and active.

(n)  PA rounded up the discussion by explaining that NCAF 17/1 related to one of five ideas which CA was putting to DEFRA, and it was hoped to make it the subject of a new public service agreement. CA also intended to liaise with the Minister of Health about his Dept’s interests. PW noted that CA, DEFRA, and Dept of Health were looking at joint targets.

7. NCAF 17/2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NCAF AND LAFs 

(a)  JW introduced the paper by saying that it was clear from comments at the 16th NCAF meeting that Members wanted some practical links between NCAF and LAFs, NCAF 17/2 contained some CA suggestions for how each could assist the other. There were a couple of models, the electronic version allowing people to exchange ideas via a web-site, and the ‘face to face’ meeting version, involving occasional meetings, and perhaps training. Either model would facilitate the exchange of information between NCAF and LAFs. If NCAF Members felt either model was worthwhile, CA would be willing to contribute some money and advice to make that happen, ie to act as facilitators.

(b)  BC felt it was a useful addition to the debate, and wondered whether there had been any discussion with LAFs to check if they wanted electronic cascading. Some would, but others were just finding their feet, and would want to tread carefully, building up relationships within their localities, and with their access authorities. In addition to LHAs, NCAF 17/2 needed to refer to the role of national park authorities, and their responsibilities for LAFs. BC emphasised, however, the importance of not adding an extra layer of bureaucracy.

(c)  In response to SW’s query about information exchange between NCAF and LAFs, JW said that CA’s regional offices had a number of contacts with LAFs, and increasingly they were exchanging information; though there were still links to establish. SW agreed with BC that another layer of bureaucracy was undesirable; her LAF, for example, already swapped information with neighbouring counties. It would be useful if, for electronic information, a universal format was adopted.

(e)  JP felt NCAF 17/2 didn’t reflect the full scope of previous discussions of the subject. He wondered whether NCAF Members ought to be made aware of LAF meetings in their areas, so that they could attend and get a flavour of what was going on. Additionally, JP said that LAFs got very little paperwork emanating from CA or NCAF. He realised, however, that CA placed a great emphasis on electronic communications, but this didn’t reach everyone. JP was sure that LAFs would like some training so that they could achieve a common understanding of the problems.

(f)  RB underlined the fact that LAFs were independent of CA and their appointing authorities, and this was understood and welcomed by LAF members. However, it was important to emphasise the ‘unformed’ nature of LAFs, which weren’t populated by committed and experienced committee goers, but were quite deliberately representative of a new kind of spread of interests, which were just as likely to challenge CA, their appointing authorities, land managers, and users. Although CA’s offer to play a role in ‘building capacity’ was positive, it was best to do things from the ground up rather than trying to fabricate another bit of bureaucracy. 

(g)  RB suggested that a combination of CA offering some support, together with a local access authority or national park authority taking a lead at a regional level, a start could be made on pulling together a loose federation of LAFs at the regional level to start sharing information and best practice. The resultant ‘fresh’ kind of bureaucracy might then wish to have a voice on NCAF. It was incumbent upon NCAF members to go along and see how some LAFs were operating. 

(h)  JB emphasised caution, so that there wasn’t a ‘top down’ approach. Although things will grow over time, it needed to be managed so that people are able to help themselves. In perhaps five years time there will be many very active LAFs.

(i)  JW said he derived from the discussion the feeling that CA regional offices, who were in informal contact with LAFs, should make it clear that if a local grouping wants assistance, CA would help. This would need to be done in consultation with RB and his LGA colleagues, as well as NPAs.

(j)  IT said that as an open access project officer, he sat as an observer on three of the four LAFs in his area (Wrexham, Flintshire, Denbighshire, and Conwy). Communication between the NCAF for Wales and LAFs worked well, with items of national interest being ‘passed up’, and items of local interest’ being passed down. In 2003 there was a national conference for LAFs at Bulith Wells, and also Wales NCAF sent out a questionnaire asking if they would like any training and if so, what sort.

8. NCAF 17/3 REPORT BY OXFORDSHIRE LAF AND COUNTY COUNCIL ON LOCAL RECREATION AND ACCESS ACTIVITIES

PW welcomed to the meeting Keith Wheal, Oxfordshire Countryside Services Manager, and Christopher Gowers, Chair of Oxfordshire LAF.

(a)  CG thanked NCAF for inviting him and Keith Wheal. Their LAF, called the Oxfordshire Countryside Access Forum had been formally constituted in March. He felt it was essential that some form of communication was established between NCAF and LAFs, especially to gain common understandings of problems and what was best practice for countryside access in other parts of the country. Oxfordshire LAF liaised with the neighbouring LAF in Bucks, and had also paid particular attention to involving members of the public, but there was still much work to establish a county network.

(b)  There had been very good presentations from the Oxfordshire Countryside Service, and from CA on the Access Land mapping process. Although CA hadn’t accepted their advice that the draft maps should be given wider publicity, including ‘road shows’, fortunately the county library service was able to step in and ensure that the public saw the maps. 

(c)  As for Oxfordshire LAFs’ other statutory role, the county countryside service had consulted them about the action plan for preparing the local ROWIP. One issue which had emerged from this was the need to consult town and parish councils, and CG said he was alert to how effective they could be at a local level. Oxford wasn’t just an urban area. Its city boundaries encompassed much rural land, such as Wolvercote Common, and there was a lot of expertise there which could be tapped into when considering the issue of access management.

(d)  Looking to the future, Oxfordshire Countryside Access Forum needed to continue informing and educating itself, establishing its own network to ensure that its work is known about throughout the county, working out how to exercise its powers of advice, and developing an action plan for the next few years. 

(e)  KW drew the meeting’s attention to the county map (NCAF 17/3 annex), emphasising the variety of countryside within Oxfordshire, which included parts of the Cotswolds, Chilterns, and North Wessex Downs AONBs, and in the north the ‘ironstone’ country, each of a very different character. As a result, Oxfordshire’s countryside received a lot of visitors.

(f)  As for liaison with land owners and user groups, there was a long history in Oxfordshire of bodies which anticipated the advent of LAFs, and the ROW Monitoring Group had met since the late 1980s. Over the years such for a had proved of great value, giving the opportunity to liaise with a lot of groups, and say what the county council was doing, as well as getting their views on what should be done. In the early days the group was instrumental in putting pressure on the county council to acknowledge its countryside access responsibilities. So OCC was keen to keep such groups going, as well as working with the new LAF.

(g)  As for the ROWIP process, OCC was at the stage of preparing an action plan, looking at how to take forward this new role. Some initial scoping work had been done; questionnaires had gone to OCC’s 1,000 strong Citizens Panel, and the results had provided valuable feedback. Additionally, there had been experiments with focus groups, which had reached people who hadn’t traditionally been involved in providing advice on countryside access, thus reaching out to find what they felt OCC should be doing to improve PROW and countryside access. 

(h)  KW said that a lot of the work being done, and planned, by OCC wouldn’t have occurred without the impetus provided by the CROW Act, and this had been valuable. However, there was some disappointment at the slow feedback from the CA’s ROWIP pilot projects happening across the country, as the time period was limited, and LHAs were aware that the Government wanted them to link with LTPs (local transport plans).

(i)  OCC was looking forward to the challenges and responsibilities which Access Land mapping would bring, and comments had already been made on the draft maps. Sufficient resources were going to be a key factor in the management of Access Land, and OCC noted the possibility that there might be grant-aid available from CA.

(j)  A particular local issue was the management of the Ridgeway National Trail, although at times it seemed more like a national issue. During the summer of 2003, emergency repairs had been undertaken over 19km of Oxfordshire’s stretch, using a low-key technique, which didn’t introduce any new material; it simply removed the deep ruts from a sufficient width of the trail, to make it safe for walkers, horse riders and cyclists. OCC was also working with colleagues in neighbouring counties and CA in the National Trail Management Group, towards a co-ordinated plan to deal with the Ridgeway’s problems.

(k)  OCC was also committed to using TROs in the future for sections of the Ridgeway, where there was strong evidence that they would be effective and appropriate, and control use where that was unacceptable to society. At that point it became a national issue, because in dealing with the Ridgeway’s surface problems, the ROW Countryside Service had become embroiled in the wider national debate about the place of vehicles in the countryside. It became very difficult at times to separate the two issues.

(l)  As for TROs, the National Trail Management Group was now recommending the idea of a flexible TRO, the flexibility being applied on the ground, eg before or at times of bad weather, so that it was quite clear to motorised vehicle users if they use the trail they are going to damage it. If a way can be found of introducing such a flexibility to the process it might be the long-term answer. The idea had support in principle from both those campaigning for vehicles to be removed from the Ridgeway and also from those supporting the use of off-road vehicles.

(m)  Looking forward, OCC was becoming increasingly aware of the importance of disabled access to the countryside, and it was about to embark on a total reassessment of its promoted routes, including their implications for disabled people. Linked to this was the 2008 Capital of Culture. Although Oxford/Oxfordshire were unsuccessful candidates, OCC was preparing to run a whole series of festivals in 2007, hopefully including a walking festival. This would be a grass roots community led activity to get local people celebrating their countryside and sharing it with other citizens of Oxfordshire and visitors. 

(n)  Commenting on the ROWIP pilot studies, WT said she shared OCC’s disappointment that CA hadn’t got the lessons out sooner, in line with its specification. The idea had been to trickle the stuff out in stages, but the advice needed some refining. The PROWGPG website had not been highly promoted, as there had been a delay getting the site co-ordinator in post. 

(o)  In response to BC’s expression of interest in the relationship developing between OCC and Oxfordshire LAF, and the possibly emerging role for the LAF to act in a consensus building type of broker, CG said that although it had not specifically addressed that issue, it was quite possible such a role might emerge, but that it was too early to predict what the LAF might do. PW said she recognised it was ‘early days’ but was interested in the extent to which the LAF could move beyond the physical (ie just dealing with rights of way), into the broader role of benefiting the people of Oxfordshire, eg in terms of health and recreation. CG said that he very much hoped that the LAF would act as a catalyst for looking at a range of issues, such as those mentioned at the NCAF meeting.

(p)  KW said it would be true to say that currently the LAF was very focused. It had only been in existence since March, and had a very specific job to do. OCC officers were concentrating on providing the advice and training to enable the LAF to undertake its tasks, the first of which was to comment on the Access Land maps. He added that if NCAF could find a mechanism, such as key papers trickling down to LAFs, it would spark ideas and a realisation that there were broader issues for them to consider. CG added that the LAF should be finding out what users and landowners want and then perhaps representing their views on a wider stage.

(q)  AC wondered whether, as the LAF matured, it would perhaps be able to call to account other parts of the local authority (eg district councils), over what they were doing for countryside access, and if it would start looking at some of OCC’s priorities for spending on highways and access. CG acknowledged the need for the LAF to develop within the County network and ensure that every part of OCC knew about it, as well as the district and parish councils.

(r)  KW said that although there wouldn’t be huge swathes of Access Land in Oxfordshire, a key issue to be faced was making people aware of what this meant. OCC did not yet have a clear idea as to how to tackle that; it would need some patience in with working with the land owners, providing people on the ground who could give them ‘sharp end’ advice, integrating Access Land issues with PROW problems. CG agreed with IMc’s suggestion that when educating children, Oxfordshire’s three Out Centres, and several In centres could be valuably used to press the recreation and access messages, noting that one of the county’s FE colleges ran countryside courses.

9. NCAF 17/4 IMPROVING DISABLED ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE

(a)  JY drew the meeting’s attention to CA’s new step by step approach on how to improve access opportunities for all walkers including the mobility and visually impaired, which it was hoped would be adopted nationally. The guidance drew together recommendations from six pilot projects which had tested early draft guidance, a consultation exercise with national disability and land management organisations, and it built on CA’s earlier work, published in Sense and Accessibility and Paths without Prejudice. 

(b)  The Guidance aimed to provide managers with a pragmatic approach to achieve more access in more places for more people and more quickly, and was envisaged as complementary to existing BT standards. JY sought NCAF’s specific advice on the three questions listed at the end of NCAF 17/4. To illustrate the value of CA’s Guidance from a user’s perspective, she introduced Robin Helby, Vice-Chairman of the Disabled Ramblers.

(c)  RH said he always felt ‘disabled ramblers’ were seen to be something of a contradiction in terms. They started ‘disabled rambling’ in 1990 when it was a passive activity, and their chairman Mike Bruton was transported over the Ridgeway by teams of pullers. However, since the days when the disabled person sat whilst being pulled or pushed, and was very much dependent on members, much had changed. Members had realised that electric batteries enabled them to go much further, gave them control of where they went, and freedom from the need to stick to tarmac. This allowed countryside rambling in places such as the New Forest. 

(d)  Such rambles were originally crazy lengths of 20 miles, but eventually settled down to about eight or ten miles, which was found to be about as much as the average bodied walker could manage. Additionally, rambles started to be separated into the easy and not so easy. The manual wheelchair users struggled in the early days, but worked out that three wheels were far better than four over rough ground, leading to the Rough Rider Detachment. 

(e)  In 1998 four members did an historic 64 mile trip along the Thames Trail from Oxford to Maidenhead, despite being told repeatedly that this was absolutely impossible, that they would never get over the terrain, and that they were crazy. Members proved it could be done, but only because they took a portable bridge to get over the gates on the styles. However, this was influential, and the next year four members got together with an engineering company and helped to finance the development of the new scooter. This set new standards for comfort, agility, control, and ease of use.

(f)  The Tramper was in production, and was being bought by an increasing number of members and countryside centres in order to give access to visitors. As a result of this the Disabled Ramblers had to re-classify rambles into easy, moderate and challenging. Easy rambles were in places like Richmond Park and Windsor Great Park, with fairly level cycle-ways with a mixture of hard and soft surfaces. Moderate rambles were mainly on softer surfaces which included hills, but were still possible for power chairs and manual chairs with a bit of help. Challenging rambles had mud, ruts, and steep hills, and included places such as Exmoor.

(g)  Every year the programme had increased, with 25 days of rambling across the UK from Cornwall to the Scottish borders in 2003. The difficulty in planning rambles wasn’t in the terrain but in finding an accessible route. All to often money had gone into creating a short stretch of level path and a viewing platform, which was very patronising. It was typical of the protective approach implying that the disabled couldn’t be trusted to know what it was safe for them to do. It was also very restrictive as it suggested, wrongly, that almost everywhere else was inaccessible. 

(h)  The most annoying thing was the idea that access to the countryside should be designed around the manual wheelchair, which was brilliant in urban areas, but no more suitable off tarmac than a Ferrari sports car. Countryside walkers were expected to wear suitable shoes, but although the disabled used ‘suitable wheels’, there had been misguided pressure from some ‘politically correct’ people for urban standards of access to be adopted for the countryside, often ignoring the environmental impact. 

(i)  Fortunately, however, attitudes were changing, and it was slowly being accepted that with suitable equipment disabled ramblers could cope with more varied terrain and that the new generation of machines increasingly puts them on equal terms with the average walker. For example, RH said that he and a friend had completed all 100 miles of the South Downs Way using Tramper scooters. It took eight days; they had all their luggage, and there were no carers or supporters. The hardest parts had not been the stony surfaces or the steep hills, but the gates, many of which were badly in need of maintenance. If there was one lesson from their experience it was that the real barriers to the countryside were man-made. Money spent on removing styles and steps and widening gates and foot bridges brought the greatest benefit to the most people many of whom would not regard themselves as disabled. 

(j)  BC emphasised the important lessons emerging from the Integrated Access Demonstration projects, which if they were similar to the Lake District one, incorporated the objective of barrier free access. However, it was regrettable that existing BT standards meant it was impossible for the National Park to fulfil the Millennium Miles Project objective of having something like 2,000 extra miles of accessible route. Only about 200 were actually created, as it wasn’t possible to meet the criteria for gradients and surfacing materials without taking away some of the special characteristics of the area. However the NPA was trying very hard through the Integrated Access Demonstration project to come up with local criteria that everyone was happy with.

(k)  JY explained that for the wider countryside, BT standard 3 (renamed by CA Management Zone A in the draft guidance) was really the highest standard that site managers could be expected to aim for, and that would perhaps be at fee paying visitor centres with good access, for example. CA’s Guidance listed criteria to help land managers form their view of how they should manage a particular part of the network. Much of the countryside could aspire to being managed under Zone B criteria, eg Forestry Commission paths and cycle routes. Even small scale improvements could still make a lot more of the countryside accessible by managing it to the lowest level, ie Zone C. Alongside this planned approach sat the important principle of adopting the least restrictive access feasible to the individual circumstances.

(l)  AC reiterated CB’s view, that CA’s Guidance should take into account farmers’ concerns about PROW infrastructure, as LHAs were leaping ahead with their requirements for disabled access, without communicating to farmers the reasoning, eg as soon as a gate goes in the farmer gets worried about his livestock going onto the road. It was a breakdown of communication. JY said CA very much valued NFUs advice on disseminating its Guidance for the coming winter months when it is published, and that there were plans for regional information sessions. AC suggested that when zoning areas, it would be good to involve farmers and landowners, in terms of where the zones were. JY said that hopefully CA could allay fears, as the Guidance had a whole section on consultation with landowners, which had been put out in a consultation version to the NFU. 

(m)  RB said although CA had worked hard at consulting, ahead of putting out the 'tool kit' and final Guidance there probably needed to be even more effort to involve LHAs and national park authorities, in trying to get the message over once again, and persuade LHAs to join with CA in making it very clear to land managers why such things were needed.

10. NCAF 17/5 CROW ACT SCHEDULE 2, 1(t): COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES

(a)  IMc sketched out his concerns, which were on behalf of not just the British Mountaineering Council’s programme of activities and training, but also the activities of the Mountain Leader Training Boards, the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, and the 80 or so local education authority outdoor education centres spread across England and Wales. During the passage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, the Minister (Michael Meacher) had said that it was not the intention that the new right of access should in any way reduce the opportunities available to experience open countryside particularly for young people. 

(b)  However, although it was true that the new right would not extend to commercial activities undertaken for educational and training purposes, this would not cover activities organised by publicly run bodies such as local education authorities and organisations which are not run for profit. Whilst IMc acknowledged that the question of ‘profit’ was an issue which presumably could be decided only by a court of law, he couldn’t believe that any of his colleagues involved in the education and training industry, were doing it for ‘profit’. What was required from DEFRA was clarification. JP said that he regularly asked DEFRA to give some ruling on the law and it always started off by saying that it was only for the courts. Unless you could refer to the discussions in Parliament to get the interpretation, you were lumbered with the definition, and the unfortunate answer would have to be primary legislation.

(c)  In response to PW’s request for guidance, JW said he thought that DEFRA could be encouraged to publish what would amount to common sense guidance, which would probably help deal with the vast majority of cases envisaged. It would pick up LHAs and other non-profit organisations, and it would narrow the area full of confusion. What was needed was to encourage DEFRA to do something, rather than put in the ‘too difficult’ box. PW agreed to write to DEFRA.

11. NCAF 17/6 A FRAMEWORK FOR COUNTRYSIDE RECREATION

(a)  TS said that recently CA’s focus on recreation had been heavily driven by the CROW Act agenda and the public service target of getting open access by the end of 2005. The key objective of the framework proposed in 17/6 was to achieve recreation opportunities which more people could enjoy and appreciate, whilst ensuring that the benefits to the health of individuals through active lifestyles, and the benefits to the economy, was pushed forward.

(b)  JB said that although he welcomed it as a framework for looking forward, there was a danger of falling back to some old thinking, and some missed opportunities which didn’t quite echo some of the meeting’s earlier conversations. The future was about active lifestyles and how the countryside could provide space for a whole variety of activities, how space is provided close to perhaps where people live, how that space is secured for public benefit, and how certain spaces could be provided for a great range of activity. What he wanted to see was a framework which acknowledged diversity, and not necessarily ‘enjoying the ‘countryside’, but how the countryside is used by people on their own terms, rather than necessarily having it forced upon them. This would mean refining the way in which recreation was defined, to focus on the active side more than the passive. 

(c)  Other issues which should be addressed were the economic benefits that recreation could bring. There was no reference to the lessons emerging from the FMD crisis, or what social benefits recreation brought both to communities and individuals enjoying recreation, or the environmental benefits accruing from people participating and spending in the countryside and how that money was reinvested in environmental quality. 

(d)  RB welcomed the paper, but felt there was a little bit of ‘command and control’, not oriented to individual choice and lifestyles, which was more the direction to go in, eg there was a little bit of a picture painted of people needing to have things done to them because they are sitting around watching TV, playing console games and they are just not getting out and doing what they should be doing. This was a very dangerous message to start selling, though he appreciated it was not meant quite that way. There should be more thought about the outcomes for people in terms of their expectations, their aspirations and at different points in their lives. It was important to ‘get off the slightly dated horse’; of wanting to arrange things for people, think much more about preventative stuff as well, and also to stop using language like countryside recreation, as it is about making use of space in different parts of the country to suit a whole variety of agendas, issues, and needs. 

(e)  JP said that research commissioned by RA found that countryside recreation contributed 6 billion pounds to the economy, and generated the equivalent of 250 full time jobs. However, the benefit of the countryside is its naturalness and simply that it is there. The idea that there should be contrived ways of getting people out there will not give them the satisfaction that the countryside could do.

(f)  SW agreed with the contention that the PROW network continued to be the best way of providing routes for recreation, and felt it was a good idea to provide places for motor sports to remove pressure from the network. As for ROWIPs, it was important to emphasise that lost ways should be discovered first. Then the improvements would be comparatively small and perfectly obvious. One more interesting point was that children, under the national curriculum ought to be taught to read a map. 

(g)  BC said he felt it was the right time to have such a debate, as FMD had shaken up so many people and created so many lessons, that it was fresh in people’s minds. More importantly, there were plenty of examples of how people had reacted very constructively to the opportunities that had been created. However, the paper omitted a reference to CA’s own Integrated Access Demonstration projects, from which some excellent work was emerging. 

(h)  IMc reiterated SW’s point about navigation and reading maps. However, in commending the paper he saw very little reference to the approx. 500,000 young people taken out every year by the 80 or 90 local authority outdoor education centres, or the million or so dealt with by the Duke of Edinburgh’s award organisation. Neither was there a mention of the statutory educational side or the voluntary educational side, which also needed to be incorporated into the framework some way. 

(i)  CB cautioned against the danger of the countryside being seen as a saviour of the nation’s health, as exercising in the countryside could only fulfil a very small part of someone’s working week.

(j)  AC said he wasn’t completely convinced of the need for a ‘countryside recreation’ strategy, or that CA was yet in a place to come forward with such a strategy. Whilst CA was right that it needed to address the issue, he wasn’t sure of the ‘added value’ of the CA doing it, especially a great ‘initiative’ which would take up a lot of intellectual effort and considerable amount of officer time. It was absolutely critical for CA not to set off on a completely new path, with a completely new set of initiatives and pilot projects, and forget about the very good initiatives which had already been done. 

(k)  GW said he was unclear where the more formal, ‘active’ end of recreation began, that is things that might be covered by Sport England and CCPR in terms of organised sports events, and where the informal, ‘passive’ end of recreation began. He added that the paper tended to see wildlife as a constraint rather than a mixture or constraint and attraction. Many RSPB members were bird watchers, and hence saw wildlife as a stimulus to go out and enjoy the countryside. As for open space, it was undervalued and often taken for granted, and England’s wild places, particularly in south-east England, were under more and more pressure for housing, which came up hard against places like heathlands

(l)  JP said it was good to have a department willing to have a policy on countryside recreation, because the last formal government policies about countryside recreation was a 1966 white paper. To have a government department willing to push the agenda beyond just the new CROW Act was very welcome. JB added that countryside recreation involved accessible places and the removal of psychological, physical or intellectual barriers. It was about diversity, and how CA could draw on the lessons that it is learning from its various programmes. 

(m)  IMc felt it was critical that any policy framework, or any development of Defra’s countryside policy, referred to the whole population. Only when they understood it, would it be possible to say that the countryside was free to everybody because they all knew how to behave, and how the countryside worked, which was a slightly ‘moving target’ at the moment. There had been a miserable failure to get an understanding of rural matters or the environment into the education system properly.

(n)  PW concluded the discussion by saying that it would undoubtedly inform the paper that went to CA’s Board, as some very important views had emerged. 

12. DISCOVERING LOST WAYS PROJECT (ORAL UPDATE)

(a)  JW reported that CA had been working on three strands:

(i)  A contract had been let for experts to produce research standards for anybody discovering lost ways, and the results should be available early in the new year. It would be something useful for existing volunteers, and also a key building block of the Archive Research Unit. There had been difficulties devising a tight enough project brief to both recognise that the kind of work done in each county was different, whilst simultaneously avoiding ‘writing an open cheque’ to a firm of contractors. 

(ii)  Work had commenced on creating a Claims Trust so that when the Archive Research Unit provided it with information, there would be an organisation with a continuing life for as long as necessary to see those claims through.

(iii)  Discussions were continuing on CA’s Advisory Group about a fast track procedure, to avoid LHAs redoing all the research done by the Archive Research Unit. Efforts were concentrating on trying to establish a ‘quality standard’, so that LHAs didn’t need to do a long and detailed re-examination of the evidence provided. 

(b)  CB expressed her concerns about the impact on the farmers and landowners, and asked if there was going to be any guidance issued to them to explain the modification notices, with clear information about the process and historic claims. Otherwise claim after claim might be fought, so it was important to address that problem now. JW reassured the meeting that CA was aware of the issue, and would ensure that it was addressed. 

(c)  In response to SW’s query about which counties would be dealt with first, JW said that there were three or four counties lined up, and the choice of the first one would be entirely pragmatic, based on which would be ready.

13. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Some NCAF members requested to see NCAF’s functions and terms of reference. It was agreed that DG would include a copy in the papers for the 18th meeting.

14. QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE

(a)  Hugh Crawley asked if NCAF should press for an update in advising circulars to take note of less restrictive high court rulings, as across the country there was a backlog of three to five years in dealing with applications to add PROW to definitive maps. JW agreed to consider the question, and let Hugh Crawley have a response in due course. 

(b)  Kate Ashbrook asked if Defra could be urged to send a senior observer to NCAF meetings. It was a disappointment that they weren’t present, especially when the agenda included a Defra paper. It would be terribly helpful if they were present, so that more progress could be made. PW said she would write to Anna Walker to make that point, and TS said she would speak to Susan Carter.

(c)  James Healey asked how open access management should be properly financed. PW advised him that CA took this very seriously, and to pull the relevant paper off CA’s website. She and TS would be seeing the Minister next week to give it their best shot. 

(d)  Edward Wilson asked if CA was still on target to meet the Minister’s Nov 2000 commitment of commencing Part 1 of the CROW Act in south and south-east England by summer 2004. PW confirmed that CA was on target.

(e)  Don Whitely asked if CA could find out how much money was allocated by Government to PROW. PW said that Defra had advised that the Government wasn’t prepared to give indicative figures about what actually goes out to LHAs.

(f)  Sarah Bucks asked what the CTC’s attitude was to reciprocal rights with horse riders. In the absence of the CTC representative, PW said she would arrange for a written response to be provided.

(g)  Chris Hall asked what could be done about Oxfordshire County Council appointing two of its own members to serve on the LAF. KA said that if the Oxfordshire Ramblers thought there was any incorrect practice, the proper procedure would be to write to the Chief Executive. It was important to reiterate that LAFs were independent should give independent advice.

15. CLOSE

PW thanked everyone for their interest, hoped to see them early next year, and wished them a safe journey home.