Natural England

Minutes of the 1st meeting of the NCAF

(28 members of the public attended the meeting)

CHAIR'S INTRODUCTION

1. The Chair welcomed the Forum members, the observers and members of the public to the meeting. She explained that whilst the Forum had no executive powers it was a significant advisory body. She looked forward to constructive and informed discussions that would develop the access debate. Whilst accepting that disparate views would emerge in discussion, the Forum must work to minimise these differences.

2. The Chair advised that the independent members of the Forum would be in place by the September meeting. Their role was to bring a broader perspective to the discussions.

3. In response to a question as to why the advertisement for independent members had appeared only in Countryside Focus, Bob Roberts explained that this was considered to be an appropriate vehicle for the appointment of a few individuals. It was a matter of scale. Countryside Focus had a wide circulation and attracted a readership interested in the work of the Agency.

4. The following action was agreed in response to points raised on general procedures: 

TERMS OF REFERENCE (NCAF 1/1)

5. Nadia Little introduced the paper and asked for members' comments and confirmation of the Terms of Reference. Drawing attention to issues raised since the Agency Board had agreed the Terms of Reference in May, she invited views on the inclusion of three additional elements: legislation; the environmental, social and economic implications of increasing access to the countryside; and the remit of the Forum on recreation.

6. In discussion the following points were made:

Legislation

a. In view of the focus of the Government's Framework document, members decided that the Forum's role on the implementation of legislation did need to be included in the Terms of Reference. 

Environmental, social and economic effects of increasing access to the countryside

b. Attention was drawn to the importance of sustainability.

Advice on recreation

c. Some members suggested that the word 'quiet' should be included in the Terms of Reference. One member pressed for the definition to be widened to include the interests of horseriders. 

d. Bob Roberts suggested that the Forum needed to be clear about the distinction between the Government's proposals to open up the countryside for access on foot, and the Forum's wider remit to look at opportunities for various types of informal recreation.

e. Bishop Alan Chesters suggested that the Forum maintain a position where it is not too constrained by its Terms of Reference 

General points

f. It was suggested that the Terms of Reference and priorities of the Forum could change over time. 

g. There was disappointment that the Terms of Reference made no mention of the issues of occupiers' liability, or the costs on landowners and local authorities from the new access proposals.

h. In response to a question about the composition of the observers' panel, Bob Roberts confirmed that the Countryside Council for Wales, together with Scottish Natural Heritage and Sport England had also been invited to send observers. MAFF had not been asked to participate. 

Members agreed that MAFF should be invited to participate. 

PROGRESS ON ACCESS WORK (NCAF 1/2)

7. Bob Roberts introduced the paper and explained that the report covered a combination of tasks from the Government's Framework document together with the Agency's activities. It is not a comprehensive list of all the Agency's work on access. He invited the Forum to comment on the stance and approach the Agency was taking, and emphasised the importance of drawing a balance beween speed and efficiency.

8. In discussion of Annex 1 the following points were raised:

Advice on access to 'other' categories of land: 

a. Members noted that the consultants would report back to the Agency in August.

National Countryside Access Forum

b. The pending appointment of independent members was noted. 

Mapping

c. To be discussed under Agenda Item 5 (NCAF paper 1/5). 

Codes of practice for visitors, land managers and local authorities

d. It was suggested that the Country Code may need to be looked at in the light of the new access arrangements and that there could be a case for introducing other codes. 

Local Countryside Access Forums

e. The Forum would need to address the issue of public participation and interest.

National Access Register 

f. Members acknowledged that this would provide a valuable service in bringing together disparate sources of information. 

Rights of Way

g. Members noted that a Government consultation paper on improving rights of way had been issued. 

h. One member expressed concern that the Forum's remit had been widened to cover rights of way, but failed to go far enough on cross-compliance. In response, Bob Roberts said that the Government's Framework document does specify a role for the Forum on rights of way. Also, it would be difficult to exclude rights of way in any integrated study of access provision. 

Public information

i. The Chairman said that the Agency had added this to the work programme because of the importance it placed on ensuring that up to date information on progress and implementation was made widely available to land managers, users and others. Members asked that the forthcoming paper on communication addressed the Forum's collective responsibility to inform the public. 

j. The potential link between Ordnance Survey (OS), the National Access Register and maps of open countryside was raised. Members noted that OS would be playing a major role in the provision of this information.

k. Referring to the provision of public information and a National Access Register, one member stressed the limitations of establishing large national databases and suggested that the Forum should consider the merits of setting standards and a framework for local databases, maintained and collected locally. This proposal received general support. 

Integrated access projects

l. One member said there seemed to be some confusion about the sites which would be identified for these projects. 

m. It was suggested that the demonstration projects could look also at how the areas of habitats would be increased in the long term. 

DRAFT FIRST YEAR PROGRAMME OF WORK FOR THE FORUM (NCAF 1/3)

10. Nadia Little introduced the paper and invited members to comment on whether the programme was appropriate and manageable; whether a site visit would be a useful way of developing understanding of access issues, and whether the Forum should hold an annual event which would draw in a wider group of access interests.

11. The following points were raised in discussion:

Agenda

a. It was suggested that Any Other Business could provide a useful agenda item to flag up forthcoming issues early in the meetings cycles.

Closure or restriction regimes

b. Disappointment was expressed by one member that the Forum was not addressing closures and restrictions earlier in its programme.

Site visit and annual event

c. Members endorsed the proposals and agreed that they would be useful both in disseminating the Forum's messages and in informing its work.

ACCESS TO 'OTHER' LAND (NCAF 1/4)

12. Bob Roberts introduced the paper and explained that the Agency was driven by a very tight timetable and was committed to giving advice to Government in the Autumn. It was essential that the Agency makes a well-informed judgement on supply and demand for access to 'other' types of open countryside; on the impacts and how these are dealt with.

13. The following points were raised in discussion:

a. One member expressed concern that including access to 'other' land in legislation added to an already complex problem. He stressed that the Forum should concentrate initially on the categories already identified for legislation. 

b. Some members were not convinced by this view; they maintained that it was within the interests of the Forum to look at access to 'other' land. The point was raised that a number of the user groups have a great interest in access to 'other' types of open country, particularly to watersides and woodland. One member expressed surprise that coastal land was not included, and pointed out that watersides were very fragile environments and expert advice would need to be taken on the form of access.

c. It was noted that the Environment Agency are working with the Countryside Agency specifically on drafting advice on access to inland waterways. English Nature are also advising on access to 'other' land. They were also looking at 'other' categories to ensure comprehensive legislation.

d. Members expressed concern that the Forum did not have a real opportunity to debate the issues of access to 'other' land. 

MAPPING OPEN ACCESS LAND (NCAF 1/5)

14. In his introduction, Roger Ward said that the Agency intended it approach to mapping to be open, pragmatic and effective. It was taking advice from a number of sources of technical expertise. The mapping programme involved a 3 stage approach described in the paper. The Forum was invited to discuss the approach.

15. The following points were raised in discussion:

a. one member stressed the importance of ensuring the accuracy of the mapping process. He cautioned against getting bogged down in the fine detail such as boundaries. The process, he argued, must be kept simple. An acceptance of the importance of points of access could cut down the difficulty and the expense of mapping. 

b. Attention was drawn to satellite and thermal work carried out by Macauley Land Use Centre in Aberdeen. It was suggested they may be a useful contact.

c. In response to concern that there was no mention in the proposals of areas too small to map, Roger Ward said that the Agency was looking at what is politically, technically and economically feasible. It recognised that there will be an issue of scale. This decision would need to be made when the Agency had received the consultant's technical advice.

d. It was agreed that usability was a critically important factor and that OS and the Technical panel would advise on this.

e. The importance of on-site information was noted.

f. There was general support for the argument that every care should be taken to avoid a massive appeals process against the draft maps in the absence of information about controls and closure regimes.

g. Bob Roberts advised that it was planned to settle these details in parallel with the mapping and to allow enough time to filter out the problems. Lessons could be learned from previous experience of mapping for statutory administrative purposes.

h. One member asked if there would be an appeals system against limitations. There was also some support for the suggestion that appeals should be targeted only at the most important cases.The Chair said that appeals would be discussed at a later date.

i. Attention was drawn to the difficulty of defining 'downland'. It was pointed out that hard limestone and rough grassland are not covered in this category. Mapping must address this problem. 

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

16. The following ACTION points were agreed:

17. In response to a member's concern that in seeking consensus the Forum may produce bland statements as a result of debate, the Chair said that the Forum would only seek sensible consensus which would not mean a lack of mature debate on differences at times.

18. Summing up the meeting, the Chair thanked all those attending. She said the Forum covered a wide range of differing views. It was for members to explore all those views. The day's meeting had provided a useful snapshot of the different perspectives and augured well for the maturity of future debate.

DATE OF NEXT MEETING: Friday 10 September 1999, 10.15 for 10.30am