Natural England

Minutes of the 8th Meeting of the NCAF

Chair: Pam Warhurst (Countryside Agency) Iain McMorrin (British Mountaineering Council) Jo Burgon (National Trust) Tim Marshall (Independent Member) Ian Mercer (Association of National Park Authorities) Stephanie Wheeler (British Horse Society) Jerry Pearlman (Ramblers Association) Simon Bostock (Moorland Association) Edward Greenwell (Country Landowners Association) Gwyn Williams (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) William Bird (Independent Member) Chris Heinitz (Local Government Association)

OBSERVERS Gail Dyson (DETR) Graham Bathe (English Nature) 

COUNTRYSIDE AGENCY STAFF Margaret Clarke Bob Roberts Nadia Little Roger Ward Anne Ewins Gavin Stark (about 50 members of the public attended the meeting) 

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Bishop Alan Chesters, Steve Trow (English Heritage), Pam Ashton (Cyclists Touring Club), Gareth Roberts (Countryside Council for Wales), Barry Leathwood (Transport and General Workers Union), Kate Parminter (Council for the Protection of Rural England), Chris Braun (DETR), Susan Carter (DETR), Stephen Cane (MAFF), Tim Bennett (National Farmers Union), Nick Birula (Environment Agency) and Eileen McKeever (Environment Agency) 

CHAIR’S INTRODUCTION

1 The Chair welcomed Gavin Stark who would be taking minutes of the meeting.

MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING 

1 Margaret Clarke asked for para. 11 part m to be corrected. DETR had been allocated a 10% increase in their countryside budget but the budget for CA had not yet been allocated. 

MATTERS ARISING

1 The Moorland Association (MA) representative said para. 3 suggested the CA did not have any concerns about night-time access when he had raised concerns about disturbance to nesting birds and copied a letter from Mr Norman to Pam Warhurst on the subject. 

NCAF 8/1 MAPPING ACCESS LAND IN ENGLAND - AN UPDATE

1 Roger Ward introduced this paper. He said that eight tenders had been invited, that the closing date was yesterday, and that it was planned to hold interviews on the 9&10 October. He emphasised that Annex 2 indicating what will be shown on the maps was a working paper and that he would welcome comment on this in particular. The Chair invited comments on the body of the paper. 
2 The National Park Association (NPA) representative said that it was not appropriate to ask for comments on what was or wasn't open countryside (in para. 8). 
3 The Country Landowners Association (CLA) representative said 1:10 000 maps would be preferable to 1:25 000. 
4 The Moorland Association (MA) representative welcomed land managers early involvement in the process (para. 8). He said that involving them in the consultation process (para. 9) would help avoid later delays due to appeals to the Secretary of State (para. 10) and thus be in everyone's interest.
5 The National Trust (NT) representative agreed that 1:10 000 scale maps would be desirable. He said that involvement in both the mapping and consultation process would place a big demand on contractors. Bob Roberts clarified that contractors would be carrying out the mapping and consultation processes but the CA would be responsible for providing the framework for this and making decisions. 
6 The British Horse Society (BHS) representative said the CA should be prepared for a big response to the invitation to submit information (para. 8).
7 The Ramblers Association (RA) representative commented that a 22 month process might not be long enough and the end date given in Annex 1 contradicted the statement in para. 13. He also said that if the right of appeal was not fairly given to all sides there was a possibility of objections under the Human Rights Act
8 The BMC representative agreed that users should have a right of appeal. He asked what safeguards there would be to ensure that the nature of the land was not changed during the mapping process - had the use of satellite imagery been considered?
9 The CLA representative said land could not be permanently designated as one type. Over the years areas of land may change in nature and therefore may become or cease to be access land. 
10 William Bird said three months was not long for a consultation, especially at busy times of year for farmers and others. 
11 Roger Ward responded to questions: 
a. para. 8 was an invitation intended to start an early dialogue;
b. the scale for mapping should be the most cost-effective and would be discussed with the contractors and tested in the pilot mapping areas;
c. the end date given in para. 13 included a small amount of contingency time; and,
d. changing the type of land by ploughing or planting trees would be an extreme and, we hope, unlikely response to land mapped as access land. 
12 The BMC representative asked if the sequence of regions for mapping could be named. Bob Roberts replied that this would be done following discussion with the appointed contractors, to maximise efficiency. 
13 Tim Marshall asked if one or several contractors would do all the mapping. Roger Ward replied that a single contractor would be appointed and most of those invited to tender had formed consortiums. 
14 The CLA representative said it was more important to do the job right than stick to a deadline. Bob Roberts agreed, but said specifying a timetable helped make the process transparent and was necessary for planning and management of the work.
15 The CLA representative said that the process should identify any areas of land for which no response had been made. The Chair invited comments on Annex 2 
16 The NT representative said the maps needed to show related access infrastructure identified in agreement with partners. 
17 The NPA representative said that references to legislation should make clear the Act being referred to. He also said the distinction between types of access land where different rights applied should be clear on maps.
18 The CLA representative said that provisional maps should show all recurring restrictions - not just nature conservation and heritage. 
19 The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) representative asked if it was planned to give detail of the reasons for restrictions on the provisional maps? He also asked what advice the CA had given to DETR on a potential fast-track process?
20 The CLA representative said that an option of a confidential appeal was needed for situations where it was important not to publicise the reason for restrictions. 
21 The MA representative suggested that offering landowners a way of registering the boundaries of their estate and allocating reference numbers for areas of land at the outset would help in later processing of restrictions. He also suggested long-term closures should be shown on the conclusive maps (para. 11) and emphasised that statutory maps and commercial maps such as OS Explorer should be consistent with one another. 
22 The Local Government Association (LGA) representative said that encouraging school children to learn about maps and making maps less expensive would encourage more people to take up access opportunities.
23 The BHS representative supported this view and said children were no longer taught about using maps in school. 
24 The RA representative said the majority of access land would be recognisable by its character and too great an emphasis on maps would lead to an overly formal perception that might unnecessarily discourage users.
25 The MA representative said clarity in referring to access land was a way of avoiding conflict. 
26 The English Nature observer commented:
a. if the only long-term restrictions shown on draft maps were for nature conservation this might attract disproportionate attention; 
b. agreement should be reached on significant restrictions to show on maps, with minor restrictions excluded; and,
c. maps should not draw attention to confidential material, thought this could make consultation more difficult.

27 Bob Roberts said the CA had to put in place a system capable of handling a fast-track option but had expressed reservations to DETR about this approach.
28 Roger Ward responded to questions:
a. long-term closures for nature conservation and danger to public could be shown on draft maps as they are not subject to an application process;
b. the CA would be guided by EN on confidentiality; and, 
c. the possibility of registering parcels of land for restrictions would be considered.

NCAF 8/2 MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION OF PART 1 OF THE COUNTRYSIDE AND RIGHTS OF WAY BILL 

1 Gavin Stark introduced this paper. The Chair questioned the negativity of Annex 1.
2 The RA representative asked what was meant by ‘access improvement scheme’ (Annex 1 p1). He suggested cost to land owners might be measured through monitoring changes in insurance premiums. He also asked what was meant by ‘habitat destruction’ (Annex 1 p2).
3 The BMC representative offered to assist in developing educational material to meet the target suggested in Annex 1 p1 box 
4. He suggested use by social type as an indicator. 4 The NT representative said the indicators measured should be attributable to part 1 of the Bill and kept simple. 
5 The BHS representative asked where in part 1 of the CROW Bill higher user rights could be created.
6 The RSPB representative said both positive and negative effects should be measured. He said the programme should be strategic and aim to measure any resultant changes in peoples use of access and attitudes. He also commented that some of the proposed indicators could encourage clutter.
7 William Bird said monitoring should be structured around a few key questions, eg getting new people into the countryside. Its focus should be sharp and the measurements made should be helpful in determining ways of improving the system to meet its objectives.
8 Tim Marshall reiterated the need for monitoring to be both positive and negative. He said the programme should be focused, clear and simple - otherwise there was a danger of spending money collecting irrelevant information. He said there was a need for baseline data and for the monitoring to measure impacts on non-access land resulting from the legislation. 
9 The MA representative said monitoring should not put a burden on landowners to provide information. He said monitoring must include negative impacts. He suggested that the degree of involvement of and acceptance by landowners and managers should be added to the positive indicators. To the ‘Indicators relating to impacts ...’ he suggested: 2nd box - effects of disturbance on nesting birds and detrimental effects of dogs; 5th box - extent of erosion and damage to vegetation and incidents of fire; 6th box - a range of indicators which would reflect the effectiveness of measures locally; 8th box - incidents of rural crime. 
10 The CLA representative said the suite of indicators should be fewer and more strategic. He said the first target on p2 of Annex 1 should refer to all land managers, not just commercial. 
11 Bob Roberts responded to these comments. He said permanent dedication under clause 16 of the CROW Bill could include provision for higher rights. He agreed that identifying cause and effect, eg for habitat destruction, needed care. He concluded that the comments made had reinforced the criterion for indicators given in Table 1 and the need for more careful prioritisation. He thanked forum members for their comments on the ideas presented. 

NCAF 8/3 DEVELOPING INCENTIVES FOR THE ACCESSIBILITY AND IMPROVEMENT OF ACCESS LAND 

1 Nadia Little introduced this paper. 
2 The CLA representative said any costs to landowners should be fully funded. 
3 The RA representative said that he had no objection to incentives, but could not see the relevance of this issue to the forum. He thought special events were a good idea. 
4 The BMC representative said incentives were necessary. The farming community in Wales is under enormous pressure and a scheme would make the Bill more acceptable to communities. 
5 The NT representative was concerned that a scheme would interfere with land management and encourage clutter in the countryside. 
6 The MA representative welcomed assistance to landowners and said it would improve the quality of access. The cost of providing information at access information points is assessed as ‘low’, it is likely to be high. Under ‘next steps’, para 10a, addition of land management expertise to the working group would provide a valuable source of practical knowledge. The principle of financial incentives is welcome but where will the funding come from? Extension of a scheme like Countryside Stewardship might be useful though making an application is expensive. Administration of any new scheme should be kept simple. 
7 The RSPB representative said the paper was important and a lot to do with the Bill. Combining the objectives of habitat creation and access was a good example of joined up thinking. 
8 The NPA representative said it was important to encourage farmers to stay on the land at a difficult time for the industry and this would benefit access. He emphasised the need to deal with litter. 
9 William Bird suggested involving local communities and volunteers and cited the example of the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers carrying out conservation work. 
10 The BHS representative said the number of horse riders was growing, with encouragement from government, and access provision should be made for them. 
11 The BMC representative said creation of new rights of way to otherwise inaccessible islands of access land should be encouraged.
12 Bob Roberts said that this was an example of joined up government and that creating access opportunities helped to get best value for public money out of existing schemes. 
13 Nadia Little said that the description of existing schemes in Annex 1 was intended for illustration. She said the CA were aware of the clutter issue and would only encourage appropriate new access furniture. 

NCAF 8/4 A NEW COUNTRY CODE - PROPOSED CONSULTATION 

1 Anne Ewins introduced this paper. She said whilst the Country Code was not exclusively concerned with part 1 of CROW, it is a good publicity platform for a code, now less well known than in the past. She said the consultation period would be longer than stated in the paper, at least a month.
2 The NT representative asked if CCW/SNH and NI were involved in the drafting? He suggested combining statements 1 and 11 as the message of both was 'be prepared'.
3 The RA representative questioned the need to rewrite the code and said the language of the new version was less elegant than the original. He would write to the CA with detailed comments. 
4 The BMC representative said the style of the code should be tougher and more definite. The NPA representative said the point about water in the original code should be retained. 
5 The LGA representative said evidence from studies into the use of sport centres suggested they were used by the better educated public and that a reason for this is lengthy written codes are off-putting to others. He emphasised the importance of using the education system. 
6 The RSPB representative said that it was a good idea to make the language of the code modern, though it is by nature less elegant. He also emphasised the importance of having a strategic plan for promoting the code to a wide target audience, including production of credit card size codes with relevant telephone numbers. 
7 The CLA representative said the new wording was soft and unclear, for example the statement on dogs. 
8 The MA representative agreed that the wording should be stronger, emphasising the importance of not starting fires, keeping dogs under control and using gates and stiles.
9 The NT representative said the impact on local communities had been lost from the previous version. 
10 Anne Ewins confirmed that CCW/SNH and NI had been contacted. 
11 The NT representative said that a code had recently been distributed via schools in Northern Ireland and it would be interesting to know how successful this had been. Action: Further comments on the draft code should be sent to Anne Ewins in Cheltenham. To influence the consultation draft they would need to be sent quickly, but the opportunity to comment would be open into November, alongside the wider consultation. 

NCAF 8/5 ACCESS INFORMATION POINTS

12 Bob Roberts introduced this paper. He thanked forum members for the advice they had given on this topic over the summer and said this was a chance to make further comments. 
13 The MA representative emphasised the importance of information points. He said land owners and managers should be involved in deciding where to put them, in order that their local knowledge be most effectively used in siting notices. He also said there would be a cost in providing a large number of durable notices.
14 The RA representative welcome the use of information points citing National Trust notices as helpful and appropriate examples. He said helping people egress from open countryside was important and suggested the idea of entry/exit points could be linked to the country code 
15 The NT representative said information points should be seen as one part of a hierarchy including information away from the site. 
16 The BHS representative said there should be a standard way of showing information points on maps. 
17 The BMC representative said outdoor education centres would be a good way of publicising information points. He also said symbols for information points should be standardised across the UK.
18 William Bird cautioned against being over reliant on information points to tell people about closures and suggested a warning flag system like that used by the military. 
19 The LGA representative said that any information about closures should be accompanied by positive information about nearby open areas. 
20 The BMC representative cautioned against encouraging too many signs around access land. 
21 The RSPB representative asked who would initiate information points and how they would be used along side existing provision, such as by the NT.
22 Bob Roberts concluded that there was general support for the idea of information points. He said informing people about closures was something the CA was thinking about very carefully. He said access authorities would be responsible for providing information points and that the CA was talking to LGAs about what would be involved.

NCAF 8/6 THE NATIONAL COUNTRYSIDE ACCESS FORUM - WORK PROGRAMME 2000/01 

1 Bob Robert introduced this paper. He emphasised that the work programme needed to be flexible.
2 The BHS representative said LCAF should be an item for the next meeting. Bob Roberts said LCAFs were being encouraged in pilot areas but that wider consultation on guidance would not be appropriate until the legislation was clearer.
3 The NT representative said the future work programme should expand its scope to cover the wider remit of NCAF.
4 The Chair said a major national access conference was being planned for early March 2001.
5 The RA representative said:
a. the Welsh experience in setting up a LCAF should be learned from. The Chair agreed. Action: CA to request a report
b. Public Rights of Way would be a difficult topic for the forum as many of the issues involved detailed legal technicalities. The Chair agreed and said that Bishop Alan Chesters chaired an established forum on this. 
c. Annex 2 should give meeting dates. The Chair agreed. Action: NL to circulate dates 

ANY OTHER BUSINESS 

1 The MA representative asked for the minutes to be produced early.
2 The BMC representative asked if there would be both a conference and NCAF meeting in March. The Chair said that there would be. The BMC representative offered to help identify a venue for the England/Wales border NCAF meeting.

WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE 

1 Bob Robert said a comment that the Country Code did not refer to owners responsibilities would be considered.

2 Roger Ward said he believed 6 tenders had been received at yesterdays closing date but that he could not recall the make up of all the consortia involved. 

DATE OF NEXT MEETING 

1 This was agreed as 13 December 2000.