The proposed response to DEFRA is at Annex I. This paper provides the required follow-up to AP02/21  DEFRA Review of English National Parks - Policy Governance and Funding and should be read in conjunction with the earlier paper.
Countryside Agency Archive

Breadcrumbs

Response to consultation following review of National Park Authorities (AP02/29)

Principal Manager Responsible: Jeremy Worth Lead Board Member: Frances Rowe

FOR DECISION

  • The Board is recommended to approve a response to seven specific aspects following the Review of National Park Authorities in which DEFRA have specifically consulted ( Annex 1 to this paper).   
Relevance to Strategy and Corporate Plan:
  • The Agency has a statutory duty to advise Ministers on the continuing capability of National Parks to deliver their purposes,
  • The review report itself reaffirms a continuing and important role for the Agency in relation to National Parks.    
Staff and financial implications

The additional staff cost and programme spend associated with delivering the review outcomes are as per those quoted in AP02/21

  • One-off time limited costs of £170k
  • Annual continuing costs of £90k  
Main issues to concern the Board:
  • Do the Board agree that the Best Value regime is the best way to determine appropriate levels of delegation of development control casework to officers?
  • Is the provision for independent chairs for National Park authorities a step too far or a necessary measure to ensure the national interest is properly represented?
  • Are the Board content with an evidence based approach to changing rights of way responsibilities on a park by park basis?
  • A decade on, is it right to continue to use the Edwards Report as the best evidence of funding needs for National Parks. Should our approach not be based on more recent evidence of need?   

Background

  1. At the July board meeting members discussed the implications of DEFRA's Review of English National Park Authorities.  Implementing the review will lead to some important changes to the way National Park Authorities (NPAs) are governed and funded. It will also generate some new work including research with direct consequences for the Countryside Agency. 
  2. The Board agreed that the Agency would make available the resources to undertake its role in delivering review outcomes assigned to us in the review.
  3. The review document invited additional commentary from interested parties on seven aspects of the review by 11 October 2002. The Board asked to consider the Agency's response at its September meeting. The response would cover the seven key items plus the most significant proposals made in the Agency's original submission to the review that were not given effect in the final report.
  4. The proposed response to DEFRA is at Annex I. This paper provides the required follow-up to AP02/21 DEFRA Review of English National Parks - Policy Governance and Funding and should be read in conjunction with the earlier paper.   

Relevant powers and duties

  1. The Countryside Agency has a duty under the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act to keep under review the progress made by National Parks in accomplishing their purposes, and to make representations to Ministers or local authorities on any matters affecting the accomplishment of those purposes. 
Progress to date
  1. The Agency's contribution to the review process to date is as detailed in AP02/21. Since the July meeting the text of our response to the review report has been discussed with a number of board members.   
Our response 
  1. Our response to the review report is as set out in Annex I. The draft letter is self explanatory. We have responded to each of the seven key areas i.e.:
    • 1. The appropriate level of delegation of planning cases to officers in National Park Authorities   
In our original submission we supported the idea of extending delegation of routine development control casework through locally agreed schemes. At its July meeting the Board felt that the best value process represents the best way to promote an efficient approach to undertaking planning functions. Sharing best practice provided opportunities for parks to learn from each other. There should be no need for central government to attempt to determine such detailed issues which should be for the authorities themselves to settle.
  1. 2. whether park authorities should have responsibilities for rights of way and, if so, where the line should be drawn   
This issue is almost certainly one in which one solution will not fit all, and there is a need for some basic research to determine the advantages and drawbacks for any given authority. Accordingly we should not support a blanket approach to any change. In some cases, the recreational responsibilities of NPAs could benefit from them having more responsibility for public rights of way, but on the strict proviso that any duties transferred from local authorities came with transferred resources to match. On the question of degree - ie the extent of powers that might usefully be transferred to NPAs, there is little information available on what approach would work best in a particular NP. Accordingly we should recommend that, before any NPA assumes wide ranging responsibilities for rights of way functions, an examination of feasibility is carried out taking account of the evidence available where this function is already performed on an ongoing basis. 
  1. 3. reforming the membership to limit the size and change the mix of national, local authority and parish appointees.   
Our original submission expressed some concerns over the possibilities for local interests to prevail over the national (and therefore the statutory) purposes of National Parks given the existing membership structure. The proposal to adjust the balance to give strengthened (though still minority) representation of Secretary of State appointed members is, therefore, welcome. Leaner authorities, in terms of number of members is likely to promote more effective decision making, but in the most administratively complex parks a democratic deficit could emerge with some constituent authorities left without voting rights. Effective stakeholder consultation, and creativity in regard to rotating representation or member sharing will help diminish the democratic deficit. Future developments which may occasion a change in local authority structures could either exacerbate or diminish perceived problems over lack of representation. The proposal to provide 100% funding to NPAs direct from DEFRA and remove the specific element would certainly overcome any arguments surrounding the "no taxation without representation" issue, but may cause some LAs to feel further marginalised. 
  1. 4. introduction of an independent chair   
Subject to certain provisos we should support the principle of an independent chair accountable to the Secretary of State. An independent chair  would be well placed to draw the diverse interests operating within a park authority together, and promote an appropriate balance between local and national interests in decision making. The independent chair would also have the advantage of being seen to be part of a national "family" of Parks , have greater access to the responsible Minister and be able to operate at a more strategic level. The chair must be appointed in an open competition which should be open to existing Authority members as well as external candidates. This proposal, taken together with the other measures proposed in the review , will help to put the "national" back into National Parks. We should express our willingness to assist in the selection process, as it does for the Secretary of State and Board Members.
  1. 5. continuity of parish and local authority appointees during election periods   
It is entirely appropriate that steps are taken to minimise interruptions to business caused by NPA members having to step down from local authority positions. Continuity of NPA appointment during election periods would be a pragmatic step to secure smooth running authorities.
  1. 6. amending the members code of conduct to ensure a level playing field
A National Park Authority functions best if it benefits from the experience of a wide range of stakeholder groups. As such it is appropriate that farmer/landowners and, in the case of the Broads, those with navigational interests, are represented on the Authority. It ceases to be appropriate, however, if their particular field of interest causes them to be treated differently from members representing other interests. Accordingly we should support the removal of the exclusion clauses detailed in Recommendation 32.
  1. 7. park authorities being wholly funded directly from DEFRA
The Agency supported the proposal to dispense with the illusory 75/25 DEFRA/LA funding split in our original submission and we should continue to do so. It is abundantly clear that some individuals and groups do not fully understand the basis for National Park funding, and this has led to some misleading local press coverage in relation to LA budgets and use of council tax revenue. Clearing up the confusion is the right thing to do and better reflects the reality of the funding position.
  1. In addition our response covers:   
  • an appraisal system for members,
  • contracts with members to uphold NP purposes,
  • further work on a system for determining NPA baseline funding,
  • reflecting the full cost of CRoW Act access provisions in baseline funding,
  • increasing funding to the levels recommended in the 1991 Edwards Report.   
Financial and manpower consequences
  1. AP02/21 set out an estimate of the Agency's resource needs to undertake the full range of new tasks the review gives us responsibility for delivering.   
Next steps
  1. The next action for the Agency will be for the Chairman to issue our final response to DEFRA within the prescribed deadline.
  2. Following consideration of responses made to the review report DEFRA plans to publish an implementation plan by the end of 2002.  This will effectively provide an action plan and timetable for us.
  3. We will work closely with the Association of National Park Authorities (ANPA) to agree how we can best work together to deliver review outcomes.   
Risks and mitigation measures
  1. The main risk concerns the implementation of the action plan following the review , which will demand resources from us according to a timetable set elsewhere. We will do all we can to plan for the likely demands on us. Our role will be easier if we are proactive in engaging and supporting the National Park Officers.
  2. The Edwards Report is now well over 10 years old and could be seen as too out of date to serve as an effective benchmark for National Park funding purposes. It is however the only report of its kind, and is still commonly referred to by park authorities and their supporters. We should suggest the option of obtaining more contemporary data.   

Date

18 September 2002

Ms Lucy Thomas

Countryside (Recreation & Landscape Division)

DEFRA

1st Floor ,Temple Quay House

2 The Square

Bristol BS2 6EB

John Dower House, Crescent Place

Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL50 3RA

Telephone

01242 533

Switchboard

Fax

01242 521381

01242 228914

ewen.cameron@countryside.gov.uk

Review of English national park authorities 

countryside agency response

The Countryside Agency Board has considered the outcomes of the Review of English National Parks and is pleased to offer comments on the 7 items referred to in the Ministerial statement preceding the review report text. In addition we wish to offer further input on several of the items raised in our original submission to the review panel which were not given effect in the final report.

Overall we welcome the review which will place National Parks at the forefront of delivering the governments sustainable development agenda in rural areas. It is clear that there is much to be done by the Agency in helping to deliver a number of review outcomes, and we look forward to working with DEFRA and the National Park Authorities in driving the agenda forward.

Turning to the seven specific areas you sought further comments on:

  1. The appropriate level of delegation of planning cases to officers in National Park Authorities   

In our original submission we supported the idea of extending delegation of routine development control casework through locally agreed schemes. At its July meeting the Board felt that the best value process represents the best way to promote an efficient approach to undertaking planning functions. Sharing best practice provided opportunities for parks to learn from each other. There should be no need for central government to attempt to determine such detailed issues which should be for the authorities themselves to settle.

  1. whether park authorities should have responsibilities for rights of way and, if so, where the line should be drawn   

This issue is almost certainly one in which one solution will not fit all, and there is a need for some basic research to determine the advantages and drawbacks for any given authority. Accordingly the Countryside Agency is not in favour of a blanket approach to any change. In some cases, the recreational responsibilities of NPAs could benefit from them having more responsibility for public rights of way, but on the strict proviso that any duties transferred from local authorities came with transferred resources to match. On the question of degree - ie the extent of powers that might usefully be transferred to NPAs, there is little information available on what approach would work best in a particular NP. Accordingly we recommend that, before any NPA assumes wide ranging responsibilities for rights of way functions, an examination of feasibility is carried out taking account of the evidence available where this function is already performed on an ongoing basis. 

  1. reforming the membership to limit the size and change the mix of national, local authority and parish appointees.   

Our original submission expressed some concerns over the possibilities for local interests to prevail over the national (and therefore the statutory) purposes of National Parks given the existing membership structure. The proposal to adjust the balance to give strengthened (though still minority) representation of Secretary of State appointed members is, therefore, welcome. Leaner authorities, in terms of number of members is likely to promote more effective decision making, but in the most administratively complex parks a democratic deficit could emerge with some constituent authorities left without voting rights. Effective stakeholder consultation, and creativity in regard to rotating representation or member sharing will help diminish the democratic deficit. Future developments which may occasion a change in local authority structures could either exacerbate or diminish perceived problems over lack of representation. The proposal to provide 100% funding to NPAs direct from DEFRA and remove the specific element would certainly overcome any arguments surrounding the "no taxation without representation" issue, but may cause some LAs to feel further marginalised, event though the financial position would be no different.

  1. introduction of an independent chair   

On balance the Agency supports the principle of an independent chair accountable to the Secretary of State. An independent chair  would be well placed to draw the diverse interests operating within a park authority together, and promote an appropriate balance between local and national interests in decision making. The independent chair would also have the advantage of being seen to be part of a national "family" of Parks , have greater access to the responsible Minister and be able to operate at a more strategic level.

The chair must be appointed in an open competition which should be open to existing Authority members as well as external candidates. This proposal, taken together with the other measures proposed in the review , will help to put the "national" back into National Parks. The Agency is willing to assist in the selection process, as it does for the Secretary of State and Board Members.

  1. continuity of parish and local authority appointees during election periods   

It is entirely appropriate that steps are taken to minimise interruptions to business caused by NPA members having to step down from local authority positions. Continuity of NPA appointment during election periods would be a pragmatic step to secure smooth running authorities.

  1. amending the members code of conduct to ensure a level playing field
A National Park Authority functions best if it benefits from the experience of a wide range of stakeholder groups. As such it is appropriate that farmer/landowners and, in the case of the Broads, those with navigational interests, are represented on the Authority. It ceases to be appropriate, however, if their particular field of interest causes them to be treated differently from members representing other interests. Accordingly the Agency supports the removal of the exclusion clauses detailed in Recommendation 32.
  1. park authorities being wholly funded directly from DEFRA
The Agency supported the proposal to dispense with the illusory 75/25 DEFRA/LA funding split in our original submission and continue to do so. It is abundantly clear that some individuals and groups do not fully understand the basis for National Park funding, and this has led to some misleading local press coverage in relation to LA budgets and use of council tax revenue. Clearing up the confusion is the right thing to do and better reflects the reality of the funding position.

I turn now to important issues which have not been given effect in the final report.

Governance 

Our proposal for a rigorous appraisal of all NPA Members has not been accepted. We recognise that much can be achieved through effective training but remain concerned that without an annual appraisal system, some members could act in ways, possibly with the best of intentions, that undermine NP purposes. They may, for example consistently pursue a local agenda at the expense of the two statutory purposes. An annual appraisal and discussion would provide an opportunity for NPA chairs to inject constructive feedback as a way of attempting to alter a pattern of behaviour that may be causing problems. The appraisal would also provide opportunity for members to articulate any of their own concerns in a structured way. 

We proposed entering into contracts with all members to uphold NP purposes. This would help to tackle the issue of those members who find it difficult to exercise the necessary separation of their national park authority member role from any other interests they may have. Members who are not prepared to sign up to upholding NP purposes should not be able to serve on the Authority. Creating a requirement to "sign-up" to the imperatives of conservation and promoting understanding would, we believe, lead to authorities better able to deliver the national agenda. The review report rejects the idea of member contracts, and we would ask that this issue be given further consideration. 

Resources

While we welcome the moves towards a more transparent approach to deciding individual park funding allocations based on recurring and performance based/special needs, we believe that further work is needed to create a simple approach to determining baseline funding. The Countryside Agency is ready to work with DEFRA towards setting-up a much less onerous methodology perhaps drawing on our work on AONB funding. The real need is for a straightforward and consistent way for NPAs to bid for funding and this should be based on delivery of certain verifiable outcomes. Our approach to AONB funding requires management units to state what they will provide in support of AONB purposes, and how they will measure success. Bids for AONB funding cover core activities and time limited projects. Such a model could serve the NPAs equally well. 

We believe that it is imperative that the full cost of implementing the open access provisions of the CRoW Act 2000 is reflected in future NP funding settlements. This area of activity will become a major demand on NPA finances in the future, and if it is not adequately provided for from the NP support grant, open access will become an opportunity cost on other NP activities. 

Our submission reaffirmed the agency's view that NP funding should rise to the levels indicated in the 1991 report of the National Parks Review Committee (the Edwards Report) if they are to fully discharge the wide range of responsibilities placed upon them. We recognise that significant progress has been made towards this aim, but there is still some way to go. Measures proposed in the review, as well as existing practice will promote efficient use of NP grant funds, and an outcome based funding regime will provide a route to easier monitoring and evaluation. We would welcome a commitment in principle from DEFRA to continue to increase funding for NPAs in real terms to those recommended in the Edwards report - even if the timetable for achieving this is not specified.

The Countryside Agency looks forward to the implementation plan for the review outcomes being issued, and is enthusiastic about playing its part in their delivery.

EWEN CAMERON