The National Countryside Access Forum (NCAF) was set up in 1999 to assist the Agency in making the countryside more accessible and enjoyable for open air recreation. It is recognized that much of the Forum’s agenda to date has understandably been do...
Countryside Agency Archive

Breadcrumbs

National Countryside Access Forum (AP03/03)

Director Responsible: Jon Tomlinson Lead Board Member: Pam Warhurst

FOR DECISION

 

Recommendations:

Ÿ         We consult with NCAF about how it can best provide high quality policy advice to the Agency on access and recreation issues. Recent meetings have tended to focus more on detailed CRoW Act work implementation issues.

Ÿ         We consider the current membership of NCAF to see how it can be strengthened to reflect broader countryside access and recreation issues,

Ÿ         A new seminar-style format is introduced, to befit the high level advisory role of the Forum, and distinguish it from a wide range of officer level technical working groups, which the Agency currently supports.

 

 

Relevance to Strategy and Corporate Plan:

Ÿ           Supporting NCAF is included in the current Corporate Plan under the Wider Welcome programme.

 

 

Staff and financial implications:

Ÿ         None

 

 

Main issues to concern the Board:

Ÿ         How could the current membership of NCAF be improved?   How can the Agency make best use of the opportunity presented by two Forum vacancies?

Ÿ         Are there other ways in which the Agency can increase the effectiveness of NCAF, besides considering the membership, and switching to a seminar-style format?

 

 


Background

 

1.   NCAF was set up in 1999 ‘to assist the Countryside Agency to make the countryside more accessible and enjoyable for open air recreation, in ways which take account of social, economic and environmental issues’.   The remit made clear that the Forum’s role was to help improve access rather than debate if it should be improved, and that it advised the Agency, which would then take account of its advice, but was not bound by it.

 

2.   To date, the Forum’s agenda has understandably been dominated by open access, and it has been a great help to the Agency in designing administrative arrangements for implementing the legislation. But in so doing, it has not addressed sufficiently its broader terms of reference.

 

3.   The time and commitment shown by senior level representatives has reduced since the Forum’s agenda has focused more on the detail of implementation.   Officer substitutions have tilted the balance more towards a technical working group and one or two members are becoming restive, now that issues of high principle are less frequently on the agenda.   There are currently two vacancies on the Forum as a result of recent resignations. So we now have an opportunity to review the way the forum works and introduce new blood and invigorate debate.

 

4.   We will continue to seek the Forum’s advice as we develop systems of open access management and public information. And members can perform an ambassadorial role in explaining and promoting the arrangements for open access in the run up to commencement.   But open access should no longer dominate the agenda.   The relationship between access and other agendas such as health, social inclusion, rural economies and urban design is strengthening.   The Agency is itself reorganising along these lines, with a new team to oversee out whole programme on recreational access to the countryside.   Our work on Rights of Way Improvement Plans and our Diversity Review is linking these agendas.

 

5.   We would like to see the Forum evolve this year, so it can help us to pull these policy strands together and fulfil the broader remit it was charged with.   This will mean creating a more imaginative agenda - one which would again draw the interest of high level representatives - who collectively can effect political change.   This is in keeping with the opinions which members have expressed at recent meetings.

 

6.   We consider that a new seminar-style format would help revive the Forum, which would distinguish it from the range of technical working groups.   This format might involve one meeting per quarter, linked to the Rural Affairs Forum for England where Pam Warhurst is specifically charged to report progress from NCAF.   There would be presentations and debate around one or two themes.   The Forum would be charged with generating clear conclusions and offering recommendations to the Agency.   It would also continue to liaise with the Welsh National Access Forum and thus provide an important high level link between policy and practice in England and Wales.

 

Risk and Mitigation measures  

 

7.   That the Agency’s efforts to revitalise the Forum this year are not successful, and that it loses credibility and ability to provide the Agency with necessary top level advice on access and recreation issues.

 

The main way to manage this risk is to ensure we discuss our proposals with the Forum, be prepared to listen and then take the necessary steps to achieve our desired outcome.