Natural England

Minutes of the 26th Meeting of the Countryside Agency

Present: Ewen Cameron, Chairman

Pam Warhurst

Kate Ashbrook 

Martin Doughty

Peter Fane

Luna Frank-Riley 

Tony Hams 

Prof Philip Lowe 

Catherine Mack

In attendance: Richard Wakeford, Chief Executive

Margaret Clark, Director

David Coleman, Director

Amanda Peck, Head of Corporate Planning

Isobel Coy, Head of Media & Parliamentary Affairs

Fiona Hope, Assistant to the Chief Executive

CHAIRMAN'S INTRODUCTION

The Chairman welcomed members of the public and Countryside Agency staff as observers to the meeting. 

The Chairman noted that this was Cate Mack's last meeting as a Board member. He thanked Cate for her valuable contribution to the work of the Board, in particular her representation of the south west. 

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies had been received from Frances Rowe, Graham James, Sue Stapely, Victoria Edwards and Janet Bradbury.

MINUTES OF MEETING HELD 13 DECEMBER 2001

The minutes were approved and signed by the Chairman.

MATTERS ARISING

The Board noted Matters Arising papers comprising updates on:

• The Policy Commission on the Future of Food and Farming
• Local Governance (AP01/44)
• New Forest National Park: Designation order and advice on special arrangements (AP01/50)
• Business Risk Management Update (AP01/51)
• Corporate Communications Strategy (AP01/52)
• Rural Services Standards: First Annual Report (AP01/53)
• Countryside Funding for Rural Communication Councils (AP01/56)
• The New Health Initiative between Department of Health, Sport England and the Countryside Agency 
• Countryside Access Recovery Fund
• Urban Green Space Taskforce
• Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (AP01/46)  

Richard Wakeford updated the Board on approval of the Corporate Plan by DEFRA. The Agency had not yet received a letter from the Rural Affairs Minister formally approving the Corporate Plan. The Corporate Plan would need to be adjusted to take account of changed circumstances since it had been drafted, including:

• A shift of resources from the Vital Villages Implementation Programme to Rural Services, as agreed by the Board in December 2001;
• Additional resources needed for Agency implementation of the CROW Act 2001, in the form of staff for mapping work and handling anticipated mapping appeals;
• The new health initiative with the Department of Health and Sport England was reached after the Corporate Plan was drafted; 
• The implementation of the Countryside Access Recovery Fund would be more costly than agreed by the Board in December and reflected in the Corporate Plan. DEFRA had obliged new rules for the administration of the Fund which would add £20,000 to the running costs, despite the Chief Executive voicing strong concerns about the Value For Money implications of this decision.  

The Board agreed that it greatly regretted DEFRA's delay in formally approving the Agency's Corporate Plan. The Board appreciated the pressure that the Department was under as a new department of state in the aftermath of foot and mouth disease. But it was unsatisfactory not to have received approval of the corporate plan and confirmation of the grant-in-aid in early December - which was the normal practice under DETR sponsorship. Short notice changes to budgets threatened value for money and were in direct contravention of the goals of three year financial planning which the current government had itself instituted.

MID TERM REVIEW OF AGENDA 2000 (AP02/01)

(In attendance, Richard Lloyd and Rosie Simpson)

Introducing the paper, Rosie Simpson explained that the timing for launching the European Union (EU) proposals on the Agenda 2000 Mid Term Review was uncertain but was likely to be after the French elections in June or July this year. The wider context included the French and German elections, the World Trade Organization (WTO) talks, and EU enlargement. The paper recommended a proposed strategy for the Agency of continuing to work through the Land Use Policy Group (LUPG) at the UK level. It also recommended goals for Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) reform as:

• compulsory modulation across the EU;
• further reform of commodity support;
• environmental cross compliance; and
• a bigger share of CAP funds to be used for rural development and agri-environment needs.  

In discussion, Board members made the following points:

a. It was generally accepted that CAP payments needed to be adjusted to be less trade distorting, but that the main drive should not be to make CAP consistent with WTO interests, but to ensure that public money was only used to buy public goods that were widely accepted as valuable; 

b. The Policy Commission on Food and Farming appeared to assume that the CAP must be radically changed in order for the countryside to benefit. However, much more could be achieved under the existing arrangements, than was the case at present. English farmers appeared to be relatively uninformed about how to get access to existing funds to achieve public goods with their land. It would be very important for the Agency and its LUPG partners to win confidence in other EU member states to achieve a desirable outcome to the Agenda 2000 Mid Term Review. Influence was unlikely if the message seemed to be that no good could come out of CAP and that it should be abolished entirely;

c. The Agency Board should focus on the need to reform the rules governing the use of CAP funds. If increased modulation was permitted without corresponding change in the use of diverted funds, there would be more resources for agri-environment schemes, but not to address rural socio-economic needs. The Agency was the only body in LUPG with a statutory socio-economic remit; all the other members represented environmental interests. This underlined the Agency's responsibility to emphasise the importance of integrated rural development. Both Scottish National Heritage (SNH) and the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) were however keen for rural socio-economic needs to be given more priority in CAP reform;

d. The aspiration for 10% modulation had considerable implications. The LUPG should explore the practical and legal implications of different countries of the UK modulating at different rates. Equally the LUPG should give careful thought to how the substantial funds, - that 10% modulation would generate, should best be deployed.

e. Working through the LUPG, the Agency needed to seek a stronger influencing approach in the EU, and work hard to influence other relevant networks and bodies in the EU interested in rural issues. Organisations interested in sustainable development might also be valuable partners. The Agency should identify MEPs who might contribute to this influencing work. The Agency should make good use of LUPG expertise in devising its approach and also keep DEFRA appraised of progress made. 

Summing up the discussion, the Chairman concluded that the Board had:

• accepted the recommendations of the paper;
• emphasised increased flexibility in using modulated funds in the Agency's goals for CAP reform;
• endorsed using LUPG as the main vehicle for European influencing but encouraged officers to work hard to influence other UK organisations interested in integrated rural development in the EU.  

MID TERM EVALUATION OF THE ENGLAND RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (AP02/02)

(In attendance, Richard Lloyd and Rosie Simpson)

Introducing the paper, Rosie Simpson explained that the Mid Term Evaluation of the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP) would provide an opportunity to seek improvements to the programme and its delivery mechanisms. The Agency would also seek changes to the EU Rural Development Regulation (RDR), under which the ERDP sits, in order to achieve sustainable land management. However, any changes agreed would be likely to come into effect until 2004. The main route to influence the Mid Term Review of the ERDP would be through close liaison with DEFRA ministers and senior officials, and the LUPG.

In discussion, Board members made the following points:

a. It was essential to improve the evaluation of participation in schemes under the ERDP, as there seemed to be large numbers of stakeholders without knowledge of how to make grant applications and not able to participate therefore. A major improvement to ERDP would be to promote awareness of its schemes among potential participants, and to provide help and support for those making applications;

b. The interest and publicity surrounding the Policy Commission on the Future of Food and Farming had concentrated attention on the issue of food supply, rather than the broader issue of the rural economy, and there was likely to be pressure to concentrate resources on agriculture. The Agency must be careful not to overemphasise the needs of agriculture, within context of the rural economy as a whole, as it sought to influence the Mid Term Review of ERDP;

Summing up the discussion, the Chairman concluded that the Board:

• had accepted the recommendations made in the paper;
• had emphasised the need for better promotion of schemes available under ERDP;
• had stressed the need to beware of over-focussing the ERDP on agricultural issues at the expense of rural economy and society, which forms the majority interest;
• stressed the need to evaluate the uptake and success of schemes under the ERDP.  

FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE LESSONS LEARNED (AP02/03)

(In attendance, Richard Lloyd and David Brooke)

Introducing the paper, David Brooke explained that the Agency had been invited to submit its views to the Government's 'Lessons to be Learned' inquiry following the 2001 outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease. The paper invited the Board to approve the draft submission to the Inquiry. He reminded the Board that they had decided in September 2001 that the Agency's contribution to the Inquiry should focus on issues where the Agency claimed some expertise. The draft submission was based on the key premise that the outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease could not be seen as solely a problem for the agriculture industry, and that control measures in future must be based on the well-being of rural areas as a whole. The Board was asked to agree this premise, and the Agency's five lessons from the outbreak listed in the paper.

In discussion, Board members made the following points:

a. The bulk of problems in rural economies during and following the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak were attributable to the means of disease control, rather than the disease itself. The most effective control of disease was not therefore necessarily the best if measured by reference to the rural economy as a whole. The Agency should provide the Inquiry with more information of the impact of the outbreak on the rural economy, including evidence that diversified farm businesses were just as vulnerable as non-diversified;

b. The Agency should demonstrate to the Inquiry how difficult it was to reopen the countryside once rights of way had been closed. The submission to the Inquiry should strongly make the point that in any future outbreak there should be presumption of keeping rights of way open. The burden of proof should be on those who wished to prevent public access. Closure notices should be dated. Rights of way such as many canal towpaths not in contact with animals, should never be closed. Local authorities should be provided with very specific guidelines on whether rights of way should be allowed to be closed;

c. There had been a significant advance in vaccine technology since the previous outbreak in 1967. This needed to be recognised and incorporated into preparations for any future outbreaks. Logistics for dealing with a future outbreak should be in place in advance. On the other hand, the submission to the Inquiry should focus more on where the Agency had particular competence and core responsibility - that is on access to the countryside and rural development, rather than vaccination, in which the Agency had no particular expertise.

d. The submission to the Inquiry should focus on the implications for urban, as well as rural, communities and economies of the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak. The Agency should be more robust on the integration of farming into the supply chain, with implications for the economy beyond the agriculture industry;

f. Members of the public needed more information about what they could and could not access during an outbreak. People had stayed in towns because the impression they had received from the media was that everything in the countryside was off limits. This misinformation did significant damage to the rural economy. The Agency should urge the Inquiry that if vaccination was to be used in future, the implications of this should be properly explained to the public, and more use should be made of information technology (such as web sites) to keep the public informed;

g. It was important to recognise the important measures that the organic farming sector had put in place to prevent the spread of animal disease. 

Summing up the discussion, the Chairman concluded that:

• the submission to the Inquiry should be redrafted in the light of the Board's comments, in particular emphasising the need for a holistic view for the rural economy of the impact of Foot and Mouth Disease, and including more of the Agency's hard evidence on access;
• a revised draft submission would be put to the Chairman, Peter Fane and Victoria Edwards, and Board members would be sent a copy.  

(In attendance, Terry Robinson and David Brooke)

Introducing the paper, David Brooke explained that the Government had published a Green Paper, Planning: delivering a fundamental change. This was one of a suite of three consultation papers about reforming the planning system; the Agency proposed to respond to all three. The Board were invited to approve the Agency's draft response to the Planning Green Paper, which offered broad support to the proposals, especially the clear focus on longer term vision and proper links with spending plans. The draft response also sought greater clarity from the Government about strategic planning and continuing pressure for quality in its development.

In discussion, Board members made the following points:

a. The three papers proposed radical and controversial reform to the planning system, which was generally needed; the Board were particularly pleased that the consultation paper provided an opportunity for local people to be involved earlier in planning decision processes;

b. The Agency had been too welcoming in its initial response to the consultation paper. Indeed, the opportunity for public input into the various stages of the planning process was unclear, the strategic level of planning would be lost, the public would lose its right to be heard at inquiries into structure and local plans, and third-party rights of appeal had been dismissed;

c. It was regrettable that the consultation document did not seem to acknowledge the need to reconcile economic growth and sustainable development. Indeed sustainability and quality of environment were scarcely mentioned in the document, but this context was essential for good planning for the future; 

d. The consultation document did not address planning issues for National Parks. The Agency should address this omission in its response to the Green Paper, emphasising the need for National Parks to have simpler plans; 

e. The Green Paper's proposals to fast-track planning decisions relating to high-tech business zones were concerning, because this sort of development would have an impact on communities and the environment, notwithstanding their significant contribution to the economy;

f. The Agency should support the removal of Crown Immunity to planning legislation, especially relating to Ministry of Defence sites; 

g. The Agency should persuade Ministers of the importance of quality input from parish councils and other elected local authorities into the planning process, to counter the implied view that communities are contributing inadequately to the decision making and slowing up decision making;

Summing up the discussion, the Chairman concluded that:

• The Board had broadly endorsed the draft response to the Green Paper, with additional emphasis on the need for a clear focus on the long term vision for planning; and the need for proper links with other forms of planning;
• The Board's points about planning in National Parks should be added.  

PROCEDURES FOR MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (AP02/05)

(In attendance, Terry Robinson and Jo Russell)

Introducing the paper, Jo Russell invited the Board to approve a draft response supporting the need for change, provided that there was consultation on national policy and community involvement in individual cases. The Board was recommended to accept the proposal that Parliament should decide on the need for major infrastructure projects, but not the location. Location should continue to be assessed at public inquiry and subsequently decided by the Secretary of State. 

In discussion, Board members made the following points:

a. Issues of national infrastructure needed to be decided at national level, that is by Parliament, but decisions affecting a particular region, such as the location of a piece of national infrastructure in it, should be determined at a lower level;

b. Centralising in London the decision process for major infrastructure projects that have regional implications - would make regional participation very difficult, especially for those farthest from London.

Summing up the discussion, the Chairman said that the Board had endorsed the proposed Agency response to the consultation document on changes to the planning arrangements for major infrastructure projects.

REFORMING PLANNING OBLIGATIONS (AP02/06)

(In attendance, Terry Robinson and Jo Russell)

Introducing the paper, Jo Russell ran through the Agency's draft response to the Government's proposals to reform planning obligations to provide a positive planning tool to aid sustainable development.

In discussion, Board members made the following points:

a. Planning obligations should take account of any consequential impact of development further afield than the immediate environs;

b. Planning gain should reflect the integrated needs of a community - including social, economic and environmental factors. The financial benefits accruing from a development should be in part used to mitigate against the impact of the development, rather than local authority resources being used.

Summing up the discussion, the Chairman concluded that the Board had endorsed the proposed draft response to the Government consultation paper on reforming planning obligations.

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO COUNCIL TAX CHARGES ON SECOND HOMES (AP02/07)

(In attendance, Jo Lavis)

Introducing the paper, Jo Lavis explained that the Government was consulting on proposals to alter council tax charges on second homes. It had proposed allowing local authorities a discretion to remove or reduce the current 50% discount on different types of properties that were not primary homes. It proposed a range of options for how the additional revenue accruing from the changes should be administered. The Agency's draft response to the consultation proposed that local authorities should have discretion to charge up to 100% council tax on second homes and long term empty properties, that councils should retain the additional revenue collected to use towards the provision of affordable housing in the area. A final decision on that line should await the results of the Agency's current research on second homes in rural areas. Although the consultation period would end in mid February, the Agency's research would not be complete until June.

In discussion the following points were made:

a. Empty homes distorted local economies and communities. In a community with a high percentage of second homes it was impossible to achieve a satisfactory level of local services, and the cost of housing increased prohibitively. The proposal to tax these dwellings at 100% seemed not to be based in evidence that this was the right level. There might be a justification to raise the amount of council tax levied on second homes to 200% if that was needed to secure funds on the scale needed to provide affordable housing. The Agency's consultants researching the second homes issue should be asked to look into the implications for allowing local authorities to charge more than 100% council tax for habitually empty properties;

b. Obliging local authorities to use the funds accrued from the changes in addition to current resources used for affordable housing might be necessary to overcome the reluctance of some authorities to take on additional complex administration. A possible alternative might be for Government to reduce local authorities' grants by the additional amount accrued (i.e. to assume that the extra tax would be levied) and to allocate the difference centrally to ring fence social housing. However, this could not guarantee that the resources would be used locally in areas where the problems were caused by second homes;

Summing up the discussion, the Chairman concluded that the Agency should make an interim recommendation to the consultation, stressing the importance of awaiting the Agency's research into the incidence of second homes, in order to make an evidence-based decision. The Agency's interim response to the consultation should recommend that local authorities be granted discretion to charge 100% council tax on all second homes and empty homes. Any additional revenue should be deployed locally for affordable housing to address the problems caused by second homes. The Agency would make stronger recommendations for change later in the year when the results of its research were known. 

CORPORATE PLAN PROGRESS: THIRD QUARTER REPORT (AP02/08)

(In attendance, Amanda Peck)

Introducing the paper, Amanda Peck outlined the good progress the Agency was making in the majority of work areas at the end of the third quarter of financial year 2001/02. There was a forecast full spend on programme and running cost budgets. Some Agency activity remained behind schedule, however, in particular the transport budgets held by the Vital Villages, Market Towns and Wider Welcome programmes, parish plan grants also administered by Vital Villages, and parish council training grants administered by Local Governance and Housing. Directors would review the financial forecasts for each of their programmes frequently until the end of the financial year, to ensure that programmes reached their forecast targets and that no funds would be lost as a result of last October's unexpected Government removal of end year flexibility. On the other hand there could be some modest over-commitment at the end of the financial year due to the success of 'rural recovery' projects under the Wider Welcome and Countryside Capital programmes, and this would be managed at year end by invoice control. The Executive would review budget allocations at the start of the next financial year to realign budgets where necessary.

In discussion, Board members made the following points:

a. The Board would find it helpful to receive some clarification on the extent of its delegation to the Executive decisions about staff numbers; 

b. The Board wished to discuss thoroughly progress made under the Market Towns programme; the Board should assess the success of the schemes to determine whether there should be changes before the programme was rolled out more widely. A first evaluation report of the project will be available in a couple of months time, which would provide a good opportunity;

Summing up the discussion, the Chairman concluded that the Board

• noted the Third Quarter Report on Progress of the Corporate Plan;
• were content with progress made towards utilising programme and running cost budgets;
• should discuss the Market Towns programme when the first evaluation report had been received.  

THE COUNTRYSIDE TRUST - APPOINTMENT OF A NEW TRUSTEE (AP02/09)

Introducing the paper, the Chairman explained that the Agency had responsibility for appointing trustees to the Countryside Trust, a duty which it needed to fulfill now as one of the current trustees was retiring in March. The Board was recommended to approve that Martin Davis should be appointed the new trustee, as his professional experience as a solicitor, and charitable involvement in countryside issues would be of great benefit to the Trust.

The Board unanimously agreed the recommendation.

RURAL PROOFING ANNUAL REPORT (AP02/10) (closed session) 

(In attendance, Brian Wilson)

Introducing the paper, Brian Wilson invited Board members to endorse the emerging draft First Annual Report on Rural Proofing. The Rural White Paper had made a commitment that central Government policy making would be rural proofed, taking account of particular rural needs and circumstances. The White Paper tasked the Countryside Agency to monitor rural proofing by departments and report results to the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Rural Renewal, and the Rural Affairs Forum for England (RAFE). The Sub-committee was expected to meet in early April. The draft report was very much work in progress, as more information from Departments was expected to fill in gaps. The draft conclusions would need to be revised in the light of the fuller picture. 

In discussion Board members made the following points:

a. It was essential for the credibility of the Agency and the Rural Advocate that the report was robust about any shortcomings of central Government in taking account of rural needs. The current draft was insufficiently hard-hitting and the assertions in the report needed to be better substantiated;

b. The report should highlight the link between rural and urban communities, so that rural issues are not seen as solely concerning the deep countryside but of real importance to people living in towns too. The report should also emphasise the effectiveness of empowering local communities to resolve their own problems.

Summing up the discussion, the Chairman concluded that the report should be redrafted to be clear and confident. It should bring credit to the Agency, but also to the Government that had been sufficiently confident that it would deliver for rural areas that it had made provision for this arm's length report.

DATE AND LOCATION OF NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the Countryside Agency Board would be on 18 April 2002 in John Dower House