Natural England

Minutes of the 27th Meeting of the Countryside Agency

Present: Ewen Cameron, Chairman

Pam Warhurst

Kate Ashbrook

Janet Bradbury 

Martin Doughty

Victoria Edwards

Peter Fane

Tony Hams 

Graham James

Frances Rowe

Sue Stapely

John Varley

In attendance: Richard Wakeford, Chief Executive

Margaret Clark, Director

David Coleman, Director

John Tomlinson, Director

Sarah Sleet, Director

Fiona Hope, Assistant to the Chief Executive

CHAIRMAN'S INTRODUCTION

The Chairman welcomed members of the public, including observers by video link to West Sussex County Council offices in Chichester, and Countryside Agency staff as observers to the meeting. 

The Chairman welcomed John Varley, as a new Board member, to his first meeting of the Countryside Agency.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies had been received from Luna Frank-Riley and Philip Lowe.

MINUTES OF MEETING HELD 14 FEBRUARY 2002.

The minutes were approved and signed by the Chairman, subject to minor amendments from Board members.

MATTERS ARISING

The Board noted Matters Arising reports comprising updates on:

• New Forest National Park: Designation Order and Advice on Special Arrangements (AP01/50)
• Planning Green Paper: An Agency Response (AP02/04)
• Procedures for Major Infrastructure Projects (AP02/05)
• Reforming Planning Obligations (AP02/06)  

DEFRA sponsorship 

At Board members' request, Richard Wakeford updated the Board on the current position relating to DEFRA's sponsorship of the Agency and the grant-in-aid. He said that the Board would consider the Agency's overall performance during the financial year 2001/02 at the May meeting. The Agency had delivered many of its planned outputs; where outputs were not achieved, this was due to resources and efforts being redeployed to reopen the countryside following the Foot and Mouth Outbreak of 2001. For example, the Agency had administered the charity match funding scheme for farmers and others suffering hardship as a result of the outbreak. The Agency had also coordinated the 'Your Countryside You're Welcome' campaign, which had been very effective and had earned plaudits from Ministers and other stakeholders. 

Despite this successful record of delivery in the last financial year, the Agency's funding for the current financial year was still uncertain. At their meeting in February, the Board had heard that the responsible Minister, Alun Michael, the Minister of State for Rural Affairs, had approved the Corporate Plan, subject to small details relating, for example, to the extra costs of open land mapping and the operation of the aggregates levy scheme. The Minister had promised a letter about grant-in-aid within days. No letter had yet been received. 

Board members expressed considerable concern that no formal confirmation of the Agency's financial remit had been received by mid April. Board members asked whether they should be concerned. The Chief Executive confirmed that the Board was collectively responsible for ensuring that requirement of propriety, regularity and value for money are met in the Agency's use of public funds. As Accounting Officer, he had a special responsibility to Parliament and to the Accounting Officer of DEFRA. It was of some concern to him to be operating without formal confirmation of resources to the Agency for the year already underway, which in previous years had always arrived in December - allowing time to take the draft Corporate Plan for the three year period and establish proper business plans in good time for the year ahead. However, the Minister had at least approved the Agency's Corporate Plan, and DEFRA officials had provided assurances that the Agency would not be placed in undue difficulty if it proceeded as planned. 

Board members asked why the Agency had not received its resource confirmation. Richard Wakeford said that Foot and Mouth Disease and the establishment of DEFRA had left that Department without fully effective financial systems. It was still deciding whether (and by how much) its programme budgets needed to be cut for the coming year. Board members would recall that when sponsorship of the Agency was transferred from the former Department of Environment Transport and the Regions (DETR) to DEFRA, there was an associated Public Expenditure transfer between the departments to cover the funding of the Agency. If DEFRA were to cut the Agency's grant-in-aid for the year, from the three year figure confirmed after the last spending review, that would reflect Ministers current priorities. It would seem odd to do that, he accepted, when the very creation of a department with rural affairs in its title suggested a goal of doing more for rural issues. But there were competing priorities . The Agency was itself looking for more funds allow for the rising costs of implementing the CROW Act, and the Aggregates Levy. If a cut were made, the fact that much of the Agency's expenditure tended to be significantly weighted to the final quarter would enable adjustments to be made towards the end of the year. A significant cut up-front would, in contrast, send a negative message that would damage the current enthusiasm for delivery among its staff team, which would in turn damage the Agency's ability to deliver successfully. Richard Wakeford also alerted the Board to his concern that DEFRA itself appeared to be unclear about how precisely the shift from cash accounting to resource accounting this financial year would affect the Agency. The finance team had sought further guidance. Martin Doughty, as chair of the Audit and Resource Management sub-committee, advised the Board that the committee had expressed concern that the management of the year end salaries budget this year, combined with the switch from cash accounting to resource accounting, could potentially lead to problems at next year end unless action was taken through the coming financial year.

In discussion, Board members said that they shared the Chief Executive's concern about the position of the Agency without formal confirmation of its grant-in-aid for the Financial Year already under way;

Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:

• He, Pam Warhurst and Richard Wakeford should jointly assess how to address the situation;
• One possibility would be to write to the Minister of State for Rural Affairs expressing the Board's collective concern at the situation, copying the letter to the Secretary of State; 
• The Chairman would raise these issues with the Minister of State for Rural Affairs at his meeting with him on 1 May.  

Mid Term Review of Agenda 2000 (AP02/01)

David Coleman updated the Board on progress of the influencing strategy for building support for CAP reform directed by the Board at the February meeting of the Agency. The Agency was continuing to channel its influencing efforts through the LUPG, as the Board had directed. LUPG, in association with WWF, had organised a seminar on Europe's Rural Futures in Brussels on 16 April. Overall attendance had been much better than expected, including officials from the European Commission, representatives of member state government departments, agencies and NGOs, including accession countries. This was a great success. LUPG is now giving thought to other officials, member state politicians and MEPs to approach. Commission officials were expected to produce a report on the mid term review of Agenda 2000 in June, and the Board would be appraised of its contents. 

SOUTH DOWNS NATIONAL PARK: PROPOSALS FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY CONSULTATION (AP02/11)

(In attendance, Marian Spain and David Thompson)

Introducing the paper, Marian Spain explained that the Board were being asked today to decide to carry out a statutory consultation with local authorities, in light of response to the public consultation. They were not however taking any final decisions on the designation. She emphasised the very high quality and volume of responses submitted to the public consultation: 6676 responses were received of which over 6200 were from inidividuals/small local groups; and also the efforts a number of bodies, including Lewes and East Hampshire DC, the Sussex Downs Campaign and the Sussex Downs Conservation Board and East Hampshire JAC had played in working with the Agency to make the consultation a success.

She drew members' attention to a development in the progress of the Randall Bill (referred to paragraph 32 in Annex 2) which is now at 1st Reading in the House of Lords, and following a number of amendments may attract Government support. 

David Thompson outlined the key issues for each section of the draft National Park boundary based on the responses to the public consultation process , set out in Annex 2 of the Board paper, and the recommended Agency responses to the proposals. Mr Thompson tabled additional detailed maps to illustrate each area under discussion. 

Richard Wakeford, Chief Executive of the Countryside Agency reminded the Board that his parents owned a house in Petworth. 

In discussion, Board members made the following points:

Consultation Process

a. The consultation process to date had been very satisfactory, and the Board were grateful to all those who had submitted their views and evidence for consultation;

b. The public consultation phase was now complete, and the next phase of consultation would be with local authorities. Board members would be able to investigate responses in detail, and Agency officers could provide further different advice to the Board in the light of the evidence at the end of the next stage. 

Proposed Boundary of the National Park

c. The Board considered the general issue of areas that may in future strongly meet the statutory criteria for inclusion in the National Park, but do not at present. An example of such an area is Woolmer Forest, which as Ministry of Defence land used for live firing military training, currently had limited recreation value. The MoD may, however, change its use, or dispose of the land, in future, significantly altering the case for its inclusion in the National Park. The Board concluded that it should designate the boundary of the National Park as it found, considering criteria for inclusion that were met now, rather than endeavouring to make a judgement that would withstand all possibilities for change to the land in the future. It also considered the issue of inclusion of towns which are not within areas of countryside which meet the designation criteria. It concluded that it was important to stick strictly to the statutory criteria for inclusion and the policy for interpreting those criteria agreed by the Board at its meetings in February and July 2000 to ensure the designation of the National Park is legally sound;

d. The Board then considered all boundary sections in turn and the following areas in particular;

e. There was an argument to include Woolmer Forest in the National Park, currently excluded from the draft boundary, on grounds of its outstanding biodiversity and landscape beauty, with the exception of some military developments. The land had been excluded on grounds of limited recreational opportunity, rather than military use per se, as public access was allowed only intermittently, when live firing is not taking place. In deciding whether to include Woolmer Forest, the Board needed to consider how public access would work in practice. The Board agreed that there were some fine judgements to be made with well-balanced arguments to be considered. The Woolmer Forest exclusion from the proposed boundary (and other areas that the Board consider warrant further consideration) should be highlighted in the next phase of consultation, and views on these areas would be particularly welcome;

f. There were arguments for and against the exclusion of Kirdford and its surrounding area from the proposed National Park. It was in an area of high landscape quality, but this part of the Low Weald was a transition area, with tenuous links to the South Downs. It should on balance, therefore, be excluded from the proposed boundary, but further views would be invited and members would visit the area before taking a final decision;

g. Ditchling should be excluded from the proposed boundary of the Park on the grounds , that is, while the settlement was attractive with historic interest, the countryside surrounding the village to the north was not considered of high enough quality to merit inclusion. The role that Ditchling could play as a gateway to the National Park was also a factor. While visitors would access the Park through Ditchling, it is unlikely to become a major gateway, partly because it does not have a train station. It was however a fine judgement and the Board should invite further comment and visit the area before deciding on the final boundary. Similar arguments were considered in relation to Rowlands Castle;

i. In relation to marine areas beyond the mean low water mark at Seven Sisters/Beachy Head, East Sussex the Board agreed that it was not possible to include areas beyond the mean low water mark in a National Park. The proposed boundary should therefore follow mean low water mark. Given that a South Downs National Park Authority could play an important role in statutory and non-statutory mechanisms for the protection of the Seven Sisters marine area, it was not imperative to press for a change to legislation to allow its inclusion. The current review of national parks being carried out by DEFRA was not considering marine boundaries as an issue;

j. The Chairman had received correspondence from East Sussex County Council expressing the view that the land south of Telescombe Tye should be included within the National Park boundary. The Board however accepted the recommendations that the land did not met the criteria for inclusion as development in the form of a water treatment works has degraded the area's natural beauty and the narrow strip of land has been severed by a busy road; 

k. The Board noted that there were areas where the exact development proposals for some allocated developments were still not clear  and this could have the potential to suggest revisions to the boundary following the local authority consultation. Land east of Titnore Lane (Worthing) was one example the Board noted. It was agreed that the proposed boundary should remain in these areas, with further information requested from the local authorities concerned during the statutory consultation; 

l. The Board also discussed land allocated for protection from development along the preferred route of a possible by-pass south of Arundel, which was included in the draft boundary, and noted the contents of a letter from West Sussex County Council. They noted the status of the line in the Arun local plan. Proposed new roads often featured on local plans for many years without coming to fruition, and the Board needed to know the exact status of the road, before taking a decision on the boundary in this area. The situation may become clearer in the summer when a multi-modal study for the south coast is due to make its recommendations;

m. Board members had received representations that the West Ashling, West Sussex, area should be excluded from the proposed boundary. The Board accepted the recommendation that the draft boundary should remain, as the West Ashling village and surrounding countryside are of high quality; 

n. The Chairman had received a letter from Lord Renton, Chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board, expressing concern that their contribution to the consultation had not been specifically attributed in the summary of consultation provided to the Board for today's discussion. All of the contributions to the consultation had been summarised for the Board in the papers for the meeting, and none of the views had been attributed.  The Sussex Downs Conservation Board's particular contribution had been noted and welcomed at the beginning of the meeting. Lord Renton's letter also expressed concern that their request that the inclusion of non chalk areas had not been accurately reported, nor given adequate consideration. The Board were content however that the paper had addressed this point in Annex 2, and that such areas met the criteria for inclusion, noting in particular the likely provisions for access to open country in these areas which had come to light since the Board last considered this matter;

o. The Board concluded their discussion by requesting that an informal visit be arranged to consider the more difficult areas of the boundary before they take final decisions, backed up by aerial and landscape photographs to aid their consideration 

Revocation of East Hampshire and Sussex Downs AONBs

p. In noting that areas which are outside the proposed National Park boundary would lose their current protection if the AONBs are de-designated, the Board stressed that this should not mean that they are automatically released for development. It would be important to convey to local authorities the importance of certain areas of land not included within the proposed boundary of the National Park but nonetheless highly valued by residents and visitors for their value as local amenity space and should be managed accordingly; 

Planning Proposals

q. The Planning Review and the National Parks Review were expected to issue reports in June or July, local authorities may therefore make comments on the administrative and planning arrangements for the South Downs National Park in the light of these reports. This should be possible within the anticipated timeframe, as the local authority consultation is due to be completed in August. Other stakeholder groups may also be invited to submit views on the administrative arrangements for the National Park in the light of the two reports;

r. Should these reviews however be delayed, the Agency should still proceed, basing its advice on the best possible knowledge available at the time it completes the process. It would be unwise to alter the Agency's timetable for the designation of the National Park, to allow consideration of changes to the Planning System which could be several years away. 

s. There were many arguments in favour of joint planning. However the recommended three joint structure plans and joint mineral and waste plans for the new National Park Authority were unwieldy and potentially unworkable. The three plan approach had been proposed to encourage joint working between three county structure planning authorities, but was an unnecessarily complicated way to encourage collaboration. A Unitary Development Plan would be a far more efficient approach. Collaborative working on cross boundary issues could still be achieved without joint plans, backed by ministerial guidance. On balance, and recognising that there were arguments on both sides, the Board favoured a UDP for the Park as the arguments for efficiency outweighed those in favour of an over complex Joint Plan arrangements; 

Administrative Arrangements

t. The proposals in the paper were right. In particular the size of the proposed National Park Authority seemed unduly large. The composition of National Park Authorities is under consideration in the National Park Review, and the Board should consider the composition of the South Downs NPA carefully at the next decision making stage. 

Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that the Board: 

• agreed that the next phase of the consultation process with local authorities should be on the basis of the proposed boundary recommended to the Board in Annex 4 of AP02/11 and in particular invite representations on certain areas of the proposed boundary where the judgements decision was finely balanced, that is Woolmer Forest, Kirdford, Ditchling and Rowlands Castle; 
• asked for visits to be arranged to the sites, and photographic evidence provided, for members to gain as full a picture as possible before taking a final decision;
• agreed the proposed administrative arrangements for consultation, subject to a change to propose a Unitary Development Plan rather than three joint structure plans and joint mineral and waste plans;
• agreed a statutory consultation with the local authorities affected on revocation of the Sussex Downs and East Hampshire AONB designations.  

RIGHTS OF WAY IMPROVEMENT PLANS (AP02/12)

(in attendance, Jeremy Worth and Wendy Thompson)

Introducing the paper, Wendy Thompson explained that officers had a well established working relationship with DEFRA on the preparation of Rights of Way Improvement Plans which allowed the Agency to influence the statutory guidance to ensure it addressed cross-cutting issues such as tourism, health and sustainable transport. In turn this would provide more reasons for local authorities to invest in public access. Once the guidance had been approved by the Secretary of State it would be important for the Agency to ensure good quality plans were prepared and that there were mechanisms and funding in place to implement the actions proposed in the plans. 

In discussion, Board members made the following points:

a. The Agency needed a free-standing public position on the draft guidance for Rights of Way Improvement Plans issued by DEFRA for consultation, rather than solely working with DEFRA behind the scenes as recommended in AP02/12;

b. The greatest hurdle in improving rights of way was incentivising local authorities to plan and implement the necessary work. The connection between access to open space and social goods, including better public health, social inclusion and economic gain, was not well understood at the local level. The Agency should use research to demonstrate the value of rights of way to main stream service provision to local authorities; for example, the impact of the closure of rights of way during the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak last year had a significant impact on local economies; the health benefits shown by the Walking the Way to Health initiative. This research should be a priority for the Agency's resource allocation;

c. The Agency must firmly communicate to DEFRA the risk the Department would take by issuing guidance on rights of way improvement plans, thus raising public expectations of forthcoming improvement, without providing the funding for any work to be undertaken by local authorities. Local authorities did not at present have any earmarked funds for this purpose. The Agency's own rights of way survey had shown the scale of the funding backlog. DEFRA should not have imposed a duty to plan improvements to rights of way without providing the means by which the work could be undertaken. The Minister of State for the Environment (DETR) had originally accepted this and intended to make about £20 million a year available to match local authority funding. However, he could not announce his intention because such funding needed to be settled in the 2002 Spending Review; 

d. Additional funds made available for rights of way improvement must be ring fenced in some way, to prevent local authorities from using the funds to address resource shortfalls for other routine path maintenance or other priorities. The Agency would be willing to administer the funds to ensure that they would be used for the purposes for which they would be intended; 

e. Rights of Way Improvement Plans could have the same status as transport plans, that is, local authorities bid for resources from a Rights of Way Improvement fund. This would act as an incentive for local authorities to take this area of work seriously;

f. Rights of Way Improvement Plans could also be candidates for significant alternative funding, such as Lottery funding or landfill tax. Sport England this week had asked the Agency how it could encourage more bids for its funding from rural areas. Improvement plan proposals for better routes for horse-riders, cyclists and walkers should be suitable candidates for bids to Sport England; 

g. It was important to remember other interests such as land management and conservation in making improvements to rights of way, but the primary purpose must remain enabling the public to access the countryside. The emphasis must be on stand-alone creations, not trade-offs and diversions. Our comments on the draft guidance must reflect this;

h. The Rights of Way Improvement Plan guidance should take account of the need for routes alongside roads, to enable non-motorised traffic, such as children on horseback, to travel safely. The guidance should also address the needs of excluded groups, for whom signposts alone were insufficient to encourage them to access countryside. A key means to do so would be to use places where the public are made very welcome as nodes out of which rights of way lead into the countryside; 

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

• the Agency should have a public stance on the draft guidance for Rights of Way improvement plans issued by DEFRA for consultation;
• the Agency should communicate to DEFRA that the guidance must include advice on how to implement improvements to the Rights of Way network;
• The Agency should remind DEFRA of the Agency's offer to act as a grant aiding body for funds allocated for the Rights of Way Improvement Plans.  

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

The Executive informed the Board that a number of new senior staff had joined (or were about to join) the Agency:

Louise Thornhill, South West Regional Director

Crispin Moor, Head of Local Governance and Housing

Pamela Robinson, Chief Economist and Head of Research

Richard Chisholm, Head of Human Resources

DATE AND LOCATION OF NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the Countryside Agency Board would be on 16 May 2002 in John Dower House.