Breadcrumbs
Minutes of the 29th Meeting of the Countryside Agency
Present: Ewen Cameron, Chairman
Pam Warhurst
Kate Ashbrook
Janet Bradbury
Martin Doughty
Victoria Edwards
Peter Fane
Tony Hams
Philip Lowe
Sue Stapely
John Varley
In attendance: Richard Wakeford, Chief Executive
David Coleman, Director
Jon Tomlinson, Director
Sarah Sleet, Director
Fiona Hope, Head of Corporate Governance
Chairman's introduction
1. The Chairman welcomed Louise Thornhill, South West Regional Director, observing the meeting.
Apologies for absence
2. Apologies had been received from Graham James and Frances Rowe.
Minutes of the meeting of 16 May 2002
3. The minutes were approved with amendments and signed by the Chairman.
Matters Arising
4. Board members noted Matters Arising reports on:
- Rights of Way Improvement Plans (AP02/12)
- New Health Initiative, in partnership with the Department of Health and Sport England
- Spending Review 2002
- Taking forward the Report of the Policy Commission on the future of Food and Farming (AP02/13)
5. Board members noted that it would have been useful to have received an update on the progress of the Agency's role in administering the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF). The Agency has £5 million to convert into public goods before the end of the financial year, and the Board ought to be aware of how this work is proceding. Jon Tomlinson reassured the Board that staff were in place to administer the ALSF fund, and were on track to deliver.
6. Richard Wakeford informed the Board that he had seen a copy of the letter from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs containing the Spending Review settlement for DEFRA. The Settlement was positive for DEFRA, but the resources made available to the Department were contingent on thorough reviews of existing expenditure and business delivery. The Agency should expect that its activity would be subject to review, as part of the DEFRA family.
7. The Board should be reassured that the Treasury's settlement letter included a number of priorities for rural affairs expenditure that they shared, including access, voluntary sector and healthy walking. The Agency had much it could contribute in these areas and was ready to alert DEFRA to this, and also to the reviews themselves. Richard Wakeford would urge Anna Walker, Director General Land Use and Rural Affairs, that DEFRA's reviews should be as inclusive as possible, engaging Non Departmental Public Bodies, such as the Agency, as constructively as possible.
8. Richard Wakeford also reminded the Board that the Agency had only 13 months before it would need to make its input into Spending Review 2004, and the Agency should now have started to think actively about this.
9. In discussion, Board members made the following points:
a.) The strong message from DEFRA and the Treasury has been that the Agency needed to improve its evidence base to make a convincing case for resourcing public intervention into rural issues. The Agency must take this on board for when it is preparing to contribute to Spending Review 2004;
b.) The Settlement letter from the Treasury could potentially mean an entire reshaping of the DEFRA family, and therefore, the Board and Agency as a whole must be more than usually reflective about its role and purpose. The Agency should think about what legacy it would leave behind, if it were to be wrapped up in the next couple of years.
10. David Coleman noted that the Treasury was likely to continue to take a close interest in the Agency's work. Tim Allen's useful secondment to the Treasury would draw to a close in July and it was possible that the Treasury would want another secondee with Rural Affairs experience.
Taxation Measures for the Pre-budget submission AP02/19
In attendance, Brian Wilson and Kari Ward.
11. Introducing the paper, Kari Ward reminded the Board that it was invited to endorse a shortlist of potential tax changes that the Agency would recommend in the Agency's pre-budget submission in September. The Agency had employed consultants to undertake a review of potential tax changes that could assist in delivering Agency's objectives for the countryside. The consultants' report, received in April, had recommended a shortlist of 8 potential tax measures, which had been discussed with the Treasury taxation team, and with economists from DEFRA, English Nature and the Environment Agency. Partner organisations had also been engaged in a workshop in April. Overall, there was good deal of support for the consultants' findings.
12. In discussion, Board members made the following points:
Overview
a.) The work underpinning this Board paper had been very thorough, involving a complete trawl of all tax mechanisms. This had shown that there was less scope for beneficial tax measures than immediately apparent;
b.) The Budget must be rural proofed, and the Agency should ensure that its contribution to this was speedy and responsive;
c.) The Agency's taxation work should not take place in isolation from its other activities, and should be better linked into more mainstream rural assurance work following the strategic direction set by the Board;
d.) The proposed taxation measures may relate to urban as well as rural areas, so the Agency should seek partner organisations who would make the case from the urban perspective. This joint approach would help make a more powerful case;
e.) The Agency would, however, need to think carefully about promoting all these taxation measures for urban areas as it had not undertaken research and analysis into the implications for urban areas. For example, the rationale for providing business rate relief to rural businesses would be to ensure a service to rural communities where there was market failure. If applied to urban areas, the relief might simply encourage failing businesses, or alternatively provide much needed services to estates on the edge of towns and cities;
f.) It was important that any changes to taxation measures to benefit the countryside did not place a corresponding on other rural taxpayers. If these proposed changes were adopted it would be essential that they were accompanied by an adjustment to the rural: urban tax multipliers;
g.) In its preparation for the pre-budget submission in 2003, Agency should investigate the scope for taxation measures to address rural transport issues, encouraging farm diversification, and to encourage shops to stock local food;
Business Rate Relief
h.) The proposal for Business Rate Relief needed to define what constituted community facilities. Also, it should apply to businesses in communities with higher population threshholds, so that it could benefit market towns. It would be important to make clear that the relief was designed to benefit rural communities, and therefore target businesses might be based in market town that served rural communities;
Reduced VAT for repair and maintenance of community buildings
i.) The proposal for reduced VAT for repair and maintenance of community buildings would encourage sustainable development. Repair work was currently disadvantaged in comparison with new build, which was exempt from VAT. The Agency needed to work with other NDPBs and NGOs to promote this taxation measure and therefore sustainable development.
k.) Adapting community buildings to comply with the disability legislation should also be subject to the reduced VAT rate.
Tax relief on the cost of habitat/environment and access improvement
l.) It would be important to ensure that this proposed tax exemption was not abused, but was genuinely used to create public goods;
Agricultural Property Inheritance Tax conditional on sustainable land mangement and public access provision
Ewen Cameron, John Varley and Peter Fane declared an interest in the proposal on Agricultural Property Inheritance tax accordingly left the room during the discussion of this proposal.
m.) The biggest loss in the environmental quality of land was when it changed hands, and this measure could be used to mitigate against this trend. The Countryside Commission had undertaken a significant study to demonstrate that the greatest landscape deterioration also took place when it changed hands. The Agency should revisit this earlier work in making the case for this measure;
n.) This proposed measure would not readily supported by the farming community, and compliance might therefore need additional monitoring;
o.) The fact that the proposal specifically related to agricultural land only, might be perceived as unfair, in which case the Agency should be ready with a rationale.
13. Summing up the discussion, the Deputy Chair concluded that:
- the Board endorsed the four proposed potential tax changes for inclusion in the Agency's pre- Budget submission;
- the Agency should seek support from urban partners for its proposed tax measures;
- the Agency should do more work on the details of the business rate relief proposal to ensure that businesses serving rural communities but based in market towns were not excluded, and to define community facilities.
- Advice to Government about Council Tax for Second Homes (AP02/20)
In attendance, Crispin Moor.
Sue Stapely, Janet Bradbury and David Coleman declared an interest as they owned second homes, and Peter Fane that a close relative owned a second home. All four left the room for the discussion of this paper. Ewen Cameron noted for the record that one of his children owned a holiday home, but as one of the properties was let, it was subject to business rates and not, therefore, a conflict of interest.
14. Introducing the paper, Crispin Moor outlined the results of recent research undertaken on this subject for the Agency. This research indicated that there were approximately 100,000 second homes in rural England, and that if 100% Council Tax were levied by local authorities on all of these, some £40 million per annum would be raised. Mr Moor advised the Board to consider amending its advice to Government on two aspects of the Government's proposals to allow local authorities to levy full Council Tax on second homes. Firstly, he suggested that in order to distinguish the additional taxes raised from the general Council Tax pool, and to ensure that the resources raised stayed out with the central government grant system to local government, as well as generating as wide a consensus for this proposed tax extension (as a compensating measure for local communities rather than as a punitive tax), the additional tax for second homes should be set at slightly below 100 percent. Secondly, that the Government should be advised not to establish a statutory local ring fence for the use of these additional resources by local authorities. The same result, of increased local investment in meeting housing needs, could be achieved through the issuing of statutory guidance to local authorities and a requirement that separate audit reports be made on the expenditure of these additional resources.
15. In discussion, Board members made the following points:
a.) The recommendation to propose that the Council Tax on second homes should be set at slightly less than 100 percent seems sensible, as it would help trace the funds generated, which could then be specifically used for affordable housing;
b.) The council tax arrangements for second homes should be as simple as possible, and therefore be 100 percent, not slightly below, as recommended. A different rate would incur transaction charges, and was not necessary to demonstrate to local authorities that they should put affordable housing as a priority for spending. A simple approach, however, endorsed the recommendation that there be no ring fence on the use of the funds generated but statutory guidance to local authorities;
c.) It was extraordinary to learn that some local authorities did not support the increasing of council tax on second homes on grounds of the residents not making full use of local services. Using the same logic, home owners without children should be entitled to a discount on their council tax as they were not using educational services. It seemed only fair that second home owners be subject to the same rate of council tax as other home owners, as their partly occupied property reduced the availability of accommodation while reducing the potential support for local services. If people could afford a second home, they could afford to pay an additional 50 percent of council tax;
d.) Raising the second council tax due on second homes was unlikely to limit the incidence of second homes, as the marginal impact of the additional charge would not be significant;
e.) Local authorities should determine how many second homes there were in their area and publicise this, to generate public support for making changes to the system.
16. Summing up the discussion, the Chairman concluded that the Board recommendation to Government would be:
- 100 percent council tax on second homes;
- additional funds generated by the council tax should remain with local authorities to address housing related needs;
- statutory guidance to encourage local authorities to use the additional resources to address housing related needs, rather than ring fenced expenditure.
Response to Government's Regions White Paper: 'Your Region Your Choice' (AP02/22)
In attendance, Crispin Moor.
17. Introducing this paper, Crispin Moor outlined the key proposals in this White Paper and the likely key impacts firstly on rural communities, economies and the rural environment and secondly, on the Countryside Agency. He noted that the process of establishing elected regional assemblies, in those regions where local people wanted them, would be lengthy. He suggested that the Agency's response to the White Paper should be supportive of the proposals,provided that they continued to be rural proofed. However, the Agency should draw attention to a number of issues for rural areas arising from the proposed process, particularly relating to the move to unitary local authority structures in shire areas. He drew attention to the contributions which the Agency could make in advising and assisting elected regional assemblies where they were established and existing regional governance structures in other regions.
18. In discussion, Board members made the following points:
a.) The Agency should be cautious about actively supporting the introduction of regional assemblies, remaining neutral. The creation of regional assemblies would be subject to the democratic process, and so a positive expression of support would be premature;
b.) The Agency should, however, stress the importance of regional assemblies being rural proofed, and actively consider how this might be done. Clarity over rural proofing of the different layers of Government was essential to prevent the rural proofing concept from being discredited;
c.) The Agency should actively support the proposed regional assemblies as any move that brought government and government decisions closer to people would benefit rural communities;
d.) The proposals for regional assemblies could mean a reduced voice for rural areas. It would be important, therefore, for the Agency to work to make the Rural Affairs Forum for England a more effective body, making a differential input to the regions;
e.) The proposals in the Government's consultation paper were very timid, in that the elected bodies would still be funded from Westminster, and little additional decision making power would shift to the regions under the new arrangements. Indeed, the proposals appeared to be aimed at democratising existing regional bodies, such as Rural Development Agencies. Decision making power ought to be cascading from Westminster to the regions, rather than moving up the chain from local authorities to regions;
f.) The trend towards regional government was unmistakeable, and the Agency should embrace this trend, both to create a voice for itself on the regional stage, and prevent the new bodies from being dominated by urban priorities only;
g.) The Agency needed to think hard about its response to regional government, and should ask itself whether its regional structure would be appropriate. The Agency should consider strengthening its regional decision making capability. Regional Board members should meet soon and frequently in order to discuss the Agency's approach to growing regionalism;
h.) Paragraph 4.11 and 4.12 of the White Paper proposed that elected assemblies would be 'encouraged to produce an 'overarching' strategy...' which would '...act as the sustainable development framework for the region...'. However, the proposed regional assemblies should not merely be encouraged to have strategies for sustainable development, they should be obliged to do so.
18. Summing up the discussion, the Chairman concluded that the Agency:
- would remain neutral on whether elected regional assemblies should be established or not, but actively engage in the debate about the nature of these proposed bodies, arguing strongly for them to be rural proofed;
- should respond to the Regions White Paper drawing attention to the rural dimension of the proposals, as recommended.
- DEFRA Review of English National Parks - Policy, Governance and Funding AP02/21
In attendance, John Butterfield.
19. Introducing the paper, John Butterfield reminded the Board that DEFRA had undertaken a review of English National Parks policy, governance, sponsorship and resources in the summer of 2001. The Agency had been consulted during the Review. The Review had now published its final report, and the Board were now invited to direct the Agency's response to it, and consider a new programme of Agency activity to deliver some of the Review's outputs. In addition to the Agency's existing monitoring and reporting roles, it had been asked to undertake new research covering the demand for, and carrying capacity of new forms of recreation in National Parks, tourism in National Parks, the state of the park indicators, and ways to streamline boundary revision processes. The Agency had also been asked to review existing, or produce new guidance on National Park management planning, sustainable tourism, consultation with local communities, and selection and appointment of National Park Authority (NPA) members. At a more general level, the Agency had been asked to support the NPAs in identifying and promulgating good practice examples of appropriate sustainable development, to work with NPAs to manage new rights of way access to open country, to give a higher priority to promoting understanding of NPs, to work with DEFRA to encourage NPAs to ensure members attend induction training, and develop and strengthen partnership working with NPAs.
20. In discussion, Board members made the following points:
a.) The Review report had conveyed the very welcome message that the National Parks were national, rather than local, assets;
b.) It was regrettable that the Review report did not support the formal appraisal of National Park Authority members;
c.) The schemes of delegation for development control casework was not a good idea and the Agency should not, therefore, submit to DEFRA raising this issue;
d.) The Agency should continue to call for National Parks to be funded to the level recommended in the Edwards report, and for long term funding security for National Parks;
e.) There were significant risks to the Agency not taking positive action after the Review, as highlighted by the paper. Conversely, the follow up work from the Review presented a good opportunity for the Agency to renew and strengthen its relationships with National Parks, which had apparently become a little distant;
f.) The Agency's relationship with the Association of National Parks Authorities was closer than ever, although there was still scope for further improvement.
g.) The National Parks needed to act more collectively to enable them to punch their weight; facilitating this collaboration was a role for ANPA;
h.) The Review report had not encouraged National Parks to make sustainable development an objective of all their activities, which was disappointing, but it had grasped the importance of sustainable tourism, which was encouraging. The National Parks had a long way to go on their journey towards sustainable development, but this was perhaps a symptom of Government as a whole needing to modernise so that it looked strategically at sustainable development;
i.) It would not be wise for the Agency to reiterate its early recommendations to the Review that had not been taken on board, as this could be antagonistic. Rather, the Agency should concentrate now on new issues, such as the implications for the National Park of the CRoW Act, and the Edwards report level of funding;
j.) The Review report signified a very welcome shift in Government's approach to the National Parks, that the Parks should be used as a vehicle for a variety of public goods. The Agency should strongly support this direction of travel.
k.)The National Parks were the one aspect of the countryside that were inundated with government organisations and professionals. The Agency should clearly determine its role in adding value to National Parks, rather than competing for space, at the expense of the rest of the countryside. The Agency had a lot of knowledge and experience in working with National Parks, and sharing these was how it could add most value;
l.) It would be useful for the Board to see how the recommendations of the Review report had a impact on the two new National Parks
21. Summing up the discussion, the Chairman concluded that the Board:
- approved the new recommended programme of Agency activity to deliver review outputs;
- approved the proposed submission to DEFRA on:
- - agreed programmes of work to reflect the national interest;
- - the consideration that National Parks be able to borrow money;
- - national targets for external funding;
- - the cost of implementing CRoW be taken into account in funding allocations;
- increasing national park funding towards the level calculated by the Edwards report;
- did not approve the proposed submission to DEFRA on:
- - the scope for schemes of delegation for development control casework;
- - the consideration that National Parks become NDPBs.
Date and location of the next meeting
22. The next meeting of the Countryside Agency Board would be on 17 September 2002, Slaley Hall, Hexham.
.Annex
Priorities for Spending and Saving in 2003/04 Corporate Plan AP02/22
(Closed session under the Code of Practice to Access to Government Information, Exemption Internal Discussion and Advice)
The Board agreed the following priorities for expenditure in the Corporate Plan period 2003/04 - 2005/06. 1 was the Board's top priority.
1. More rural assurance and better dissemination of messages
2. Improve regional influencing capacity
3. Policy and practice for urban fringe
4. Develop evidence base for rural assurance of economic programmes
5. Re-engineer business to maximise resources to the front line
6. Countryside and health connections
7. New approaches to young people
8. Develop web capability
9. Exploit countryside capital for sustainable development
10. New approaches to voluntary action
11. Rural Tourism Strategy
The Board instructed the Executive to bid for further resources in DEFRA's post 2002 Spending Review divvy-up to fund these priorities, and also prepare to reprioritise the baseline if additional resources were not forthcoming.
The Board agreed the following areas to withdraw from if necessary to afford new priorities. 1 equalled first to be cut.
1. Community Forest pilots
1. REACT programme
3. DEFRA not Agency to lead on local foods
4. Less on activities not benefitting customers
