Natural England

Minutes of the 31st Meeting of the Countryside Agency

Present: Ewen Cameron, Chairman

Pam Warhurst

Kate Ashbrook

Janet Bradbury

Martin Doughty

Victoria Edwards

Tony Hams

Graham James

Alison McLean

Frances Rowe

Sue Stapely

Luna Frank-Riley

In attendance: Richard Wakeford, Chief Executive

Margaret Clark, Director

David Coleman, Director

Jon Tomlinson, Director

Sarah Sleet, Director

Isobel Coy, Head of Media and Parliamentary Affairs

Juliet Grace, Head of Management Support Group

Chairman's introduction

1. The Chairman welcomed Countryside Agency staff and members of the public in both John Dower House and those joining the meeting via video-link from West Sussex County Council.

2. The Chairman said that this was David Coleman's last attendance as a Director for the Agency. He thanked David for his work and his dedication. 

Apologies for absence

3. Apologies had been received from Peter Fane, John Varley and Philip Lowe.

Minutes of the meeting of 18 July 2002

4. The minutes were approved.

Matters arising

5. Board members noted matters arising reports on:

• Countryside Agency response to the national Lottery Review
• Update on DEFRA's strategy for sustainable farming and food, and CAP reform (AP02/13)  

6. The Board noted there was no clear interpretation of the consequences of the recent agreement between the French and German Presidents for the mid term review of CAP. 

7. The meeting considered the tabled update papers on the Country Code and a rural housing policy statement. The Board noted the delay to the timetable for the new Country Code and that the Queen's Speech had announced changes to council tax on second homes.

A South Downs National Park: designation order and advice to Government AP02/33

In attendance, Marian Spain, David Thompson and Jane Cecil.

8. Marian Spain introduced the paper and reminded the Board that the proposed designation order and advice to Government on a South Downs National Park was the culmination of two and a half years work and four papers previously considered by the Board. Marian Spain thanked, on behalf of the Agency, the many members of the public and local and regional organisations, including the Sussex Downs Conservation Board and East Hampshire Joint Advisory Committee who have given their support, views and carried out work on behalf of the Agency. Marian Spain then explained that the decision now was whether the Board should make a designation order for a South Downs National Park, under their executive powers within the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. In addition, and consequential to this, a decision would be needed by the Board to de-designate the two AONBs. Also, given the Agency's role to advise on the administration of national parks, and as requested by the Minister, the Board would need to decide on whether a National Park Authority would be the most appropriate way forward for the South Downs.

9. Errata to the Board paper were recorded as follows - 

• Page 1, 1st Recommendation to read - designation 'order'.
• Page 1, 3rd Recommendation to read - National Park 'Authority'.
• Page 1, Staff and financial to read - £2.5m
• Page 3, paragraph 5, final sentence to read - Beddingham
• Page 3, paragraph 6 to read - 60 revisions
• Page 5, paragraph 16 to clarify - no NPA has a UDP
• Page 6, paragraph 23 to read - £2.5m  

10. The Chairman outlined the items the Board would discuss to enable them to reach a decision. These were - 

• Boundary issues in relation to the key criteria of natural beauty and opportunities for outdoor recreation (Annex 1 and 2 in detail);
• Desirability of the creation of a national park in the light of the Board's conclusions on the boundary (Annex 3 in detail);
• De-designation of two AONBs (Annex 5 and 6 in detail), if a national park designation order is confirmed;
• Administration (Annex 7, 8, 9 & 10 in detail); and
• Cost implications.  

11. The Chairman asked Board and Executive members of the Agency to register any interests they may have with the South Downs. These were recorded as - 

• Ewen Cameron (Chairman) - family member owned a property in the area
• Richard Wakeford (Chief Executive) - family member owned a property in the area
• Kate Ashbrook - currently involved in litigation procedures with East Sussex County Council, and employed by an organisation campaigning for a South Downs National Park  

Board members did not consider that these registered interests would impinge on their decisions.

12. In discussion, Board members made the following points:

a. The work that had been put into the process of designation and advice had been thorough and the Board were satisfied with the detail and the level of consideration given to the implications for the South Downs area.

b. The many organisations, interest groups and individuals involved in the consultation process were thanked for their invaluable input.

13. Boundary issues

The Chairman reminded the meeting that it was important to focus on checking that the methodology and approach used by officers in defining the recommended boundary was correct and in line with the Agency's agreed interpretation of the statutory criteria. David Thompson introduced the boundary maps to the meeting and explained that 60 revisions were recommended following the statutory consultation. Some amendments were minor, but others were significant. Each map with an amendment was then looked at in turn and members were able to ask questions.

Sections A and B  had minor amendments which were agreed.

Map 5, Section C

An addition in the West Tisted area to include the continuation of the chalk ridge as far as, but not including, the village of West Tisted was agreed. The land to the east of the village was not considered to meet the natural beauty criteria on the basis of weak unifying links to the chalk downs. 

Map 7, Section C

The deletion should be read as an addition on the edge of the village of East Worldham

Maps 9, 10, 10a, Section E

A significant addition which was visited during a tour by Board Members in October 2002. It was agreed that although there is restricted access to parts of Woolmer Forest due to its use as a military firing range, the recreational experience gained when access is available merits inclusion. 

Map 11, Section E

A minor deletion to avoid splitting the settlement.

Maps 12 & 13, Section G

An addition at Shillinglee Ponds, but not including the wider area around Plaistow and Kirdford. This area was also visited during the tour by Board Members and it was agreed that the unifying links with the chalk escarpment were not strong.

Maps 18 & 19, Section K

There had been mixed responses from the local authorities to the inclusion of Steyning and the exclusion of Upper Beeding. The meeting considered the need for consistency in the application of the criteria to the settlement of Upper Beeding and determined that it would not be consistent to include it.

Map 19, Section K

Tottington Wood was considered to have been heavily influenced in the north by industrial developments and therefore the boundary has been pulled south to exclude this part of the wood. 

Map 20, Section K

Minor deletions were noted due to urban encroachment on the edge of Hurstpierpoint, Hassocks and Keymer.

Maps 21 and 21a, Section K

New evidence had come forward from the statutory consultation of a significant amount of existing common land to the north of the settlement of Ditchling, also visited on a tour by Board Members in October 2002. This was considered to be an important historical link to the South Downs and was therefore included. The meeting discussed the exclusion of part of Ditchling Common country park, despite its SSSI status. However, the country park is no longer common land and is considered urbanised in character and therefore it was considered that it did not meet the natural beauty criteria.

Maps 21 & 22, Section K

It was noted that an area has been excluded to ensure consistency in the application of criteria, as the views and connections to the chalk escarpment in this area were not considered strong.

Map 22, Section L

Minor deletions and an addition were noted.

Map 24, Section M

A minor addition was included to prevent splitting the settlement of Glynde and a minor deletion to prevent the splitting of Selmeston.

Maps 28 & 29, Section P

To note one small inclusion and one small deletion at North Seaford due to housing development allocated within the local plan, which is on the verge of adoption.

Map 30, Section P

Case for a small inclusion of land at Bullock Down, north of Peacehaven which is within the existing AONB. Members discussed the exclusion of Telscombe Cliffs which had received many comments during the consultation exercise, including comments from all tiers of local authorities in the area and from a large number of individuals and organisations who objected to its proposed de-designation. It was considered not to meet the criteria, being land which had been further developed and degraded since AONB designation, located between two urban settlements and strongly influenced by the A259. In its current state it was considered that it did not meet the criteria. The exclusion and subsequent de-designation of Coombe Farm on the edge of Saltdean was accepted due to its development and degradation since AONB designation.

Map 31, Section P

Minor deletions of properties to ensure the settlement of Rottingdean was not split.

Map 32, Section P

Excluded area of proposed community stadium at Falmer due to allocation for development in Brighton Local Plan.

Map 33, Section P

Coney Hill on northern urban fringe of Brighton was considered, after deliberation, to meet the criteria. The meeting also considered the exclusion of a strip of land on the western edge of Hollingbury. It was accepted that the site was important local amenity land but that it did not meet the criteria to be in a national park. 

Map 35, Section P

Land north of Beeches Avenue, Worthing, is to be excluded due to its allocation for housing development in the draft local plan which is on the verge of adoption.

Map 36 and 37, Section Q

Titnore Wood is included in its entirety as the land is now not proposed for development within the local plan.

Map 38, Section R

The exclusion of the preferred route for the proposed Arundel bypass is strongly supported by all tiers of relevant local authorities. A multi-modal study has recommended the building of the bypass though a final decision on this will not be made by the Minister until January or February 2003. The preferred route is also protected in the adopted Arun local plan. The recommended boundary had been altered to exclude this development on the basis that, if the road were constructed, as is highly likely, the area affected will no longer meet the statutory criteria. Members discussed this in relation to the Agency's approach to exclude allocated development on the edge of a national park boundary. Concern was voiced about exclusion on the grounds that if the final approval for the bypass was not granted there would be no recourse to then include the land within the boundary. Some members felt that it would be better to include the land and then determine or redefine the boundary after a final decision had been reached on the bypass. The meeting also discussed the potential dilemma for the Government if the Agency was to include the area in question. The Agency could then potentially be in a position of having to defend a national park designation and oppose a road building scheme. Marian Spain reminded the meeting that the Board had previously decided in April 2002 that should the multi-modal study include the road it should be excluded, as this was the only reason that the status of the road in the local plan was in question. The meeting concluded that the area should be excluded, in line with the Agency's policy. Should the status of the road change again (for example if Ministers did not accept the findings of the multi modal study) a further report would be brought to the Board. This would allow them to consider whether to ask the Secretary of State to vary the boundary here before confirmation of the Order. 

Map 39, Section S

The issue to consider in this area was whether Slindon Common was part of the same settlement as Slindon. It was agreed that the two areas should, on balance, be considered as one settlement and on that basis Slindon Common was included.

Map 41, Section T

There had been arguments to include more land to the west of Chichester and also to exclude the addition to the AONB in this area around West Ashling. On balance, it was agreed that the recommended boundary in this area was correct and revisions were not deemed to be necessary.

Maps 42 and 43, Section U

The settlement and surrounding woodland at Rowlands Castle, visited on a tour of Board Members in October 2002, was not considered of high enough quality to include.

Map 44, Section U

The village of Catherington was considered too heavily influenced by urban development and therefore remained excluded.

Maps 47 and 48, Section W

All of the relevant local authorities in this area argued to include the Moors Nature Reserve (SSSI), Bishops Waltham. The decision was to exclude it as the land between the reserve and the boundary had been degraded and no clear link between the two was achievable.

14. Summing up the discussion, the Chairman concluded that:

• the Board supported the amendments to the boundary maps as currently defined and thanked the officers for their detailed and thorough work. 
• agreed unanimously that the area recommended met the statutory criteria of natural beauty and opportunities for open air recreation
• confirmed that a further report should be brought to the Board if there is any material change in the status of the Arundel bypass.  

15. Desirability

Marian Spain introduced the recommendation to make a Designation Order for the South Downs National Park. The Board having agreed that the area within the boundary met the statutory criteria now needed to decide whether it was desirable to designate, in line with its policy. Some local authorities had questioned whether this is appropriate for the area. Having considered the issues set out in the paper, Members agreed unanimously to make the Designation Order.

16. De-designation of Sussex Downs and East Hampshire AONBs

The meeting discussed the implications of de-designating the two current AONBs that mostly fall within the recommended national park boundary. They agreed that those small areas of AONB left out of the national park did not meet the criteria for AONB designation. However, de-designation of these small areas of AONB should not automatically result in these areas being open to development. There would be a need for the local authorities to continue to provide protection where areas had local amenity value. Members agreed therefore to make Revocation Orders for the de-designation of the two AONBs, to be confirmed by the Secretary of State should the national park designation order be confirmed.

17. Administration

Jane Cecil introduced this topic. Work, through topic groups and seminars has identified the main issues that effect the Downs. They point to a need for a future South Downs National Park Authority to work in particular ways, but nothing had emerged that pointed to the need for special arrangements. The recommendation was therefore to advise that a South Downs National park Authority should be established under the Environment Act 1995. Those issues which would need attention by a national park authority were shown in Annex 10.

18. In discussion Board members made the following points:

a. The South Downs is different from other existing national parks but only in scale. There were no issues that required special arrangements. 

b. There was a communications issue at a local level where the perception was that the Agency would itself manage the national park. The Agency is an advisory body only for all national parks and close working with a new national park authority would be needed to instil this message.

c. Annex 10. A reference to link the consultation processes with existing community strategies is important to avoid consultation fatigue.

d. Annex 10. The changes to the planning system would be monitored.

19. Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:

• the Agency should advise the Secretary of State that a South Downs National Park Authority should be established under the Environment Act 1995, and that no special additional measures are needed to secure national park purposes.  

20. Costs

a. Concern was voiced about the costs incurred by the Agency during the New Forest public inquiry and the impact on the Agency's budget. The public inquiry for the South Downs was expected to be much longer than that for the New Forest. If cost implications for the South Downs were considered too high the Board could delay designation.

b. Advice should be given to DEFRA on the likely costs of the inquiry. The Board's view, that the process of designation had been robust and thorough, should also be communicated. The public inquiry should not look to unpick all the good work completed to date, and costs to be incurred should represent a proper use of public money. 

c. Local groups and local authorities in the South Downs should be encouraged to write to DEFRA to call for careful use of money for public inquiry costs and that mechanisms should be sought that would not result in an adversarial approach where some consensus had already been reached.

Fringe benefits AP02/34

In attendance, Andy Gale.

21. Introducing the paper, Andy Gale outlined the Agency's previous investment to improve the quality and recreational opportunities of the urban fringe. The proposed new programme of work was a logical next step to ensure lasting and sustainable improvements to the urban fringe. It cut across a number of the Agency's other areas of work including health and social inclusion, sustainability, liveability and rural diversification. The programme would also support links between the objectives of the rural and urban White Papers. The Agency had been working in the right direction by supporting a number of initiatives for the urban fringe and by working with a number of different partners. There was still a lot the Agency could do. This would be best achieved through developing an evidence base about the state of the urban fringe, and working with partners and the two main government departments - Office of Deputy Prime Minister and DEFRA - to prepare a bid for the 2004 Spending Review.

22. In discussion Board members made the following points:

a. This was an exciting area of work in which the Agency had a lot of expertise and knowledge. The urban fringe was however complex and wide reaching. The Agency's future involvement would need to be clearly focused, leading to a manageable programme so that the Agency could add clear value.

b. The urban fringe would continue to be an important area of work for the Agency as this was how the majority of people first obtained access to the countryside.

c. An urban fringe programme would link closely with a number of government aspirations including social exclusion and environmental improvement. 

d. A convincing evidence base would be essential to strengthen the position of the Agency in this field and to demonstrate the innovative role the Agency could continue to play. It would be important to define the urban fringe. Then, we should commission a full evaluation of the sustainability of urban fringe programmes which the Agency had been involved in to date. That evaluation would determine what types of programmes had not been effective or sustainable for the urban fringe. This would help to identify the key priorities, for all partners.

e. An urban fringe programme would require significant expenditure to address existing problems with the physical fabric and access to it by large numbers of people.

f. Partners in an urban fringe programme would include community based groups who can represent the local population and disadvantaged and minority groups. It would be important to streamline the programme to ensure these groups were fully involved and to determine which partner organisations would be best to lead. The Agency would be best to act in an influencing, collaborating and facilitating role rather than being the main funder of programmes.

g. To allow time to influence a bid for the 2004 Spending Review, an action plan would need to be ready early. This would be best developed through a Board seminar to produce a vision for the urban fringe and analysis of the evidence base by spring 2003. 

23. Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:

• there was a legitimate role for the Agency in an urban fringe programme ;
• a new vision and action plan, developed in partnership, would be prepared;
• work would begin on preparation for a bid to the 2004 Spending Review.  

Market Towns - interim evaluation and future direction AP02/35

In attendance, John Burns

24. Introducing the paper, John Burns reminded Board members of how the Market Towns programme had been developed. He summarised the success the programme had achieved to date. Evaluation of the programme at the half way stage of the whole programme had concentrated on the healthcheck process, the support provided by the Agency to market town partnerships and the market town's learning network. He highlighted areas for improvement, particularly the need to develop a better understanding of the complexity of market towns and their role for rural communities. The next stage of the market towns programme, the identification of beacon towns, was an opportunity to work more closely with local partnerships and to test integrated solutions. 

25. In discussion Board members made the following points:

a. The Market Towns programme was an important and very successful programme. The Agency should look to communicate the achievements to a wide audience.

b. The evaluation provided a snapshot of what the programme had achieved. All the indications were that the Agency would exceed all the targets originally set within the Rural White Paper (RWP).

c. The key outcome for the programme should be the regeneration of market towns. Because the Agency only took the process so far a full evaluation would need to cover the work of other organisations. A succession or exit strategy would be needed to give the Agency time to influence other funders and to consider future support mechanisms for town partnerships.

d. The Agency should not look to withdraw its involvement in the programme, though there should be clarity in the Agency's continuing role. The beacon towns would provide opportunity for further in-depth research, evaluation and robust analysis. However, evaluation of all towns, and their hinterlands, should be continued with a view to understanding why some towns have found the healthcheck process difficult.

e. The title 'beacon town' was used in the RWP. However the title could be counter-productive as it suggested an approach through which towns learned from those beacons which had already achieved. The decision on beacon towns should, in part, be based on the range of issues coming out of the healthcheck process and not whether the town partnership had been successful or not.

f. The selection process for towns with beacon status needed to be rigorous. Those towns in most need of regeneration should be represented. The possibility of including towns which had not yet undertaken the healthcheck process should be considered. In addition, the Agency needed to ensure that all towns understood the process and how this helped formulate national policy decisions.

g. Further research would be important to establish the ten top challenges for regeneration of all market towns. 

h. Flexibility in the regional application of the market towns programme would continue to be important. 

i. The learning network for market town partnerships had been slow to develop but was now considered an invaluable use of technology for sharing ideas, problems and solutions between towns undertaking healthchecks.

26. Summing up the discussion, the Chairman concluded that:

• the Board noted and endorsed the success of the market towns healthchecks;
• the Agency should promote the success of the market towns programme as widely as possible and strongly encourage the continued use of the healthcheck by others, particularly the regional development agencies;
• evaluation was critical for the development of future policy and should continue on the towns currently involved in the programme, including full evaluation of the impact on the wider hinterland of each town;
• beacon towns were a Rural White Paper commitment for the Agency which would be fulfilled. The range of lessons that needed to be learnt from the programme should have a bearing on those towns chosen for beacon status;
• the Agency should ensure that, in addition to national policy formulation, the process also informed and shaped regional policy development and delivery.  

Countryside capital programme: future direction AP02/36

In attendance, Liz Newton.

27. Introducing the paper, Liz Newton explained that the context within which the countryside capital programme had first developed had now changed dramatically. This was in part due to the foot and mouth outbreak and the subsequent publication of the Curry report. The Agency believed that the original ideas for an integrated approach to land management, as described in the Agency's Strategy, were still powerful and that the Agency intended to see all existing work commitments fulfilled. It was recognised, though, that it was timely and important to review the programme to assess what had been achieved and how the programme could evolve. The Eat the View initiative had stimulated much activity on the part of others, though there was still much to achieve with consumers. Land Management Initiatives (LMIs) were being refocused and the Agency was working closely with DEFRA to promote the lessons learnt. Planned work in tourism initiatives was to be reviewed following the recent merger of the English Tourism Council and the British Tourism Authority.

28. In discussion Board members made the following points:

a. the concept of countryside capital was important as it helped to identify the value of the countryside as an economic resource;

b. the connection between sustainable land management and consumer choice was one that was often missed. The Agency should encourage increased understanding of the role consumers can play;

c. tourism was a complex industry in which the Agency, and other organisations whose job it was to protect the English landscape, were struggling to see a clear role for themselves. A working party of key partner organisations, including the Association of National Park Authorities and the Forestry Commission, would be welcome to identify tangible actions that could be taken forward;

d. each Regional Development Agency was developing groups to consider the best approach to tourism at a regional level. It might be appropriate for the Agency to work with these groups;

e. the work undertaken on LMIs had been groundbreaking and invaluable to the understanding of sustainable land management practices. This work would continue to be useful to both the Agency and DEFRA and should not be lost. The Agency's withdrawal from LMIs should be done hand in hand with good communication about the Agency's change of focus to the teams on the ground. The aim should be to continue to learn as much as possible from the LMIs while the Agency was still involved;

f. the Agency would work with the National Farmers Union on accreditation schemes for products that have been produced with "eat the view" values. It was recognised that producers might be resistant to such schemes and that funding streams might result in efforts being diverted away from accreditation for environmentally sensitive produce.

29. Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:

• the Eat the View programme would be completed by March 2005;
• LMI priorities were agreed, and as much as possible should be learnt from the remaining time the Agency was involved;
• future tourism work for the Agency should focus on where the Agency could add value. A watching brief should be maintained on the developments by RDAs;
• the concepts behind countryside capital needed further exploration and clarity for wider dissemination.  

Progress towards the delivery of corporate plan objectives for the current year - second quarter report AP02/37

In attendance, Fiona Hope.

30. Introducing the paper, Fiona Hope said that the last quarterly report showed good progress towards the achievement of corporate plan goals for the year. The Executive had taken decisions to make some modest redistributions of resource as described in the paper.

31. In discussion Board members made the following points:

a. ringfencing by DEFRA on transport money makes spend more complicated and enforces extra monitoring by Agency staff. Reprofiling of the transport budget was required;

b. there was underspend on transport, particularly on the parish transport budget, which clearly needed further investigation. It seemed more beneficial in terms of outcomes to concentrate on Rural Transport Partnerships within the total transport budget.

32. Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:

• the Board had noted with approval the decisions of the Executive to redistribute the resource.  

Date and location of the next meeting

33. The next meeting of the Countryside Agency Board would be on 14 November 2002, John Dower House, Cheltenham.