Breadcrumbs
Minutes of the 34th Meeting of the Countryside Agency
Present: Ewen Cameron, Chairman
Pam Warhurst
Kate Ashbrook
John Varley
Norman Glass
Tony Hams
Graham James
Alison McLean
Philip Lowe
Tayo Adebowale
Peter Fane
Martin Doughty
Frances Rowe
Janet Bradbury
In attendance: Richard Wakeford, Chief Executive
Margaret Clark, Director
Tim Lunel, Director
Marian Spain, Director
Jeremy Worth, Director
Juliet Grace, Head of Management Support Group
Chairman’s introduction
1. The Chairman welcomed Board members and, in particular, two new Board members, Norman Glass and Tayo Adebowale. The Chairman welcomed Countryside Agency staff and external observers. External observers were reminded that they would be unable to participate in Board member discussions.
Apologies for absence
2. Apologies had been received from Victoria Edwards. Janet Bradbury would arrive late.
Minutes of the meeting of 20 February 2003
3. The minutes of the 20 February Countryside Agency meeting were approved.
Minutes of the meeting of 20 February 2003 – Closed sessions
4. The minutes of the closed session papers were approved.
Matters arising
5. Board members noted a matters arising report on new national parks and noted that Defra had announced the South Downs National Park Inquiry today. The high cost of the inquiry, an estimated £2.5m, had been allocated within the Corporate Plan. This was in part to cover the legal costs associated with requiring a barrister to be available throughout proceedings. The scope, and ultimate cost, of the inquiry lay with Defra. It was understood that there would be a similar approach as adopted for the New Forest Inquiry, but it was hoped that lessons would be learned about minimising administrative costs. Defra had received 5500 representations about the South Downs designation, 70% of which had been in support of the creation of a national park.
6. The Board would be updated about Defra’s Landscape Review at the May Board meeting. Richard Wakeford reported that he had met with the Director General in Defra and had received acknowledgement that the Agency should contribute to the review.
7. The meeting noted that Richard Wakeford had attended the inter-departmental steering group relating to Haskins’ Review. The Board’s own seminar on 9 April, and other work, had superseded the discussions of the steering group.
8. The Board asked for further details of the impact of removing the transport ringfence as it appeared that, due to the success of the scheme, Rural Transport Partnerships were running out of resources. The Board would be updated at the May Board meeting.
Forest of Dean Integrated Rural Development Pilot Programme
In attendance, Liz Newton and Val Kirby.
9. Introducing the paper, Liz Newton outlined that in 2000 the Board agreed to the establishment of an Integrated Rural Development (IRD) pilot programme for the Forest of Dean. It was deemed at the time that designation as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) was not the right approach for the Forest. The IRD was initially for a three year period and it was now for the Board to review progress and agree the next steps. To date £1m had been spent on sustainable development projects in the Forest of Dean, and on the creation of an information database that would help in the planning of future work and encourage further community participation. The IRD programme had been mindful of local interests and needs. It was recognized that Foot and Mouth had seriously disrupted work in the Forest and that there was still much more work needed to be undertaken. The Board was asked to consider a further two years support for the IRD programme to ensure the right solution for the Forest was found.
10. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. During a memorable visit the Board had been impressed by the special nature and qualities of the Forest of Dean, and of the people who lived and worked there. The Forest was complex and diverse with an important cultural landscape.
b. The Board had been struck by the passion and energy of the local community. There was considerable local interest in the future of the Forest.
c. The decision to adopt an IRD for the Forest in 1999, instead of AONB designation, was imaginative and forward looking. It was clear that such a pioneering programme, which could set new national standards for landscape management and regeneration, would need longer than the two and a half years it had so far been active to achieve results. It was important it was given more time in order that lessons could be learned and applied to other areas in England.
d. The IRD programme, based on community capacity building, also required more time to ensure local community buy-in to the process.
e. The special nature of the Forest of Dean meant that AONB designation was not the most appropriate way forward. The Agency should not be rushed into revisiting its previous decision not to designate. It was more important to build on the investment made through the IRD and develop a knowledge base to properly inform a decision on whether to designate or not.
f. The Agency had adopted a consistent line on landscape issues in the Forest of Dean. The Agency had objected to removing the Special Landscape Area designation from the local plan. However, the planning inspector at the local plan inquiry had not accepted the need.
g. The Agency, as the ‘expert’ in landscape designation, was charged with deciding on AONB status. A clear message now would help to focus existing resources and allow a proper management plan for the IRD to be put in place.
h. Full advantage had not yet been taken of the IRD programme to promote and communicate its achievements locally and nationally.
i. It was difficult for the Board to fully determine whether the IRD had been a success to date. To enable the continuation of the IRD the Board would require comprehensive briefing on the lessons learned from the programme so far.
j. The Board could revisit the designation issue in the future. They would then have the detailed information, evaluation and a forward plan from the IRD to facilitate the decision. Clarity was needed on the evaluation criteria for success or failure of the IRD to enable the Board to determine whether it has worked.
11. Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:
w the Board agreed that the Forest of Dean was a special landscape due to the complex relationship between people and place. The IRD was a long process but would mean potential for the Forest to act as a national beacon for management of the landscape and sustainable development.
w local people had not yet fully bought in to the IRD programme which was partly the Agency’s fault for not communicating the initiative better. However, the Dean by Definition project had been successful at winning hearts and minds.
w the IRD would progress for a further two years. The option of AONB designation could be considered again at some point in the future.
w a ‘road map’ for the future of the Forest was needed. A delivery, or business plan for the IRD would be brought back to the Board later in 2003 with a detailed communications plan.
w criteria on measurement of effectiveness and the process of evaluation of the IRD programme would be prepared for Board approval.
Key Corporate Messages AP03/08
In attendance Marian Spain and Isobel Coy.
12. Introducing the paper, Marian Spain outlined that the Board had considered the outcome of market research in December 2002 into how the Agency was perceived: emphasis had been placed on the need for clarity of what the Agency does. The paper provided the Board with clear messages for our programmes that were designed for both staff and Board members to use.
13. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. The clarity of messages was useful for staff and Board members. In particular the statements on each programme area were considered clear and to the point.
b. For an external audience some of the language used in the messages would need to be re-visited to avoid civil service ‘speak’.
c. The messages needed to avoid emotive or evocative language and remain descriptive. Thought needed to be given to what the Agency was trying to convey. In particular, the wider welcome programme message suggested the countryside was an escape for people, rather than somewhere tangible people go to feel whole again.
d. The messages needed to correspond with the Agency’s key audiences and customers, and what the Agency itself would do to achieve the stated outcomes.
e. Corporate plan priorities would determine how each key message would be used. The messages were the starting point in achieving the outcomes in the Corporate Plan. Internal training, development, resources and feedback from external audiences would be needed to determine how effective the messages were.
f. The Agency’s key task was to communicate messages effectively. The profile of some programme areas may be promoted less than others, but every team in each programme area should be in a position to promote and communicate the messages.
14. Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:
w the Board noted progress on producing clear key messages to promote the Agency’s work.
w Work to further simplify the messages would be continued
w The messages would develop to include key audiences
w Statements on each programme message would be developed to correspond with the stated outcomes in the Corporate Plan.
Future Management of National Trails
In attendance, Jeremy Worth.
15. Introducing the paper, Jeremy Worth outlined that the paper was designed to bring the Board up to date on the results of consultation and work to establish a Trust for the future management of national trails. The Board had already agreed, in November 2001, to the establishment of a trust as the best way forward for national trails. This paper proposed different options for fundraising to establish a trust as a creditable fundraising body.
16. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. The establishment of a trust was not a case of whether, but when. The key decisions had already been taken by the Board. A defined timetable for establishment of a trust was now needed.
b. The consultation process was to understand how best to put a trust in place. Consultation responses suggested that the Agency had not sold the idea of a trust convincingly to partners. Some confusion existed amongst partners as to what the Agency was trying to achieve. The Agency needed to promote the trust as a compelling option by demonstrating its potential benefits against other options.
c. National trails were well used and well maintained. Future financial security for national trails was essential and the Agency would not relinquish its responsibilities until a creditable fundraising body was in place. The Board needed a detailed business plan, with an exit strategy, in order to determine the right approach and timetable.
d. The fundraising options provided in the paper did not appear realistic. New sources of funding would need to be secured in a competitive market. Wider fund raising options, beyond immediate partners, needed to be further investigated. For example, further work should be done to secure lottery funding for national trails that had both a local and national interest.
e. The Waterways Trust had demonstrated that projects formally funded publicly could be successfully funded from the private sector. The Board required information on the most optimistic, and least realistic, fundraising options in order to decide which approach to support.
f. There would be a risk associated with any fundraising option adopted, including using professional fundraisers.
17. Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:
w the Board agreed to continue to improve management of the current national trails whilst actively pursuing the establishment of a fund raising trust this year
w the Agency would continue to work closely with partners on establishment and operation of a trust
w legal steps are completed with the Charity Commission to enable the trust to be operational by April 2005
w an update paper would be brought back to the Board in the autumn of 2003 with an accurate business plan.
Countryside Agency Contribution to Sustainable Development
In attendance, Bob Roberts.
18. Introducing the paper, Bob Roberts outlined that the paper demonstrated how the Agency would proceed with sustainable development and would ensure that the Agency was in a position to ‘practice what we preach’ to a wider audience.
19. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. the paper underplayed what the Agency actually did already to both demonstrate and promote good practice in sustainable development, particularly in the programme areas.
b. performance indicators were very important in being able to monitor and measure effectiveness of sustainable development. These indicators were needed to measure against performance management measures.
c. as the agency for sustainable development in rural areas the Agency should be able to pioneer sustainable development principles and explore new ways to measure its implementation. For example, through grant appraisal processes.
20. Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:
w the Board noted the progress made to adopt sustainable development principles into the corporate and business planning structure.
w A more detailed review demonstrating progress would be welcomed in the future.
Open Access Legislation: Restrictions Guidance
In attendance, Roger Ward and Paul Johnson.
21. Introducing the paper, Roger Ward outlined the restrictions on open access allowed for within the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW). Some of these restrictions needed to be approved by ‘relevant authorities’. The Agency was tasked with issuing guidance on restrictions, to be approved by the Secretary of State by October 2003. The paper asked for the Board’s agreement on a process to ensure the Agency kept to the timetable on production of guidance by July 2003.
22. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. Within the existing time frame all Board members would be consulted on the detailed 150 page guidance document to be issued to the Secretary of State. The Deputy Chair and one other Board member, Tayo Adebowale, were given a mandate to make strategic input and sign the guidance off on behalf of the Agency.
b. A user-friendly version of the guidance should be developed for public use. A plain English edit of the full guidance would also be welcomed, though it was recognised that the guidance was not a simple document.
c. Discussions by the National Countryside Access Forum were reflected in the key principles for the guidance (paragraph 7).
d. It would be important to ensure that informal management techniques worked to minimise costs of restrictions.
e. The design of the guidance must reflect government regulations. The impact of such design needed to be assessed to enable the Agency to avoid implied future costs and resources of a bureaucratic nature.
23. Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:
w the Board agreed that the Agency would issue guidance on restrictions as provided for in Part 1 of the CROW Act.
w The Board agreed that, with input from all members via correspondence, Pam Warhurst and Tayo Abedowale would be involved in the work to produce the guidance and sign it off on behalf of the Agency by July 2003.
Haskin’s Review
In attendance, Carolyn Cadman
Closed paper.
Access Mapping Project
In attendance, Roger Ward
Closed paper.
Draft Rural Proofing Annual Report
In attendance, Brian Wilson
Closed paper.
Date and location of the next meeting
24. The next meeting of the Countryside Agency Board would be on 15 May 2003, John Dower House, Cheltenham.
