Natural England

Minutes of 36th Meeting of Countryside Agency

Present:                        

Ewen Cameron, Chairman 
Pam Warhurst
Kate Ashbrook
Norman Glass
Tony Hams
Alison McLean
Philip Lowe
Tayo Adebowale
Peter Fane
Martin Doughty
Frances Rowe
Janet Bradbury
Victoria Edwards
Graham James
John Varley

In attendance:              

Richard Wakeford, Chief Executive
Margaret Clark, Director
Tim Lunel, Director
Sarah Sleet, Director
Graham Cory, Defra
Juliet Grace, Head of Management Support Group

Chairman’s introduction

1.   The Chairman welcomed Countryside Agency staff and external observers.  

Apologies for absence

2.   There were no apologies for absence.

Minutes of the meeting of 15 May 2003

3.   The minutes of the 15 May Countryside Agency meeting were approved.

Minutes of the meeting of 15 May 2003 – Closed sessions

4.   The minutes of the closed session papers were approved.

Chief Executive’s report and matters arising

5.   The Deputy Chair reiterated the need for the minutes of each National Countryside Access Forum (NCAF) meeting to be attached to Board minutes in future.   She updated Board members about NCAF’s recommendation to the Agency that the costs associated with test cases to support the Discovering Lost Ways project should be met by the Agency.   Agency officers were currently considering this proposition in the light of legal costs.

6.   Board members noted that three of the four appeals received to date on open access mapping land had been conceded by the Agency.   Concern was expressed about the reputational risk to the Agency if the original position adopted on each piece of land was not supported through the appeals process.   It was noted that the Project Board itself had looked at the appeals process and the credibility of the Agency if the process was not right.   The Chief Executive explained that the methodology adopted for appeals would mean that the Agency would inevitably concede a number of appeals.   Detailed information was gathered once an appeal was received and it was preferable to concede, where the defence was thin, rather than open the Agency up to associated costs.   In addition the state of the land in question might have changed, for example heathland may have reverted to woodland which was not considered open access land.   The Agency would not contest any cases that were deemed valid.   A high percentage of appeals would therefore be conceded, but as the Agency would be making decisions on better facts it would maintain a high reputation.   Most importantly the Agency would not want to lose on any appeals that it chose to defend.   The project board was aware of the methodology for the appeals process, but Defra had not yet issued guidance to the Planning Inspectorate Agency.   The Chief Executive would report back to Board members about the guidance issued.   The first full batch of appeals and subsequent decisions by the inspector should be more representative of the appeals process.

7.   The Board would be sent copy of the rural tourism business plan to provide further information about the Agency’s role, and that of VisitBritain, on the elements of the Agency and English Tourism Council’s partnership project.

8.   The Board noted that more work was needed on PPS7 and over the summer the Agency would focus on the draft which was due out for consultation shortly.   At the same time PPS22 was being updated and was likely to adopt a radical approach to renewable energy.   A careful, but positive, eye should be kept on PPS22 developments by the Agency.

9.   The meeting noted that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s Communities Plan Pathfinders offered a real opportunity for the Agency to develop its own thinking and to influence community plans by demonstrating the healthcheck process used in the Market Town initiative.   The business plan possibly did not currently reflect this opportunity.   The relevant extract of the business plan would be sent to Board members for their information.

10.   Board members noted that there had been a South Downs National Park boundary issue at Arundel.   As a result the Agency should look at the option of a variation order.   The Chief Executive would report back to the Board at the next meeting.

Managing Open Access Land  

In attendance, Bob Roberts and Paul Mutch.

11.   Introducing the paper, Bob Roberts said that the paper focused on implementing recommendations made by NCAF to the Agency for the on-going management of open access land.   NCAF had reached unanimous agreement that active management of open access land was critical to the successful implementation of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW).   The need for resources to ensure effective management had been part of the former Countryside Commission’s response to Government when the idea had first been raised.   The case had been accepted by the Minister at the time, although he could not commit to any particular sum in advance of the Spending Review 2002.

12.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   This was a very important Board paper.   The reality of CROW was that management of open access land required substantial investments in management on the ground to ensure its success.   It was highly significant that NCAF’s agreement to the case for a grant scheme had been unanimous.  

b.   The Board needed to be confident about the estimated costs in order for the Agency to recommend ways forward to Defra.   It was therefore important to take into account the National Parks’ own experience of the resources required to manage existing open access land.    Yet there was evidence that the Parks were not even currently sharing the methodology amongst themselves.   The Forestry Commission also had relevant experience.

c.   The costs estimated by the Local Government Association (LGA) in ENTEC 2000 needed to be checked to ensure they had been modified to account for the open access land within metropolitan authorities.   The draft letter from Defra about managing access would need to be sent to all metropolitan authorities.

d.   There was an assumption that there was a knowledge base of good practice in management of open access land.   To ensure consensus of approach it was important for the Agency to draw together best practice to offer to access authorities.   The Association of National Park Authorities would be encouraged to share and spread good practice.   The Agency’s coordinating role in promoting good practice needed to be stated.   Once published, best practice would be circulated to all access authorities.

e.   There would be financial savings made on restrictions and closures by the proposed grant scheme.   The business case for the grant should reflect that.

f.   The limit of the grant scheme to a five year period set a realistic timetable for an exit strategy if access authorities could be informed now about what money would be available to them.   The draft letter from Defra should be amended to inform access authorities and local access forums so they could plan priorities in spending.   But it was hard to see why the grants had to be time limited in that way.   The burdens of management would continue beyond five years.

g.   Access authorities would deliver the grants to landowners, not the Agency.   Bids from access authorities would need to be backed with support from the local access forum (LAF), to ensure proper reflection of local priorities.

h.   It was extremely difficult for access authorities to commit to spend five years ahead, particularly in those regions dealing with the establishment of regional assemblies.    This needed to be taken into consideration when drawing up an exit strategy for the Agency.   NCAF had recommended that the Agency’s presence and involvement was most critical over a 2-5 year period in pushing forward good management.  

i.    The longer term budget needed by access authorities was not clear.   Research was needed now to identify any other potential sources of funding for longer term management, including agri-environment schemes.  

j.   If Defra were not able to provide additional resources to pay for the management of grants, the Agency had no contingency plan.   It would be necessary to continue to work with local authorities and landowners, but it was unclear how much they would do, without incentive, to deliver the management needed.   The result may well be more closures of land than desirable, in order to protect nature conservation interests threatened in the absence of a management agreement

k.   As with an exit strategy, evaluation of the proposed grant scheme needed to be in place from day one and should include evaluation of the customer experience.

13.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:

w          the Board had supported the principles of management of open access land in the paper and the sense of urgency in the report;
w          the Chief Executive should put the case for the new grant scheme to Defra’s Director General and press for an early decision;
w          meanwhile more detailed work was required with local authority partners and National Parks on costs;
w          an exit strategy and evaluation strategy was needed before the grant scheme became operational.

2004 Spending Review AP03/22

In attendance, Brian Wilson.

14.   Introducing the paper, Brian Wilson explained that the paper had been developed following the Board’s seminar in May when 24 original items to bid for had been considered.   The Board had developed five criteria to assess which of these items should be taken forward in a bid to the Spending Review 2004 (SR2004).   Fourteen of the items had scored highly against the criteria and were listed in Annex 2.   Defra had provided a strong steer on the need to package bids strategically and this process had begun (paragraph 8).   The range of items included some where there was a proposed role for the Agency in demonstration, implementation or promotion.   Where a major role had been identified for the Agency this could require pulling back from other work to ensure there was capacity.   The process would entail working closely with Defra.   By the end of July the ideas would need to be ready to sell to other departments.   The September Board meeting would be provided with the draft submission to comment on. 

15.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   Close working with Defra made any bid to the SR2004 more likely to be successful.   Issues that cut across different departments had more chance of support than more narrowly focused work.  

b.   Fourteen items was excessive.   It was necessary to package the existing ideas into major themes.   Capacity building or the rural/urban fringe were themes within which to link many items together into a coherent package.

c.   Where a package was developed it might be necessary to secure buy-in from many different departments.   It was easier to sell an idea that was specific to the objectives of one department.   If a package was developed the potential pitfalls of buy-in, or failure to buy-in, needed careful consideration.

c.   The item relating to young people had not scored highly, but was an important priority for the Board.   It was important to consolidate and support existing ideas through a bid to the SR2004 and see them through to mainstreaming, not just to concentrate on new, exciting ideas. 

d.   Consideration was needed on how to link a bid with the Public Service Agreement targets (PSA) of different departments, including Defra.   This would suggest rural services and access and enjoyment of the countryside for Defra, and rural/urban links and possibly housing for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister should be the Agency’s priorities for a bid.

e.   The Agency’s corporate plan priorities and the bid to SR2004 on items that worked across departments needed to be considered separately.   Any successful bid would be managed within the relevant corporate plans.

f.   Bids to SR2004 were a chance for the Agency to state what the urgent issues and emerging key policy areas were for rural areas that required financial support now, and what could be achieved with a specified budget whether by the Agency or through others.  

16.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:

w          the Board had agreed that the priorities for bids to the SR2004 were rural urban fringe, capacity building, affordable housing and young people;
w          the Board had agreed the range of roles the Agency should itself pursue; and
w          the Board had agreed the timetable and process for taking forward the Agency’s input to the next Spending Review.

National Park Authority Secretary of State Appointments – a new approach to recruitment  

In attendance, Bob Roberts.

17.   Introducing the paper, Bob Roberts outlined to the Board that the appointment process was owned by Defra and that ultimately it was for Defra to decide how they wanted the process run in the light of advice from the Agency under the relevant legislation.   A small discrepancy existed between figures in the paper and the annex to the paper about the estimated costs to the Agency if it were to take additional responsibility for the process.   The additional costs had been estimated as between £50k and £70k per annum, assuming national parks continued to carry out local advertising themselves.

18.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.    There was urgent need for a leaner and more effective process of Secretary of State appointments to national parks.   The Minister, the Rt. Hon Alun Michael MP, was keen to ensure that applications were stimulated from high quality individuals from a greater diversity of backgrounds, and to see an improvement in the service that applicants received.   The Board agreed with that.

b.   The impression that potential applicants might have of what serving on a national park authority might be like was one issue where change was required.    The Agency needed to be more clear on what was currently discouraging applicants.   It would be helpful to gather evidence of that. 

c.   The paper did not provide a conclusive case for additional involvement by the Agency.   However, the Agency was well placed to take more responsibility to reduce the overlaps with Defra. 

d.   It was important that whoever took the lead deployed the necessary range of skills to manage the application process smoothly from the identification of need through recommendation to appointment, and could move quickly to improve the current situation.   If the Agency undertook the role the costs would be absorbed internally.

e.   If the Minister decided that Defra should lead the process the Agency would continue to fulfill its statutory duty to advise the Secretary of State about appointments through local knowledge and through offering the involvement of Board members in the interview process.

f.   The paper raised a more generic issue about civic appointments and the need to have better applicants and more representative membership.   An organisation called Common Purpose was involved in providing training in civic leadership and was willing to work with the Agency and others on this issue.   The national parks themselves should use their local networks as effectively as possible to identify potential applicants, as well as helping to streamline the application process.

g.   Enhanced remuneration or some other material incentive might be effective in improving the diversity of applications, though this could raise equity issues for members appointed outside the Secretary of State appointment process and other public appointment processes.  

h.   The lessons already learnt about the proper management of the process should be used in this year’s appointment round, although the new process may not be in place until 2004.

19.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:

w          it was appropriate for the Agency to offer to take greater responsibility in the process of recruiting Secretary of State appointees to National Park Authorities, providing Defra with a comprehensive service from the identification of need through to recommendations for appointments;
w          clarity about the exact role of everyone involved and enhancement of the job description for potential appointees would help to improve both the process and the outcome, whoever led the process.

Evaluating Knowledge Management  

Paper for information only.   In attendance, Sarah Sleet.

20.   Introducing the paper, Sarah Sleet explained that future work in knowledge management would focus on facilitating people within the Agency to share knowledge and to spread knowledge externally.  

21.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:

w          the Board had noted the activity on Knowledge Management to date;
w          the Board had supported the need to put more emphasis on developing knowledge sharing both internally and externally.

Addressing Young People’s Needs in Rural Areas  

In attendance, Brian Wilson.

22.   Introducing the paper, Brian Wilson outlined that following the Board’s visit to the south west in March the paper proposed direction for this new area of work.   There were modest resources available for the work of £200k for the year, which had been found within existing budgets.   The purpose of the scheme was to tackle disadvantage and increase the life chances of young people in rural areas.   Many national organisations had been consulted and the conclusion was that the Agency should focus its attention on demonstrating effective approaches and disseminating the lessons learnt. 

23.   Further research was needed to identify what was happening in policy areas relating to young people, to establish what current practice was and to identify what added value the Agency could bring to this area of work.   A baseline would be established through evaluation of previous work undertaken by the Agency, and through three or four major demonstration projects with three key cross-cutting themes (empowerment and inclusion, access to personal services and encouraging entrepreneurship and better skills).  

24.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   Policy covering young people was currently fragmented, or tended to focus on young people in urban areas, not those in rural areas.   The proposal was an opportunity to research and improve policy for rural young people.

b.   Evaluation needed to be place from the start of the project.   In addition the transition from demonstration to mainstream activity needed to be established from the beginning of the project.   The engagement and involvement of young people needed to be central to the project.

c.   The main outcome the Agency should focus on was to understand more about how to successfully engage with rural young people.   Other organisations would be central to ensuring the implementation of projects and work that would enable young people to be less disadvantaged.   The number of demonstrations would be kept to a minimum to allow the Agency to focus on better design of evaluation.

d.   It was important that entertainment was also considered as part of the research into leisure opportunities for young people in rural areas, and development of social skills as part of the empowerment theme.

e.   The project would serve as an active rural proofing role with policy mapping.   There was opportunity to identify what government programmes were already in place and where the gaps in provision, often filled by the voluntary sector, existed.

25.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:

w          the Board had approved the proposals for the research priorities of the programme and the criteria for selecting demonstration projects to fund;
w          young people needed to be actively engaged in the programme and its evaluation;
w          evaluation and an exit strategy needed to be in place from the outset to enable mainstreaming of the findings.

Vital Villages: an interim report of performance and findings – where next?  

In attendance, Nick Holliday.

26.   Introducing the paper, Nick Holliday outlined that external consultants had monitored the performance of the vital villages programme since its inception.   The programme was now moving into the evaluation stage.   The principles and lessons learnt from the programme would be continued within the Agency’s work.   Direction was now needed on a succession strategy for the programme.   Programme staff were thanked for their hard work.

27.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   The Vital Villages programme had been a great success story for the Agency.   Members of Parliament were very much aware of the programme and it had attracted widespread support.   It was widely recognised that the outcomes of the programme went far beyond the grants in its ability to empower local communities.

b.   Independent evaluation of programmes was important.   The Board needed more information about the methodology adopted for evaluation by the consultants.   It was important that the lessons learnt about methodology were shared within the Agency.   The Agency’s own research team had been involved, but there was little capacity in-house to ensure that the quality of evaluation was high across all programme areas.   Programme directors were currently expected to determine how evaluation was undertaken within their own areas of work.

c.   Some of the statements made in Annex 2 about partner organisations and public sector working were unhelpful and too sweeping to be accurate.   The evidence used by the consultants to make these statements would need to be examined as it could cast doubt on other findings about the programme.

d.   As a national demonstration programme, Vital Villages provided an opportunity to test ideas out across a wide area.   The national aspect of the programme had been the cause of confusion amongst some customers as to whether this was a grant aid delivery programme or a demonstration programme.   It was hard to explain that the main goal was the empowerment - not the thing actually done on the ground.

e.   The Vital Villages programme should be more closely linked with policy development in other areas of the Agency’s work.   Priorities should include capacity building and social enterprise.

28.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:

w          the Board had supported the new general direction for the Vital Villages programme as outlined in paragraph 9;
w          the Vital Villages programme should be closely linked with policy development work within the Agency, and the review and implementation of the Rural White Paper;
w          any shortcomings in the methods used for evaluation would need to be examined and improved.

Date and location of the next meeting

29.   The next meeting of the Countryside Agency Board would be on 30 September 2003, Castle Hotel, Brecon