Breadcrumbs
Minutes of the 38th Meeting of the Countryside Agency
Present:
Ewen Cameron, Chairman
Pam Warhurst
Kate Ashbrook
Norman Glass
Tony Hams
Alison McLean
Philip Lowe
Tayo Adebowale
Peter Fane
Victoria Edwards
Janet Bradbury
Frances Rowe
Graham James
John Varley
In attendance:
Richard Wakeford, Chief Executive
Margaret Clark, Director
Tim Lunel, Director
Sarah Sleet, Director
Tracey Slaven, Director
Juliet Grace, Head of Management Support Group
Chairman’s introduction
1. The Chairman welcomed Countryside Agency staff and noted that there were no external observers.
Apologies for absence
2. Apologies had been received from Martin Doughty.
Minutes of the meeting of 30 September 2003
3. The minutes of the 30 September Countryside Agency meeting were approved subject to the following amendments -
a. Paragraph 8c – to add “She believed that….” to second sentence.
b. Paragraph 11a – to read “However, where research was delegated too far it would not be crosscutting in nature. When it was designed or commissioned by people not trained in research it was likely not to provide a satisfactory answer to the research question and to be wasteful.”
c. Paragraph 12 – “later in year” to read “February 2004”.
d. Paragraph 14 – “consequences of decoupling”, not “consequences for decoupling”.
e. Paragraph 19 - Kate Ashbrook’s name had been incorrectly spelt.
Minutes of the meeting of 30 September 2003 – Closed Session
4. The minutes of the closed session of the 30 September Countryside Agency meeting were approved.
Chief Executive’s report
A1. Vital Villages
5. The Board’s visit to Morpeth in October had been well organised and very useful to better the Board’s understanding of regional governance issues. In particular the visit had highlighted the relationship between the regional development agency and local authorities. John Mills from Defra had attended and had been impressed with the focus of the day and by what had been achieved. He had encouraged the Agency to repeat the exercise in an alternative area, and had suggested that the Agency explore the potential of an on-going role in regional fact finding. Crispin Moor was to be congratulated for the note he had produced which would be circulated to all board members.
6. Margaret Clark would provide more information, as requested, about the 8 pilot areas for the ProHelp project, designed to assist the private sector to support rural communities.
A3. New Enterprise
7. The Rural Advocate had visited the East Riding of Yorkshire and had had a series of successful and useful meetings with rural business representatives and the Small Business Service (SBS). The SBS understood the need for support to be extended to rural businesses, but said that they may be unable to cope with the demand.
B1. Living Landscapes
8. Tracey Slaven would circulate a report highlighting the main findings from the World Parks Congress in Durban, attended by Tony Hams and Jane Cecil, following the official feedback session to be held in Birmingham the following week.
B2. Wider Welcome
9. There had been a delay in the work on access for disabled people due to confusion about the bodies representing different types of disablement.
10. The mapping appeals work was being monitored closely. Non-contested cases were being dealt with first, as they required less resource. Most of the appeals received were for very small areas of land and it was believed that the overall impact of appeals lost by the Agency would be relatively small. The Board would receive an update on the total area of land affected after all appeals had been settled, for each region.
11. The Board was concerned that internal recruitment into appeals work should not adversely impact on other work areas, and that the appointment of external consultants to undertake the work should be managed carefully to avoid increased cost implications. The renegotiation of the access contract had provided some savings which could fund new staff needed to do the appeals work.
12. Lessons had been learnt from the letting of the original contract with BV and were now being applied to the restrictions and closures management contract. The Agency had reached a satisfactory point in the procurement process. Three contractors had submitted final bids and a detailed evaluation had been undertaken. The contractor chosen had demonstrated a flexible and user-friendly system that had been approved by the Open Access Project Board and received endorsement from the Chief Executive. The database had the future potential to record rights of way and stewardship access agreements by the new integrated agency for the benefit of user groups. The risk for the Agency was in buying a solution where the price would not change much with the volume of work. So, if there was much less activity than estimated the cost per transaction would be high. But the timetable demanded for delivering the Public Service Agreement could not accommodate any pilot stage.
13. The Board would continue to be updated on the access mapping and appeals process through the Quarterly Reports, Open Access Project Board feedback from the Deputy Chair and the Chief Executive’s Report to Board. In addition, any Board member could request a one-to-one update from Tracey Slaven. To reassure the Board the Audit and Risk Management Committee report would help to demonstrate how lessons had been learnt about management of the access work. The Board welcomed this comprehensive approach.
14. A full business case was being developed for Defra and the Minister for the management of an access fund to help implement the open access work.
C. Evidence and Analysis
15. The Board noted the Agency’s involvement as advisors to the National Assembly for Wales in their establishment of a national rural observatory. The Board were keen that the Agency were equally involved in the establishment of an equivalent centre for England by Birkbeck College. However, to date the Agency had had little or no information about the bid from partners within Defra, who had found it difficult to involve the Agency. Contractors were known to be already in place and the Agency would look for ways to work with the college and other partners on the scheme. Discussions with Tim Allen at Defra would focus on the relationship the Agency should have with the centre.
D. Equipping the Agency to deliver
16. The Executive would be evaluating the lease on Dacre House in December. Negotiations with the landlord were continuing and different options were being considered.
Matters arising
Minutes of Closed Session held on 10 November 2003
17. The minutes of the closed session of the 10 November Extraordinary Countryside Agency Board meeting were approved.
Rural Delivery Review
18. The Chairman outlined the Review process to date with publication of Haskins’ report, and the Government response to the report. There were clearly many disappointments in the report for the Agency. But the work and programmes initiated by the Agency would be continued either within the Agency itself or by other organisations. It was disappointing that the work would be done differently, but it was now important to fit into a changed political landscape. The Agency would continue with its core work that had received a vote of confidence from the Secretary of State in her response to the report. However, the confidence of staff had been seriously undermined by the content of the report, and the leaks leading up to its final publication.
19. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. The Agency was an organisation with unique ideas and innovative programmes which had been efficiently and effectively undertaken. The work of the Agency had been hugely successful and the Agency should continue to play a role in rural affairs.
b. The Board and Executive would work hard to shape the detail of the refocused Agency with immediate effect. The Board would meet with the Minister that afternoon to continue to share its views, and press for the best solutions for rural areas and rural communities. Communication with stakeholders had already begun to explain the Agency’s view and to share the 6 key themes which the Board believed the refocused Agency should adopt.
c. The Agency’s work would continue, though often by other organisations. Any programmes to be taken on by other organisations should be handed over competently, at a reasonable point for mainstreaming or completed by the Agency in way that lessons were properly learned.
d. It was by no means a given that the changes would result in benefits for the countryside. The Board would work hard to ensure the new arrangements and the transition to an integrated agency were professionally managed and executed. The Board’s focus should remain on good customer service and what was best for the countryside through close working with Defra and others.
e. Though some of the proposals in the review of rural delivery were to be welcomed, the process of review had been disappointing. The review had not been a systematic, analytical or evidence-based process, and as a result there were many weaknesses in the report and the government’s response to it. The potential for proper devolution of responsibilities to a regional or sub-regional level would need careful analysis – particularly in social and economic work.
f. The Agency’s role as independent advisor to the government on rural affairs should now extend to the whole process of implementation of the review from the perspective of rural people and the needs of the rural environment.
g. The process had been, and would continue to be, tough on staff. It was important that the Board communicated clearly, were transparent and provided reassurance. The trade unions had stressed the need for the Agency to work to secure meaningful work for staff.
h. The Agency was to provide written evidence to the Environment Select Committee about the Review. The Board said that this evidence should be frank and clearly express the serious reservations they had. The evidence the Agency would provide would need to be sound and not anecdotal. Critically, the Agency should state its belief that Haskins had not understood the Agency’s role in policy advice and the role of experimentation and piloting.
i. It was a key concern that Defra appeared to be assuming that it would be the body to determine how delivery would be managed, as well as policy development. This was not in line with Lord Haskins’ principles - that agencies were best placed to decide on the best way forward for delivery while Defra should remain focused on strategic policy.
j. There was yet no clarity on how an implementation programme would be driven forward. The experience of the merger of the Rural Development Commission and the Countryside Commission had demonstrated how important it was that there was clear leadership to avoid frustration. The Chief Executive would provide a note for the Board on implementation, based on the information available to date. The Agency’s work would be limited until Defra’s own approach was understood. It would be the spring before a full implementation plan could be expected.
k. The Board noted that there was no role for non-executive members in the process of creating a new, refocused Agency. This was surely their statutory responsibility within the legislation. Equally, the non-executives would expect to contribute to the disposition of other work. It was important that the formation of a new integrated agency was not done on an ad hoc basis.
l. The Board would meet again in December to discuss the way forward.
Quarter 2 Report – April - September 2003 AP03/34
In attendance, Tim Lunel.
20. Introducing the paper, Tim Lunel explained that the Quarter 2 report provided a formal forecast by Programme Directors on outturn for the year end. The paper showed that outturn would be very close to the budget of £100m. Where variances existed against this budget these were not considered to be major problems in delivering the outcomes within the Corporate Plan which was on target.
21. A1 had a cautious estimate of potential underspend of £600k, though grant-in-aid letters had committed resources and the end of year variance would be less. A1 had also experienced slow business in April and May which had impacted on the forecast. A3 and B2 were both forecast on budget. A3 was an understatement on what had actually been achieved. In December the profile on A3 would be updated to show a true picture. B2 was behind profile but this was due to the timing of the start up of the project and the catch-up on costs of restrictions. B1 showed a significant overspend which again was a prudent approach in the light of work on the South Downs National Park. Overall there was confidence that the Board would not need to make changes to work programmes this year.
22. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. Explanations were required to understand the figures in the report. The Board had been asked to make a leap of faith with the forecast, and there was concern about how accurate a report it was. The explanations on variance had come from a misunderstanding on what was needed for reporting purposes that made forecasting difficult. The Board would need to be satisfied that the explanation provided was true. If not management intervention would be required. The Board would need an update on the profiles and spend within each programme area in February, after a predicted large spend within the access project had occurred.
b. It was important that the C2 and C3 influencing work was now targeted to be relevant to the new political landscape and emerging integrated agency. What the Agency was now trying to influence needed a careful rethink. Regional and Programme Directors were already reassessing their business plans to identify realistic expectations in influencing work. The Board would receive a paper on a refocused influencing agenda in February.
c. Rural intelligence was forecasted on red – in serious difficulty as a result of the climate created by the Rural Delivery Review. More investment and resource would be needed in influencing work if the Agency’s work was not to be further undermined in the future. Customer perception and feedback was being gathered to enable the Agency to adapt it’s approach to influencing. Defra would need to be much more positive at all levels in its endorsement of our work.
d. Resource accounting was still new to the Agency and staff were still on a learning curve. The Quarter 2 report did show what decisions had been made and how they had impacted on the budget. It also allowed realistic measures to be put in place. However, the process was painful. Regional teams especially were spending huge amounts of time gathering information for the quarterly reports.
e. The report did show that there was almost no room for manoeuvre to respond to Defra’s request for a reduction in their grant-in-aid to the Agency for the current year, unless the Agency broke existing commitments.
f. No bid for a supplementary fund to cover the Haskins’ related work the Agency had been made. Next year this work would require additional resource, if any implentation was to be started in 2004/05.
23. Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:
- the Board had approved the Quarter 2 report for April to August 2003, and noted the main achievements to date;
- the Board had agreed that the Agency’s full year budget should remain at a level that would require full draw down of a grant-in-aid of £100m;
- the Board would require a further report in February on profile, spend and variants in each programme area.
Rural White Paper Implementation Plan – Countryside Agency Commitments AP03/35
In attendance, Brian Wilson.
24. Introducing the paper, Ewen Cameron congratulated the team for the implementation of the Agency’s Rural White Paper commitments.
25. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. Within the affordable housing work there was a task to raise awareness of empty properties with the rural development agencies.
b. A bid for a national access database had been unsuccessful in the past. The restrictions and closures contract for access to open land would involve a mechanism to work with local authorities and the development of a website. This would be the best starting point for a national access database.
c. Publication of the review of the RWP would now not occur before spring 2004.
A Framework for Outdoor Recreation AP03/36
In attendance, Jeremy Worth and Wendy Thompson.
26. Introducing the paper, Jeremy Worth outlined that the proposed framework provided the opportunity for the Agency to refresh its ideas on outdoor recreation and to influence Defra on a new PSA target to replace those currently focused on open access work, and the Spending Review 2004 process. The framework widened the debate and opportunities for more people to access and enjoy the outdoors. The Agency was at its limit of what could be achieved through ‘countryside’ recreation and yet there were still many people who were still missing out on the benefits it provided. Since 1949 most recreation work had focused on facilities. This could not be neglected, but should be made relevant to more people and promoted successfully so what was on offer was more inclusive. Discussions had begun with Defra, the Department for Health and DCMS about relevant PSA targets, priorities to fill gaps in research, and to identify specific areas of work the Agency should take forward.
27. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. This was an exciting area of work that had potential for huge societal gains. The project looked to achieve a cultural change through wider buy-in and investment to improve provision and take up of countryside recreation for the majority of people. The paper proposed a way forward to a fully inclusive countryside and the project had received support from National Countryside Access Forum (NCAF) members.
b. The framework offered a way forward through intervention to make outdoor recreation relevant to more people. The framework approach was innovative and different. The Agency’s role in this process was unique and engagement of all partners would be a challenge. The key to the success of the framework approach would be its adoption by others. It was important that the Agency worked with a wider range of users and facilitators.
c. Defra was currently working on the next PSA targets. It would be important for the concept of an outdoor recreation framework to feed into Defra’s own recreation strategy, though it was noted that the paper had not included Defra as one of the main partners.
d. The Agency had a statutory duty to keep under review all matters relating to the provision and maintenance of facilities for the enjoyment of the countryside and to secure public access to the countryside for the purpose of open-air recreation. It was timely to reflect on this role and propose a way forward for the new integrated agency. The events this week relating to the Rural Delivery Review meant that the paper now would need to be updated.
e. Many people now chose outdoor recreation as a way of gaining a sense of spirituality and a population with a sense of well-being would ultimately cost society less. Identifying the economic drivers for a PSA were important for the success of this approach.
f. The outcomes the Agency was striving for could be achieved by both formal and informal use of outdoor space. Clarity was needed as to what sort of activity the Agency considered to be outdoor recreation. Most importantly the countryside should be integrated with other forms of outdoor activity and made more relevant to people’s lives.
g. Other partners could consider that there was little new in this proposal. The vision had been shared for a long time and public intervention might not be convincing. The framework needed to provide clarity for partners and provide structure to other organisation’s recreation strategies. Some organisations were ready to deliver on the ground now and would consider this approach by the Agency as holding them back. Market failure in the past required analysis by all partners, and clarification of the role of a central body.
h. There was a danger that the proposed three month period to secure buy-in was not long enough and was currently under-resourced.
i. The broad policy goal proposed in the paper cut across a number of government departments. The proposal could be the best possible example of the Agency’s role as demonstrator of a joined up approach to outdoor recreation. However, the Agency had to be clear about what it was trying to achieve by building a better case for intervention, and mainstreaming. An action plan was needed.
j. The ultimate output from this project would be a policy to be taken on by Defra and other government departments. Defra had been positive about this area of work.
28. Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:
- the Board had welcomed the principle of a framework for outdoor recreation;
- the Board had requested further work and consultation on the framework’s scope and overall direction.
Next Steps to Revising the Country Code AP03/37
In attendance, Julia Bailey.
29. Introducing the paper, Tracey Slaven outlined that this paper was a follow up to the Board paper received in February 2003. Consultation had been carried out on the new code. This had highlighted particularly that young people had little or no knowledge of either the right to roam or of the existing country code. The Board were asked for their endorsement of the approach to developing a new code, the timetable and the five key themes around which a code would develop.
30. A mock-up leaflet was presented to the Board which had been developed following the consultation. The proposal was to have one leaflet with differing messages for visitors and farmers/landowners. The five themes had been used to structure the content of the leaflet, and dos and don’ts had been avoided. The five themes would be used widely on gates and stiles. The desired outcome was an informed public. The previously proposed matrix approach had not worked very well. The name of the code was of more relevance to what the Agency stood for; the ‘Country Code’ was not understood by the public. Timing for the launch of the new code would be the beginning of the summer holidays 2004. This was to coincide with commencement for open access in the first area. The text for the leaflet would be completed in the new year following further consultation. Resources for this work were already included in this, and next year’s business plans.
31. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. Comprehensive consultation had shown that a single code to encapsulate messages to both visitors and farmers or landowners was too complex. The advice had been to provide a back-to-back leaflet that could be cross-referenced. This was considered a good compromise and provided a common standard for both.
b. The Agency would need to publicise the code and widely to make it fully effective.
c. The current language within the mock-up leaflet was inappropriate and could appear patronising. Consideration should be given to providing answers or solutions in the leaflet as its messages were too open to interpretation at present. Some of the messages were too basic and others required clarity. Some dos and don’ts could be useful.
d. The leaflet design style would need to be more modern and distinguished from other Agency leaflets.
e. The five key themes should be reconsidered to ensure the wording made sense to the wider public. Respect for others and safety were two separate issues, not one.
f. It was important that the code was not a code for visitors, but guidance to farmers and landowners. It was a statutory duty of the Agency to ensure both parties were treated equally in respect of a new code and a balanced approach found.
g. Professional copywriters should be considered to take the design and text to its final stage once officers had taken on board the Board’s comments. They had the skills to interpret the messages from the consultation exercise and the evidence base. Within the timetable the code would be taken through a plain English analysis.
32. Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:
- the Board had agreed that the new country code was well on the right tracks but required more work to ensure the final document was desirable to read and easy to understand;
- the Board had endorsed the themed approach to the code, but not the current themes;
- the Board had endorsed the approach and timetable for development of the code, including the involvement of a professional communications agency in getting the wording right.
Date and location of the next meeting
33. The next meeting of the Countryside Agency Board would be on 11 December 2003, John Dower House, Cheltenham.
