Breadcrumbs
Minutes of the 39th 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
Martin Doughty
Janet Bradbury
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 external observers including John Mills, Director, Defra. He explained that all staff and external observers would be asked to leave the meeting for the Board’s discussion on the corporate plan.
Apologies for absence
2. Apologies had been received from Victoria Edwards and Frances Rowe.
Minutes of the meeting of 13 November 2003
3. The minutes of the 13 November Countryside Agency meeting were approved.
Minutes of the meeting of 13 November 2003 with the Rt Hon Alun Michael MP – Closed Session
4. The minutes of the closed session of the 13 November Countryside Agency meeting were approved.
Chief Executive’s report and matters arising
5. The Board considered this report.
6. Tony Hams informed the Board that the report on the World Parks Congress Conference was being prepared and would be circulated to the Board once it had been published.
7. Pam Warhurst apologised that the minutes from the last National Countryside Access Forum (NCAF) had not yet been circulated to the Board. Once comments from all members of NCAF had been incorporated the Board would receive copy.
8. The Board noted that the Heritage Lottery Fund had decided that there was not to be an urban expansion of the Local Heritage Initiative (LHI). LHI had been a successful project which in light of the Rural Delivery Review, might need to pass to the HLF. The Heritage Lottery Fund would not necessarily manage it in the same way and might consider devolving the initiative to a regional level. The Board did not consider this an attractive option and there could be a reputational risk to the Agency. The Board recognised that delivery of the initiative in the long term would not be done by the Agency. A business adjustment plan was being prepared.
9. The Board was updated on the recruitment of a new Chair for the Agency. Defra had a recruitment process in place and would proceed shortly.
10. Kate Ashbrook informed the Board that the Moorland Access Advisory Group was working on the development of daughter code to the Country Code. The Board was reassured that the Agency would not endorse any code that did not follow the Agency’s own overall policy.
11. Underspend at the end of period 7 within the A3 New Enterprise programme area was still behind, but was now not considered as critical as when last reported to the Board in November.
Rural Delivery Review
12. Richard Wakeford updated the Board on the Agency’s activity related to the rural delivery review (RDR). He thanked Board members for their help on the evidence prepared for the EFRA Select Committee. In addition to this submission the Agency had been asked to provide further evidence in a detailed annex.
13. A pre-transition board (PTB) had been created within the Agency to co-ordinate all RDR related business and to guide all directorates’ work processes. This included considering both short and longer term accommodation issues. The PTB would remain as a pre-transition board until first stage implementation decisions had been made by Defra. The Agency was investing in training for Directors and Programme Directors to ensure they were able to manage the current situation, to continue with everyday work and handle existing partnerships. This was of particular relevance in the regions. The Board had had two seminars to consider options for a future Countryside Agency and the new integrated agency. Intelligence gathering was continuing to input directly to Defra and an influencing strategy was being developed. Next week a meeting with Defra would hopefully provide clarity on delivery management and provide a better understanding of the Agency’s role.
14. Staffing levels remained constant and the Agency was succeeding in recruitment. The number of candidates had dropped significantly though. It was particularly important that staff morale was carefully monitored. Staff needed to be inspired to continue to work positively with the same high level of commitment. There would be a review of special measures required on staffing issues. Critically the Agency needed to avoid a reputational risk by low staff morale affecting their contribution to the delivery of public service agreement (PSA) targets. Staff would be reassured by the appointment of a new chair for the Agency and Defra’s initiative on this was to be welcomed.
15. The PTB was looking at accommodation issues and related policy. Each office was being considered on its own merits and the PTB was taking short term decisions so long as value for money was not significantly compromised as a result. The lease on Dacre House had been up for renewal. Other premises had been explored but Dacre House was still considered the best option. Negotiations had been held with the landlord to rectify some issues, including air conditioning, and a 10 year lease with a 5 year break option was on offer. A sublet option by the Agency was included in the new contract.
16. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. The PTB had both Board and Executive and functions. Both the Chairman and Deputy Chair attended the PTB and would regularly report back to the Board.
b. To avoid confusion, since the PTB was not a sub-committee of the full Board it was agreed that the name should be changed to pre-transition project board.
Draft Corporate Plan 2004/05 to 2006/07 AP03/38
In attendance, Tim Lunel.
CLOSED PAPER
Corporate Governance – Risk Management Issues AP03/39
In attendance, Mike Doughty.
17. Introducing the paper, Mike Doughty outlined the work of the Audit and Risk Management Committee in 2003. Top level risks to the Agency had been identified and the Board and Executive had worked hard to minimise those risks. This was an on-going process and the Executive and Board would regularly revisit risk, particularly during the forthcoming period of change. The recommended switch to an all non-executive membership was in line with the latest best practice guidance. Martin Doughty would step down as chair and member of the Committee at the end of March 2004. The Board would receive a further report on the particular risks associated with the open access contract at their February meeting.
18. The Chairman noted the paper and annexes. Summing up the Chairman concluded that:
- the Board had noted the report on the work of the Audit and Risk Management Committee during 2003;
- the Board had agreed the Business Risk Management Action Plan for 2004;
- the Board had agreed the role and membership of the Committee for 2004, including a shift to wholly non-executive membership from 31 December 2003. The Chairman would speak to Board members individually about representation on the Committee from 1 April 2004.
Future Direction for Rural Transport AP03/40
In attendance, Brian Wilson and Jaki Bayly.
19. Introducing the paper, Brian Wilson outlined the success of the Rural Transport Partnership (RTP) scheme, and the evaluation process and findings. The programme had allowed the establishment of important partnerships for the Agency, as well as providing risk money for innovative schemes. The aim was to now mainstream projects and the lessons learnt to local authorities, to maintain the partnerships established and to adapt the Agency’s role on transport. An exit and succession strategy would be complete by March 2006. The Agency’s future role would focus on maintaining a support network, sharing good practice across the country and inputting to training opportunities. A fund for experimental projects would allow the Agency to continue its role in targeted demonstrations. The Agency would also look to retain the option of influencing RTP posts where problems were identified, and to continue to influence local transport plans. There would be a change in role for Agency staff and re-training would be required.
20. The Agency was in discussion with Defra and the Department for Transport (DfT) about a bid to the next Spending Review. However, it was recognised that if such funding was secured it would not be possible to ring fence this for transport initiatives if local authorities were to take the lead in this work. Other means to encourage local authority spend in this area would need to be identified, including using local Public Service Agreement targets.
21. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. The paper and its proposals reflected the wider Board discussions on the importance of mainstreaming and moving the Agency from delivery functions to a demonstration role. It was therefore critical that this strategy was measured through key success factors. These should include, the continuation of RTPs; lessons and projects visibly mainstreamed through local and regional transport plans and the development of a successful new role for the Agency.
b. Evaluation of the RTP scheme had been comprehensive and provided a good steer on the next steps required. It had raised the issue that the evaluation of individual projects had not been as comprehensive as it could have been. It was critical that evaluation was as robust as possible to enable the Agency to position itself effectively.
c. The proposed timetable for the succession strategy provided a good balance between successful transition and speed. The timing was critical in the light of the fact that local authorities were already setting budgets for the next financial year.
d. If the resources were to be managed by local authorities it was important that the Local Government Association was signed up early to help ensure good communication to, and commitment by, local authorities.
e. The research role and programme was currently too unspecific. Research ideas to support a demonstration role by the Agency needed to be clear. The scope for other organisations to take on the demonstration role should also be recognised, though the unique role the Agency could play in innovative pilots remained important.
22. Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:
- the Board had agreed with the implementation of a succession strategy for the Rural Transport Partnership (RTP) scheme, mainstreaming lessons and moving the Agency on to a clearer research and demonstration role over the next 2-3 years;
- the Board had agreed that some of the RTP fund should be re-allocated from April 2005 to a new central rural transport demonstration fund and support for experimental projects;
- the Board had agreed that staff effort should be re-allocated from RTP project work to ensuring alternative mainstream funding was in place for RTP partnerships and projects;
- the Board had agreed that the Agency should create a network for existing RTPs and officers to continue to share best practice, with an option to retain a few pilot transport influencing posts in areas of greatest need.
The Countryside Agency’s Response to Draft Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7) – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas AP03/41
In attendance, Bob Roberts and Jo Russell.
23. Introducing the paper, Bob Roberts outlined that the draft Government Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) had been a positive step in the right direction, but that much more could still be achieved. The Agency had offered help in finalising the drafting of the document. The Board were asked to approve the Agency’s formal response.
24. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. The Agency’s proposed response was thorough at a time when planning was in the political spotlight.
b. There was still a concern about a weakness on development in open countryside which could lead to indiscriminate developments.
c. Horse related activity should not be singled out as a separate development issue.
d. More was required in the Agency’s response on levels of countryside designation.
e. It was important to link the response on the role of parish councils and community based plans to quality parish councils.
f. Enjoyment of the countryside should be included in the new statement on protection of the countryside.
g. There should continue to be a presumption against major developments affecting national parks.
25. Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:
- the Board had approved the response to the draft Government Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas), subject to the above comments.
Variation Order to Include Land at Arundel within the South Downs National Park (AP03/42)
In attendance, Bob Roberts and Dave Thompson.
26. Introducing the paper, Bob Roberts outlined that the recommendation to the Board to make the variation order was in full knowledge of opposing representations received through the consultation period. The Board had had sight of all letters of objection and support to consider. Though one parish council had not received their papers it was known that they were opposed to the order. The Board was reminded that the land in question had already been considered to be of the right quality to include in the national park.
27. To proceed with the variation order now would not affect the Highways Agency (HA) work on the proposed Arundel bypass, but might apply positive pressure on the HA to find the most appropriate route. In addition, by proceeding now with the variation order, the inspectors could chose to deal with the variation order as part of the overall inquiry which would be unlikely to add to the inquiry’s length or cost. The inquiry was likely to last until September 2004 and to proceed with the variation order now was timely. Advertising costs for the variation order had been reduced to approximately £60K.
28. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. The land did meet the statutory requirement on quality. No opposing representations could change that premise. The Board had a statutory duty to include the land at Arundel, but could choose to delay the variation order if there were a good reason to do so. On the other hand, it was important that the Board did not hesitate as any change in position would signal that the Board’s resolve and commitment was not strong or confident.
b. The HA’s opposition to the variation order was because it was a significant issue for them to have to consider. Agency staff were working with HA staff and others on less damaging options for a bypass following the Secretary of State for Transport’s decision that the original proposed route through the land in question was not acceptable. Making the variation order now would only influence the way in which the HA reviewed the options for a bypass, not on their ability to continue with their work.
c. To make the variation order now would allow a more democratic approach as the same inquiry would register all objections, rather than objectors having to respond in a separate process.
29. The Chairman offered the Board a vote on the variation order. There were 8 votes for and 3 votes against making the variation order. Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:
- the Board had considered all the responses received by the Agency through the consultation process and had agreed to make a variation order to add the land in question near Arundel to the South Downs National Park.
Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund – The Agency’s Future Role (AP03/43)
In attendance, Tracey Slaven.
30. Introducing the paper, Tracey Slaven outlined the nature of the Agency’s involvement in providing grants under the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF). The Agency had been awaiting the outcome of the Chancellor’s pre-budget autumn statement, and guidance from Defra on the size and flexibility of a future ALSF programme. The Chancellor’s statement suggested that the ALSF would continue at the same level, and the Rural Delivery Review would mean that in the future new organisations would be involved in delivery of grants. The Agency currently had ten and a half full time staff involved in administering the grants and managing a budget of approximately £5M a year. Staffing would be an issue if the scheme was not continued by the Agency.
31. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. Although the focus of the grants given out under the ALSF by English Nature (EN) and English Heritage (EH) was different to those provided by the Agency, there was now a good opportunity to demonstrate an integrated approach by all agencies to the Minister. The Agency was working with both EN and EH on efficiency savings within and across the scheme.
b. The Agency brought added value to the scheme that no other organisation could provide. Until such time as other organisations were ready and able to take on the delivery of the scheme the Agency should continue to administer the ALSF grants for rural communities.
c. The scheme was self-funding but covered any current staff costs. The cost of redeployment or redundancy for those staff involved would need to be covered by the Agency, if it arose.
d. There would be a relaunch of the scheme in February 2004, which would provide the opportunity to celebrate the successes of the past and to look forward to a continuing scheme.
31. Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:
- the Board had agreed to extend the Agency’s role in delivering the rural communities strand of the grant aid programme funded by the ALSF beyond the current end date of 31 March 2004.
Date and location of the next meeting
32. The next meeting of the Countryside Agency Board would be on 12 February 2004, John Dower House, Cheltenham.
