Natural England

Minutes of the 40th 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
Victoria Edwards

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 welcome and Declaration of Interests

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

2.   The Chairman asked each Board member to declare any interests they may hold in the issues or papers to be discussed.   The following interests were declared:

• Norman Glass, Philip Lowe, Victoria Edwards, Peter Fane, Tayo Adebowale declared an interest in paper AP04/02 in that they or their employers might benefit from decisions taken about the Agency’s future direction in research.
• Martin Doughty (English Nature) and Victoria Edwards (Forestry Commission) declared that their other Board positions might appear to prejudice their contributions to any discussions of the proposed integrated agency.
• Tony Hams declared an interest in paper AP04/04 because he had previously worked with one of the consultants involved with the CRI initiative.
• Peter Fane and Ewen Cameron (landowners), Graham James (church land holdings), Victoria Edwards (Forestry Commission land), Martin Doughty and Tony Hams (national park) all declared that their interests in owning or managing land could prejudice their contributions on discussions on paper AP04/03.

3.   The Chairman concluded, with Board member consensus, that the interests declared did not prohibit members from participating in discussion, except for Philip Lowe who would leave the meeting for the discussion on paper AP04/02.

Apologies for absence

4.   Apologies had been received from John Varley and Frances Rowe.

Minutes of the meeting of 11 December 2003

5.   The minutes of the 11 December Countryside Agency meeting were approved.

Minutes of the meeting of 11 December 2003 – Closed Session

6.   The minutes of the closed session of the 11 December Countryside Agency meeting were approved.

Minutes of the Countryside Agency Board Telephone Conference 22 January 2004

7.   The report of the telephone conference meeting of Board members of the 22 January 2004 was approved subject to the following changes -

• The telephone conference had not been a formally constituted Countryside Agency Board Meeting, but was a discussion involving Board members following a request for advice by the pre-transition project board.   All mention of ‘the Board’ to be adjusted to ‘Board members’.  
• Paragraph 7 to read – ‘joint working arrangement’ not ‘joint venture’.
• Paragraph 8 to read – ‘Board members stated that the integrated Agency should be explicitly driven by “equal billing” of the landscape, access and recreation objectives alongside the conservation and biodiversity objective.   The new integrated agency should be predicated on the principles of sustainable development.’
• Paragraph 9 to read – ‘Board members asked officers to arrange an exploratory meeting…..’

8.   The formal minutes of the telephone conference meeting of Board members would not be made available until Ministers had announced a way forward.

Minutes of the meeting of October 2003 National Countryside Access Forum

9.   The minutes of the National Countryside Access Forum (NCAF) October 2003 meeting were noted.   Board members agreed that it would be more valuable to have access to the draft minutes of NCAF meetings for information when they were first produced.   In addition, they asked the Deputy Chair to identify significant issues to report to the Board from each NCAF meeting.

10.   The Board noted that the Oxfordshire Local Access Forum (LAF) had been invited to share their experiences with NCAF.   More LAFs had been invited to do the same.

Chief Executive’s report and matters arising

11.   The World Parks Congress Conference report had now been prepared and a copy would be circulated to all Board members.

12.   Reports from the pre-transition project board (PTPB) to the Board would be in future included within the Chief Executive’s report to the Board as a regular item.   It was important that there was clarity in reporting, and in the Board’s official status and role in relation to the work of the PTPB.

13.   Kate Ashbrook raised a concern about the development of a draft daughter code to the Countryside Code by the Moorland Access Advisory Group.   The Board requested officers to investigate further as the code appeared biased towards landowners and had apparently had Countryside Agency involvement in its development.   The Board was reassured that the Agency would not formally endorse any daughter code unless there was satisfaction with the content of such a code.

14.   The Chairman updated the Board about a replacement Countryside Agency Chair.   He had commented on a job specification.   He had again emphasised the necessity of the Rural Advocate role and hoped that rural advocacy would be included as one of the key duties of the post.   He was awaiting approval on the job specification from the Secretary of State, after which it would be circulated to all Board members.   Headhunters had been appointed, and Board members were urged to consider suitable people within their own networks for the post.   The Board hoped that the approved job specification would help to clarify the future role of the Countryside Agency.  

15.   The Board noted that the open access appeals work was progressing with approximately half of all appeals being defended by the Agency.   The Agency was winning about half of all appeals defended.   Area 2 was proving better than Area 1 with approximately 60% of appeals successfully defended.   On an area basis little land was being lost from open access as most appeals were for relatively small pieces of land.   A further report would be provided to the Board on the appeals progress.  

16.   The methodology adopted for appeals was to be reviewed.   This was particularly important in the light of some appeals decisions which could set a precedent for similar parcels of land in other open access areas.  

17.   The Chief Executive had visited IBM’s sub-contractors, Gem, a Belfast based company employed to manage the restrictions database.   Gem was a high quality business with well trained staff providing an excellent customer service help and information line.   Agency staff were to be congratulated on having prepared Gem well.

18.   Tony Hams had met with the Association of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.   The Board noted that concern had been raised about the amount of time Defra was taking to create Conservation Boards for AONBs.

19.  New leases for the Manchester and Bingham offices had been agreed and were considered to be in line with the direction of travel of modernising rural delivery.   The decisions on the lease for Dacre House had been postponed.   Brian Bender, Permanent Secretary, Defra was not prepared for the Agency to extend the lease without a detailed business case.   Following a major review of the location of civil service work, no new leases could automatically be sanctioned in London, and Defra was looking to rationalise their core estate in the capital by bringing the Agency offices within its own.   Board members felt strongly that a new independent Countryside Agency should hold out for its own address due to the potential impact on customer perception of the role of a new agency, and its relationship with the Department.

Modernising Rural Delivery   (AP04/06)

20.   The Chief Executive requested that the main issues and points raised by the Board on the closed Board paper AP04/06, previously discussed in private session with the Minister for Rural Affairs that morning, be recorded in the public, formal minutes.   Introducing the paper, Richard Wakeford outlined that the Agency was taking all opportunities to input to the future of rural delivery and policy.   The Agency had a good reputation with the Defra Project Board who needed positive ideas on a way forward, structures for successful delivery at a national level, legislation and delivery with a relatively small budget.   The Project Board wanted the input of non-executive members and, although the timetable was tight, it was important to capture the added value the Board would bring to the process.   AP04/06 also invited Board members to contribute to the new workstreams.   It was important to now consider the next steps.

21.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   There was currently no clarity on what budget would be available for delivering national rural policy.   Taxation was considered to be a good opportunity that should be explored further to increase the potential budget.

b.   Focus was needed on the functions of a new Countryside Agency and the likely cost and resource implications.   Margaret Clark was leading the Agency’s work in this area.   Defra had suggested that the National Consumer Council (NCC) could serve as a model.   The Chief Executive and Margaret Clark had visited the NCC and found a small, strategic and independent organisation that took the national lead in the protection of consumer rights.   Research was central to the NCC to support its role of think-tank on new ideas and approaches to consumer protection.   It tended to focus on 4 or 5 specific long-term projects.   The NCC did not have a regional presence, though it did have strong partnerships with regionally based organisations.  

c.   The NCC did not consider itself to be as close to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) as had been presumed.   This was at odds with Defra’s view about the relationship between the NCC and DTI.      

d.   To date the only costed options that had come from a Defra workstream meeting was for a new Countryside Agency to have a 12 member Board and a £4.5M budget.   These appeared to be figures plucked out of the air.

e.   Workstream discussions had also touched on options for the future roles of a new Countryside Agency.   The Secretary of State was to provide a steer, though this would take time to formulate.   The Agency had reiterated its role beyond the handover of programmes for mainstreaming at the workstream meetings.

f.   It was important that any representations to Defra on future structure and role of the Countryside Agency were because they provided the best solution to continuing to support rural communities, not for the self-protection of the Agency itself.

g.   Further Board discussion on the funding review was needed to determine an Agency line. 

h.   A new Countryside Agency should maintain its involvement in and support to the Rural Affairs Forum for England (RAFE).   The regional chairs were considered to be key people on RAFE to provide external support for the Agency’s continuing role in this work.

Third Quarter Report   AP04/01

In attendance, Tim Lunel.

22.   Introducing the paper, Tim Lunel outlined the outcomes in the Corporate Plan that had been achieved, and those where there had been slippage.   The Agency was still delivering well in the third quarter across all programme areas and directorates.   Where there had been slippage reasons had been identified.   There had, however, been an increase in underspend across the Agency’s work of between £4 - £6M compared with approximately £1M underspend forecast at Quarter 2.   This was in part due to efficiency savings, a delay in open access work as agreed with Defra, and the difficulties inherent in making commitments to local community groups under the Vital Village grant schemes who are then unable to deliver within tight timeframes.   Defra had indicated that there would be no end of year flexibility to carry forward unspent resources to 2004/05.

23.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   Staff efforts to maintain delivery were appreciated, especially as they were working in difficult circumstances, morale had been hit and the work load had changed significantly.

b.   £4 - £6M underspend was disappointing even if there were good reasons for an increase from Quarter 2.   The consequence of returning grant-in-aid to Defra was that Treasury would note where underspend had occurred, which would undermine our reputation for delivery.  

c.   It was important to understand why the Programme Directors had not been more cautious about underspend at the last Quarter.   Some of the underspend could have been better predicted if the Agency had been sufficiently critical.   It might have been possible to re-deploy resources.   Setting of quarterly targets for each programme area would assist in better predictions in future.

d.   Efficiency savings had been achieved in the Open Access project with no damage to the quality of the work carried out.   There was now closer control of the project which had reaped real savings, the restrictions contract had been let with the lowest tender and the commencement timetable had been extended.   All had impacted on budget savings.

e.   Vital Villages work was harder to predict in terms of expenditure, and the Agency tried to remain as flexible as possible when working with local community groups.   Better understanding was needed about how quickly money could be spent by grant recipients to give the Agency more certainty in budget and underspend forecasts in this programme area.

f.   Critical issues had impacted on the Agency’s ability to spend money this year, including staff morale and the disengagement of partners.   It was important that there was no further slippage, but the Agency needed to be realistic about the likely end of year position.

g.   Revised business plans were being developed by Programme Directors and there was more confidence in using the new accruals system which would allow Programme Directors more time for strategic thinking and planning.   A clearer picture would emerge for the coming year.

h.   There was a reputational risk to the Agency, particularly with those partners (eg: AONB partnerships) who had requested additional money from the Agency this year and not been successful.   The message about underspend needed to be carefully managed, and would be helped by AONB budgets for 2004/05 being maintained at same level as 2003/04.

i.   Internal messages to staff would need careful management where reductions in budget were known.

j.   The Agency should apply to Defra for flexibility at year end for specific areas of work. 

24.   Summing up the Chairman concluded that:

• the Board had approved the Quarter 3 report for April to December 2003, and had noted the main achievements to date;
• the Board had agreed that an aggregate forecast outturn underspend for the Agency is between £4m and £6M below full year grant-in-aid budget of £100M.   The Executive should put steps in place to avoid the risk of repeating this position in future years;
• the Board had agreed that the Agency should make a formal application to use end-of-year flexibility in line with the new Financial Memorandum about to be signed.   A draft letter would be circulated to Board members for comment.

Strategic Research Issues: an Interim Strategy & Strategic Research Directions, post Rural Delivery Review    AP04/02

In attendance, Ken Roy.

25.   Introducing the paper, Ken Roy outlined that an interim research strategy for the Countryside Agency was proposed as a direct outcome of the strategic research issues that had arisen from the Rural Delivery Review.   There were practical steps that had been identified to increase the Agency’s visibility, including training for staff in evaluation and research, and comprehensive recording.

26.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   The Interim Strategy was a move in the right direction.   This area of work was crucial to both the current Agency and to a new Countryside Agency.   It was important to hold out for significant research activity within a new Agency’s remit, whilst avoiding unnecessary duplication of research efforts with an integrated agency and Defra.  

b.   Currently the interim strategy was aspirational in nature.   Examples were needed of how research would be applied to specific issues.

c.   It was crucial for the Agency to be able to provide independent evaluation of experimental projects and rural delivery programmes to external bodies.   It was unlikely that any other body would try to do this work, though it was recognised that it would be difficult to secure.

d.   It was important to differentiate between knowledge and skills

e.   Defra was dealing with similar research issues and challenges and was aware of the work being done by the Agency on a research strategy.   Portfolios and processes were being shared.

27.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:

• the Board had agreed that officers should use the material presented on strategic issues after the Rural Delivery Review to inform discussions and submissions on future organizational functions, structures and processes; and
• the Board had approved the Interim Research Strategy for the present Countryside Agency.

Community Renewables Initiative    AP04/04

In attendance, Rick Minter.

28.   Introducing the paper, Margaret Clark outlined that this was the first in a series of papers which set out exit strategies for projects the Agency was involved in, and was therefore critical to get right.   The achievements of the Community Renewables Initiative (CRI) were a tribute to the hard work of a very small staff team who had added significant value to the project.   The plans for CRI were ambitious and required additional staff resource to influence key partners. 

29.   Rick Minter outlined that CRI had supported 140 developments nationwide.   Support teams were involved in encouraging, advising and financing projects.   Many of the projects were school and farm based and many were bio-mass projects.   Other applicants needed to demonstrate wider community and stakeholder involvement.

30.   The Agency’s role had included helping to make links between on the ground projects and policy, working with local businesses to gain their support and finance for projects, and managing the learning network which was working well to widen the external contacts throughout the UK.   There was a further year to run on the 3 year project.   The paper outlined a proposal for a way forward.

31.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   The CRI project had been a clear success story for the Agency and had been successful in anticipating the Energy White Paper 2003.   Successful handover of the project now needed to be secured. 

b.   The national roll out of the CRI had been an important coordination role for the Agency which had been done professionally and gained the Agency credibility.   The regional roll out would differ between regions depending on the partners available. 

c.   While the plan to exit by March 2005 was right, the Agency should be prepared to take a couple of months longer if that made the difference between successful mainstreaming and failure.

d.   Succession would rest on the critical analysis of the work done on the CRI to date.   It was important that this was carried out to ensure lessons were learnt from the successes and the failures before mainstreaming.

32.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that: 

• the Board had agreed that the Agency would cease to be involved in the CRI from April 2005 on the understanding that a proper exit strategy was in place;
• the Board had agreed that the Agency would work with partners to secure an extension of the CRI to the whole of England; and
• the Board had agreed that new coordination arrangements would be put in place from April 2005 and funding secured from national, regional and local sources.

Defra Consultation on Vehicles in the Countryside   AP04/03

In attendance, Jeremy Worth.

33.   Introducing the paper, Jeremy Worth outlined that the issue of vehicles on rights of way affected only a few areas of land, but that where they did occur there were big problems.   The Agency needed to provide a response to Defra’s consultation, but this needed to be evidence based and proportionate to the problem.   There was evidence that highway authorities (HA) were not confident in using the management mechanisms available to them, including Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO).   Better guidance had now been published which would help HAs in their management of rights of way.  

34.   One principle adopted by the Agency had been that documentary evidence for rights for vehicle use should be limited to those vehicles used at the time, not opening up routes to motor vehicles where evidence of historical use was only by horse and cart.

35.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   This provided a common sense approach which was in line with the consultation responses.   To adopt any other line would entail a great deal of extra resource as there would be an obligation to do further research on each claim.   Ideally the Agency should be looking for a change in, and better use of, existing law.

b.   TROs were important to maintain as they ensured that the status of a route was not lost.   TROs should be used more effectively by HAs to manage vehicle use.

c.   It was important to limit the impact of vehicle use on public rights of way for the benefit of other user groups and the landscape.   It was recognised that farm vehicles also caused damage to rights of way and that comment should be made about the need for farmers to make good that damage.

d.   Local authorities had already received many claims.   Many of these were without merit and would probably fail as the evidence did not exist to support them.

e.   Exceptions would be included in the Agency’s response.   This would cover access to private property.

f.   A one-year cut off date on establishment of byways open to all traffic should be seen as a bare minimum.   The recommendation to Defra should be 5 years or less.   The danger in a one-year cut off was that local authorities could be flooded with claims.

g.   The consultation response from the Agency would be provided to stakeholders, including the national parks. 

36.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:

• the Board had agreed to the principles set out in paragraphs 8 to 12 of the Board paper;
• the Board had agreed the response to Defra should include an increase in the cut-off time from 1 year to 5 years or less; and 
• the Board had agreed the Agency’s response to Defra’s consultation ‘Use of mechanically propelled vehicles on Rights of Way’ was based on the key principles outlined in the Board paper.

Audit & Risk Management Committee Report    AP04/05

CLOSED PAPER

Modernising Rural Delivery Seminar – Advice from the Countryside Agency Board     AP04/06

CLOSED PAPER

Date and location of the next meeting

37.   The next meeting of the Countryside Agency Board would be on 31 March 2004, John Dower House, Cheltenham.