Natural England

Minutes of the 41st Meeting of the Countryside Agency

Present:

Ewen Cameron, Chairman
Pam Warhurst
Kate Ashbrook
Norman Glass
Tony Hams
Alison McLean
Philip Lowe
Tayo Adebowale
Frances Rowe
John Varley
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 thanks

1.   The Chairman welcomed Countryside Agency staff and external observers.   The Chairman paid tribute to the hard work and commitment of both Janet Bradbury and Victoria Edwards who served on the Agency Board and for whom this would be their last Board meeting.   Janet had been a brilliant advocate for regeneration work, and her support of the rural housing enabler work had been rewarded with great success.   Victoria had made a huge contribution internally on both land management and research.   They had been valuable members of the Board and would be missed.   This would also be the last Board meeting with support from Executive member, Sarah Sleet.   The Chairman thanked Sarah for all her hard work for the Agency and personally for the support she had given him on the key messages to communicate about the Agency’s work.   The Board extended their farewell and thanks to Sir Ewen Cameron for his term as Chairman of the Countryside Agency.  

Declaration of Interests

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:

• Victoria Edwards (Forestry Commissioner) and Martin Doughty (Chair of English Nature) both declared an interest in Modernising Rural Delivery (AP04/)

3.   The Chairman concluded, with Board member consensus, that the interests declared did not prohibit members from participating in discussion.

Apologies for absence

4.   Apologies had been received from Peter Fane

Minutes of the meeting of 12 February 2004

5.   The minutes of the 12 February Countryside Agency meeting were approved subject to following minor amendments:

• Paragraph 2, 3rd bullet to read – Tony Hams declared an interest in paper AP04/04 because he had previously worked with one of the consultants involved with the CRI Initiative.
• Paragraph 14, last sentence to read – ‘hoped’, not ‘agreed’.

Minutes of the meeting of 12 February 2004 – Closed Session

6.   The minutes of the closed session of the 12 February Countryside Agency meeting were approved.

Minutes of the 18th National Countryside Access Forum (NCAF), 13 March 2004

7.   Pam Warhurst drew the Board’s attention to three key areas that had been discussed at the last NCAF meeting.  

• Access land signage should be kept to a minimum necessary and should avoid misleading people about any higher rights which existed (for example: for horse riding);
• The level of funds to be made available by Defra for the Access Incentive Scheme (AIS) was welcome but was not considered to be enough.   Take up of the AIS would need careful monitoring by the Agency;
• Local Access Forums (LAF) needed more support with information exchange, and the relationship between the LAFs and NCAF needed working on.   The Agency was willing to facilitate the exchange between LAFs.

Chief Executive’s report and matters arising

8.   John Mills, Defra, had proposed hosting a seminar for the Agency and the regional development agencies (RDAs) to begin dialogue on mainstreaming issues.   The message from Defra was that it was now deemed more appropriate to have such a seminar after the Secretary of State’s announcement on modernising rural delivery in early summer.   Board members believed that it was critical to work closely with the RDAs as early as possible and that to wait until after the announcement would be too late.   The Agency would look to develop the opportunity for dialogue now.

9.   Graham James had met with regional members of the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) in the Eastern region and had productive discussions about the Local Heritage Initiative (LHI).   HLF’s budget was to be dramatically reduced in the next year which could have serious financial implications for LHI.   Board members with regional responsibilities were urged to contact and meet with HLF regional members to gain their commitment to LHI.   It was felt that this would be a productive way forward.   It would be valuable to achieve this before the 18 May 2004 when HLF regional Chairs were due to meet with HLF Trustees.   Margaret Clark would provide all Board members with a briefing note about LHI.

10.   Graham James had also hosted a dinner for regional Members of Parliament where there had been discussion about the modernising rural delivery (MRD) agenda and the roles of the various agencies involved in the process.   This had proved a useful reality check on the rural intelligence and knowledge of MPs about MRD and the impact it was to have on the work of the various agencies, and for rural areas and people.   Board members with regional responsibilities were asked to bear this in mind and to work with MPs with rural constituencies whenever possible to ensure they were fully aware.

11.   There was a need to improve the clarity in the references to Option 2 for the Integrated Agency workstream proposals in the notes of the Board and Executive Teleconference held on the 9 March 2004.   The notes of the meeting should remove reference to a ‘reverse takeover’, which was one view about the previous Countryside Commission and Rural Development Commission merger that had been quoted out of context.

12.   Board members were very disappointed in, and expressed anger and frustration about, the removal of the reference to the role of the Rural Advocate in the advert prepared for the post of Chair of the Countryside Agency, especially following the Secretary of State’s assurances to the Chairman.   The Board felt that rural advocacy should be at the heart of the new Countryside Agency, and not to say so risked failing to attract the right calibre of person into the post.   The Board asked the current Chairman to write to the Secretary of State (SoS) to express their concerns and to try to ensure a better final job description and terms of reference.

13.   The withdrawal of the verifying body for certification in local government administration was due to AQA’s own resourcing issues and their need to focus on their core business only.    Options for a replacement were being explored and it was hoped this would not take too long to achieve.

14.   A report from the consultants commissioned by the Agency to investigate the possibilities of extending access to water for canoeists via voluntary agreements was due very soon.   The Agency’s response to the report would be sent to the Minister for his consideration, though individual agreements were currently considered an expensive option.   The Agency wanted to work closely with the Environment Agency to take this work forward.

15.   There had been a very successful meeting between Board members, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and English Nature Council members in Edinburgh on 11 March 2004.   The meeting had been well structured and officers were to be thanked for their preparatory work.   It was apparent that SNH and the Countryside Council for Wales offered very different models of integrated agencies.   It was important that both were looked at as soon as possible to throw further light on the best way forward for rural delivery in England.   A further Board level seminar, officer seminars or consultancy work would be considered.  

16.   A video-link between Charles Clarke and the National Council for Childcare Conference in Birmingham had worked well.   The link would be investigated again for future conferences.   A letter of thanks had been sent to Charles Clarke for his participation.

17.   Both the Chief Executive and Margaret Clark had attended the ‘New Approaches to Rural Policy’ conference in Washington DC.   The conference had in part been run by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.   Progress was made at the conference and the message about a joined up approach to rural policy had been well received.   John Mills had spoken about rural proofing and the concept had been generated a lot of interest.   A final note of the meeting would be circulated to Board members.

Modernising Rural Delivery Update   (AP04/07)

In attendance, Carolyn Cadman.

18.   Board members noted the progress with Countryside Agency workstreams and the official progress report from Defra.

Open Access:   State of Play    AP04/08

In attendance, Jeremy Worth.

19.   Introducing the paper, Jeremy Worth outlined that the paper updated Board members on progress with the Open Access project.   It had been hoped that the Minister would have been able to agree a date for commencement but this was not yet the case.   The mapping and appeals and management of local restrictions were all on target to reach the set deadlines.   Further information on the costs of these would be provided in a further paper to the Board.   The first legal challenge to the mapping methodology was going to a hearing on 1 April 2004.   Board members would be informed of the outcome.   A bigger risk was the huge challenge in getting both national and local publicity correct to avoid misleading the public on commencement.   The Agency was working closely with other organisations to manage this risk. 

20.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   A computerised system was in place to support the restrictions and closure element of the open access project.   The contractor, IBM, had responsibility to provide a back-up system and Agency staff were working closely with IBM to ensure the systems were adequate and able to support the Agency in keeping to the strict timetable.   The Chief Executive had visited the call centre in Belfast and found a positive team which had received a high level of support from Agency staff, and were providing a highly knowledgeable service.

b.   No conclusive map could be produced before all appeals had been dealt with.   The number of appeals received was at the top of the estimate, but staff were in post and coping adequately.  

c.   The digital versions of the maps were deemed to be the legal copy and there had been a change to the map signing process as a result.   Officers would provide further detail to the Board members involved in map signing.

d.   The number of appeals being received for open downland as a result of the Agency getting the original mapping incorrect was disappointing.   It indicated the importance of site visits by Agency officers, and the need for an early review.   Downland was the most difficult land type to map and in areas 7 and 8 field checks were now being carried out.

e.   The Chief Executive’s report as Accounting Officer to Sir Brian Bender was in production.

21.   Summing up the Chairman concluded that:

• the Board had noted that the mapping, appeals and management of local restrictions were all on target to support commencement of the new rights;
• the Board had noted the Open Access Contact Centre was open for restrictions applications in Areas 1 and 2, and the associated website had gone live;
• the Board had noted that the Minister had approved a 1 year Access Incentive Scheme targeted at areas of high nature conservation value and high visitor pressure to reduce the need for restrictions; and
• the Board had noted that the project status was at amber, but that risks were being managed.

Countryside Code:   Final Text Approval    AP04/09

In attendance, Tracey Slaven.

22.   Introducing the paper, Tracey Slaven outlined the progress made in developing an updated Countryside Code, and the positive feedback from the many partners and consultees to the proposed text.   One concern remained for consultees on authorship of the Code and clarity on this had been requested.   The accompanying communications plan would provide a comprehensive and wide programme to disseminate the Code.   Some mock-ups of the animations to be used to promote the Code were available to Board members.   The new Countryside Code was in the Board’s ownership and as such members needed to be satisfied with the Code and its promotion.

23.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   Reference to dogs being wormed regularly should apply to any dog, not just for those who are regularly walked in the countryside.

b.   There was some concern that car drivers were not warned to give horses and riders a wide berth.

c.   The reference to ‘escape from the pressures of modern life’ should be removed and replaced with ‘enjoyment and refreshment’.

d.   The reference to “breeding seasons” may not be understood by members of the public.

e.   Reference to the need to follow paths across fields ‘wherever possible’ would need clarifying to ensure members of public understood when and how to cross fields.

f.   Different access codes would apply in Scotland.   It would be important to work closely with Scottish Natural Heritage to ensure any differences in access rights were clearly understood.   Cross-border information would likely concentrate on behaviour issues which would be universal to Scotland and England.

g.   The effectiveness of the Code and the promotional campaign would need to be measured.   In 12 months the Board would want to review the impact of the Code.

h.   The Code was part of a wider communications strategy for open access.   The Code would be launched before commencement of open access, but it would help to raise awareness of open access issues.

i.   Board members expressed concern about the design of the logo for open access.   The Board would be consulted on this by correspondence.

24.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:

• the Board had approved the draft text subject to minor considerations and amendments; and
• the Board had approved the promotional plan covering the joint launch in July 2004 with the Countryside Council for Wales and the subsequent campaign.

Local Authority Performance Management – Rural Proofing    AP04/10

In attendance, Crispin Moor.

25.   Introducing the paper Crispin Moor outlined that this was an area of work which the Agency had only just started to be involved in.   As a result the Agency was on a learning curve.   It was, however, a good and important opportunity to influence the methodology of Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA).   This was critical as most service delivery occurred at a local level and there was some evidence that CPA mattered to local authorities as a measure of their own performance.   This area of work may be important to the role of the new Countryside Agency.

26.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   CPA was a good development for the Agency’s rural proofing role and an effective way for the Agency to contribute to rural proofing at a local level.   This was particularly relevant as local authorities as deliverers would be of increasing importance.   Local authorities would need guidance as to how rural proofing would be of benefit to them.

b.   This work fitted with the direction of travel of the new Countryside Agency and was another opportunity for the Agency to firmly position itself for the future, and add value.   It was important for the Agency to work with local authorities and explore opportunities to mainstream activities through these mechanisms.   The Agency should meet with senior local authority representatives as soon as possible.

c.   Local authorities were perceived as being best placed to deliver at a local level.   However, they were autonomous bodies with varying levels of effectiveness.   This was at odds with setting targets and needed to be resolved.   Corporate assessment of local authorities in effective delivery was an opportunity to drive up standards.   Defra had acknowledged that a national priority needed defining to ensure delivery at a local level through PSAs.   There was uncertainty as to how this could be taken forward due to MRD.

d.   The CPA was closely linked with local authority’s PSA targets.   Therefore, with the right indicators the CPA would be effective in ensuring local authorities targeted resources to rural interests.   It was important to foster a partnership approach with local authorities and look across the board for the available rural indicators. 

e.   The Board believed that the   CPA inspector teams could benefit from involvement of the Agency as the rural expert on the team.   The Agency should explore this opportunity further, rather than handing this role on to others.

f.   To give the Agency more opportunity for direct involvement, members of the Audit Commission should be invited to speak to the Board to say what they intended to do.

g.   The rural service standards should be looked to help determine what rural issues the CPA should be concentrating on. 

27.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that: 

• the Board had agreed that the Agency should continue to make representations to the Audit Commission to influence the review of CPA methodology; the training of peer reviewers; and the Audit Commission’s CPA inspectors.
• The Board had agreed that this work fit within the core function of the profile and function of the new Countryside Agency; and
• The Board had discussed the Agency’s continuing role in rural proofing CPA and Best Value.
• The Board had requested that the actions discussed and agreed should be reported back to the Board.

Policy Influencing Table:   Monitoring and Priorities   AP04/11

In attendance, Margaret Clark.

28.   Introducing the paper, Margaret Clark outlined that the policy influencing chart was regularly produced for the internal Chairman’s Strategy meetings to demonstrate across the Agency’s work what was trying to be achieved.   The table identified what was being done and how effective the Agency was.   It was now brought to the Board for review, to determine whether there were areas of work the Agency could afford to drop and whether there were any gaps in coverage.   Some areas of work were relatively small, requiring only a small amount of officer time, and other areas were much larger.   The table included those pieces of work which came into the Agency as requests, as well as those which the Agency had decided to focus on.

29.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   It was opportune, with the development of the Integrated Agency and the new Countryside Agency, for the Board to review this work and its scope.  

b.   The table was impressive and showed the Agency at the height of its influence.   It also showed the sea-change and new sensitivity that had been brought about in government to rural issues.   This would be an important area of work to maintain the profile for the new Countryside Agency.

c.   It would be hard to remove any of the work in the table, though future resource implications would help to shape the scope for the new Countryside Agency in this work.   A tighter focus onto fewer areas was now required onto more strategic and fundamental work, and there were some areas of work which could now be taken on by others and monitored by the Agency.   In future the table should demonstrate the depth of each piece of work to better reflect the size of the task.

d.   The new Countryside Agency should be a radical think-tank and should focus on influencing those organisations which had the capacity to influence others – including the Treasury and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. 

e.   It was important that the Agency continued to work in those areas where cultural change was most needed in order to achieve critical PSA targets – including with the Department of Health.

f.   Where at all possible the Agency should continue to work in areas where there were cross-cutting issues.

g.   The work should be focused on influencing future policy.   Broadband, rural workforces and the impact of the minimum wage, structural funds and the Common Agricultural Policy and renewable energy were all on-going areas of policy work which would become of increasing importance to rural people.   Training for civil servants in rural issues and rural proofing was also critical.

h.   The document was sent to Defra who would hopefully be able to update it by providing the names of officers responsible for various areas of work.   It was not acceptable to use this document externally while there were ‘unknowns’ in the contact list.

30.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:

• the Board had noted the actions underway and progress made to influence national policy development across a wide range of issues that are relevant to countryside and rural issues.
• The Board had suggested important policy issues and agendas that they considered a priority for the Agency to influence.

Rural Services Standard – Third Progress Report 2003/04    AP04/12

In attendance, Brian Wilson.

31.   Introducing the paper Brian Wilson outlined that the Rural Services Standard (RSS) was a Rural White Paper commitment which had been modestly upgraded each year.   Defra produces an annual report  outlining the standards, whilst the Agency reports annually about progress against them and how they could be improved.   Many current standards have problems, such as being difficult to measure or not being rural specific, and they are not widely known.   Defra, therefore, led a review of the RSS last year, to which the Agency input.   This proposed a more popular Defra publication, splitting the standards into national standards, regional lists of those who deliver services and local good practice examples.   The review also concluded that the name should be changed to Rural Services Review, though the Agency has some concerns that this implies a downgrading of their status.   The Board would need to consider  whether the Agency should continue to publish a separate report or link with other publications – for example, the rural proofing report or the rural services data.   Pilots had been carried out at a regional level to determine whether more meaningful results could be achieved.   As a result it was recommended that little had been achieved through the pilots and that they should be put on hold for another year.  

32.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   The Rural Services Standard was a key area of work for the new Countryside Agency.   It was critical that the Agency’s independent scrutiny of regional and local delivery remained.

b.   The proposed name change to Rural Services Review was dangerous as it would dilute the importance of this work.   At the time of the Rural White Paper they had been discussed as entitlements.   Entitlement would be a more powerful term than standard.   Consideration should be given to linking this with the Rural Proofing report, though rural proofing was wider than the Standards. 

c.   There was concern that it was being turned into a technical exercise and was moving away from the original concept for the RSS.   The focus now appeared to be on service delivery and deliverers, rather than reflecting the service needs of rural people.   However, it was important to maintain pressure on service deliverers.  

d.   The statistics and choice of standards did not always reflect the real situation.   Some services, such as the Royal Mail, Jobcentre Plus and post offices in market towns, were being rationalized in rural areas.

e.   There was concern that the RSS had already shifted in its original objective.   The focus of the RSS appeared to be wholly on delivery and deliverers, not parish-pump politics or a reflection of the views of local people about rural services that it had been first set up to capture.   In addition, there was little consistency in the measurement of standards and therefore it was hard to draw out meaningful results.   The statistics could not reflect the real situation.   Pressure should be maintained on deliverers.

f.   It was expensive to research local people’s views, but this was critical in being able to measure the effectiveness of rural policies.   The evidence needed to be gathered to show the disparity between the statistics and the reality for rural people.   Parish plans, market town healthchecks, the work of Regional Observatories and networks and other resources the Agency had to hand should be utilised to help identify rural people’s views.   The lessons learnt from the Board member’s meeting with North East representatives to discuss local governance could be repeated throughout the country to tackle other specific subject areas.  

g.   In delaying the   pilots, the Agency needed to be very careful not to give the false impression that we consider the regional level unimportant.   As well as reporting on local good practice, the standards could usefully report on local barriers.  

33.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:

• the Board had agreed that the Rural Services Standard was a critical piece of work;
• the Board had agreed to defer further regional pilots until 2005;
• the Board had noted the outcome of the review of the RSS and the proposed action.   The Board strongly believed that the name should be maintained as RSS or made still stronger with a change to Entitlements;
• the Board had agreed that the future monitoring and reporting on the RSS should be a core task for the new Countryside Agency, though further thought was required to get the reporting system and process right in relation to the Rural Services series or the annual Rural Proofing report.

Rural Proofing Annual Report 2003/2004    AP04/13

Paper held in closed session.

Date and location of the next meeting

34.   The next meeting of the Countryside Agency Board would be on 20 May 2004, John Dower House, Cheltenham.