n/a
Board Meetings

Breadcrumbs

Minutes of the 42nd Meeting of the Countryside Agency

Thursday 20 May 2004 John Dower House, Cheltenham


Present:

Pam Warhurst, Chair
Kate Ashbrook
Norman Glass
Tony Hams
Alison McLean
Philip Lowe
Tayo Adebowale
Frances Rowe
John Varley
Graham James
Peter Fane

In attendance:

Richard Wakeford, Chief Executive
Margaret Clark, Director
Tim Lunel, Director
Tracey Slaven, Director
Juliet Grace, Head of Management Support Group

Chair’s welcome 

1.   The Chair welcomed Countryside Agency staff and external observers, including Tony Williamson from Defra and representatives from the Friends of the Forest (of Dean).   The Chair thanked the Friends of the Forest for their presentation to her of both a report about the Forest and a young oak tree.

2.   The Chair reminded Board members that Sarah Sleet had now left the Agency to work for the Parliamentary Ombudsman and that a new Director, Andrew Wood would start with the Agency on 7 June 2004.

Declaration of Interests

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

  • Peter Fane declared an interest as a farmer in paper AP04/19.
  • Frances Rowe declared an interest as an employee of a regional development agency in paper AP04/14. 

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

Apologies for absence

5.   Apologies had been received from Martin Doughty.   The Chair extended the Board’s sympathies to Martin who had been ill and was now in recovery at home.   A letter had been received from Martin thanking members of the Board for their support.

Minutes of the meeting of 31 March 2004

6.   The minutes of the 31 March Countryside Agency meeting were approved subject to the following amendment:

  • Board members wished an official note of farewell and thanks to Sir Ewen Cameron for his term as Chairman of the Countryside Agency to be added to the minutes. 

Minutes of the meeting of 31 March 2004 – Closed Session

7.   The minutes of the closed session of the 31 March Countryside Agency meeting were approved.

Chief Executive’s report and matters arising

8.   Before stepping down as Chairman, Sir Ewen Cameron had written to the Secretary of State to express the Board’s concerns about the advert prepared for the post of Chair to the Countryside Agency.

9.   Margaret Clark was thanked for the briefing note she had prepared for Board members who had met Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) Regional Chairs.   The Chairs had met with HLF Trustees on the 19 May.   They had recognised the good work that had been done by the Agency through the Local Heritage Initiative and had been keen to have the LHI transfer from the Agency to HLF.   There had also been interest by HLF in extending LHI to urban areas.   Some concern had been expressed about the number of posts that transfer of work may entail and whether or not TUPE would apply to these posts.   In October it was hoped that this would be settled with HLF Trustees.

10.   Margaret Clark explained that the 2004 version of the English Indices of Deprivation had replaced the former indices and now provided results at a much smaller geographical level for super output areas.   Rural deprivation was not well defined though and the dispersed nature of rural deprivation had not been revealed.   The new indices should not therefore be used as the sole target for resources.   The indices did provide some benefits, being based on a smaller scale and by including employed people who were on low incomes.   It also considered accessibility to services and travel distances to services.   The indices did not consider transport availability, was still income related and did not provide weighting.   There were a number of research interests for the Agency.   Margaret Clark would circulate a note to the Board. 

11.   Norman Glass brought to the Board’s attention the publication of the ‘State of the Cities’ report by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM).   This was to be a regular report and covered deprivation in English cities.   The Agency should ensure that collaboration was sought with the ODPM to ensure no duplication of effort, or that there were no gaps between the indices and the ODPM’s report. 

12.   BT’s announcement of plans for near universal broadband investment were welcome, although those communities who had campaigned hard to reach their broadband trigger level under the scheme may wonder why they had needed to bother.   The time delay to BT’s planned roll out of broadband would be analysed by the Agency.

13.   The plan (in the corporate plan) to recycle funds from community forests to other areas of work may be illusory, depending on Defra’s decision on grant-in-aid.   The Minister had made it clear he expected to take the Community Forest budget from the Countryside Agency to give to the Forestry Commission who would continue this area of work for a maximum further two years. 

14.   Following on from the conference – Aging in the Countryside - Age Concern were to offer a small prize to identify blatant prejudice in rural areas on ageing issues.

15.   The New Entrants Training Scheme, funded by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC), was to be delivered by Hereford College but the Agency was still needing to put in money.   The long term goal was to establish a permanent deliverer for the scheme.   The LSC only funded on a yearly basis and therefore a long term solution was difficult to establish.   There was concern that the LSC would not cover the transport and subsistence costs of those people attending courses.   Officers should take up this issue with senior representatives of the LSC and consider writing to the government to express these concerns about a lack of rural proofing.

16.   There was concern about the lack of information about the launch of Open Access.   This was not entirely within the Agency’s hands as Defra would lead on this, but it was recognised as an area for improvement.  

17.   The county court application for an injunction to prevent the Agency from issuing the first conclusive map had been turned down.   The applicant could still choose to take the application to a higher court.   There had to date been no further injunctions bought on the issuing of the maps for other areas.

18.   The Agency had formally let the Chairs and Trustees of the Heritage Lottery Fund know that they had influence and opportunity to change the approach of those who provide and manage countryside recreation facilities through the grant conditions imposed on applicants.   

19.   The launch of the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) management plan had been a success.   There had been a lot of local and regional publicity and a firm link and creative working between the AONB and the Broads had been demonstrated.   A launch of one plan in the South West had been equally positive.   Thirty five further management plans were ready to launch.   The AONB team was coordinating the launches and ensuring a balance between maintaining a positive corporate image for the Agency and the pull on Board member time would be kept in mind.

20.   Following the inquiry by Board Members of the Audit Committee, Richard Wakeford explained that he had prepared a letter to Brian Bender but it had not yet been sent.   He would send a copy of the letter to Board members.

21.   John Varley explained that the minutes of the Audit and Risk Management Committee (A&RM) from 1 April 2004 had been attached to the papers.   It had been agreed at the last A&RM meeting to circulate minutes to the next timetabled Board meeting, rather than once a year as done previously.   The A&RM had discussed the impact of the Modernising Rural Delivery (MRD) programme on the business of the Agency and he, as Chair, had written to Pam Warhurst outlining the Committee’s concerns about those risks.   The July Board meeting would have a chance to consider the revised business plans for each programme area in the light of MRD.

Corporate Governance through the Period of Modernising Rural Delivery Implementation   (AP04/14)

In attendance, Richard Wakeford and Carolyn Cadman.

22.   Introducing the paper, Richard Wakeford outlined that the paper made recommendations on a way forward for the Agency’s work once an announcement from the Secretary of State (SoS) had been made.   This announcement was now unlikely before July 2004.   The delay in the announcement put significant risks on value for money of the Agency’s work as without this certainty about the future more people would choose to leave the Agency and business would suffer.   With less time, it would also be more difficult to make a success of the evaluation and dissemination of programmes that would be transferring to other bodies from April 2005.   The plans proposed in the paper were based on the ability to hold a staff preference exercise in July.   With a late July announcement, fairness would require a longer timescale for staff to consider their choices – and that meant a later start to the new arrangements proposed.

23.   What remained critical was the work done to support people and places in rural England.   A delay would increase the costs of change and delay a return to the focus of this work.   The Board had already begun detailed discussions about a way forward.   Some initial conclusions of those discussions were that the timetable of Board meetings as already established for the year should be utilised, and a pragmatic approach taken to the time pressures on the non-executive in the year ahead.   One option discussed was dividing the Board into sub-committees to focus on the Integrated Agency (IA), the New Countryside Agency (NCA) and the Evaluation, Dissemination and Monitoring (EDM).   A sub-committee for core functions was not required as the Audit and Risk Management Committee already held such a function.   A decision by the Board was required on a revised management structure.  

24.   Lead members for the sub-committees had also been discussed, and it had been agreed that the Chair and a Deputy Chair should lead on each to provide continuity.   A permanent appointment of a Chair was in process by Defra, but meanwhile a temporary Deputy Chair could be appointed.   The Board had lost two members in March who had not yet been replaced.   A full Board compliment was essential to ensure the NCA and IA were properly resourced at a strategic level.   Defra should be strongly urged to address these recruitment issues as soon as possible.

25.   The IA work was considered the greatest area of risk.   There were various options for managing the IA work still to be established.   English Nature and the Countryside Agency had similar cultures, though the Rural Development Service (RDS) was by nature very different.   If the RDS was brought into the IA in stages this could have an impact on the ultimate success of the IA.   Ideally the RDS would be fully engaged from the start.   The merger of the three organisations would require strong executive leadership and the appointment of a shadow Chief Executive as soon as possible.

26.   There was an error in the figures on page three of the paper.   The figures in the middle of the pie-chart titled April 2005 should be the same as those in the pie-chart titled Shadow Organisation October 2004.   However, all the figures in the paper about staff numbers should be used for guidance only at this stage. 

27.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   The input of the balanced view, vitality and integrity provided by the Board were of primary importance to maintain throughout the process of MRD.   However, it was essential that there was creative thinking to ensure Board members’ time was not over-burdened.   There was a limit to Board member availability and it needed to be recognised that the Board was not at its full complement.

b.   The Agency should press Defra to advertise for new Board members, to replace the two who left in March 2004, to be ready to move on appointment as soon as possible after the SoS announcement.   This should involve close working with English Nature to ensure the best mix of skills and experience, in advance of the point where the New Integrated Agency board could be appointed.

c.   MRD was primarily about integrating delivery of services.   This could be de-stabilised if separate sub-committees were established.   For this reason sub-committee work should be considered as an addition to the Board’s regular work and not as a replacement.   In a period of rapid change and transition the Board needed to be solid and to act with collective integrity.

d.   Programme Directors had reported that MRD was currently having a low impact on delivery of their areas of work.   However, there was some evidence that posts in A Directorate were more difficult to keep filled than posts in B Directorate.   A future concern was that the work to establish the NCA and transfer of work from the Agency through EDM work would be affected by a lack of experienced staff. 

e.   Ruthless prioritisation of Board member activity over the following six months would be needed.   Priorities for Board member work would need to be carefully balanced between being pulled entirely onto strategic planning and continuing to function as the public face of the Agency at a regional level.   Although the evidence from the Executive’s visits to the regional teams had found that staff were still focused on delivery, regional teams may need more Board support than ever to ensure morale did not drop.  

f.   The balance of Board member time also needed to account for the need to promote an external and internal perception of business as usual, and the need to develop a forward looking plan.   Board members had to be heavily involved in the latter piece of work.

g.   New ways of working would need to be considered to concentrate Board member functions.   For example, one Board member could take responsibility for all national park work, and specialise on the family of national parks and their relationship with the IA.   This would allow a critical and strategic view across all national parks and would remove the pressure on those Board members with national park responsibilities.   This particular example would be difficult to accomplish as some national parks were facing sensitive times and required consistency in membership.   It was, though, an example of the re-thinking now required to cope with the time constraints of Board members.

h.   The refocused Corporate Plan and accompanying business plans would be prepared for the July Board meeting.   These would assist the Board in determining their own new priorities.   The business plans would demonstrate to the Board the realigned Directorates and the adjustment the Executive members had already made to work to the future IA, NCA and EDM structure.   Executive members were already experiencing a pull on their time and much of their usual work had been sidelined.   The Board now faced the same dilemmas.  

i.   Both internal and external communications needed to be absolutely clear on how the Board would adapt to the new structure.

28.   Summing up the discussion the Chair concluded that:

  • the Board had noted the proposed approach for governance by the Agency’s Board during the period of transition;
  • the Board had agreed the interim senior management structure for the Agency during the transition period;
  • the Board had endorsed the need to press Defra for the appointment of a Deputy Chair as soon as possible and for the early appointment of new Board Members into the two vacancies;
  • the Board had agreed to establish sub-groups to support the process of transition on the understanding that these would need to be regularly reviewed in terms of Board member roles and responsibilities;
  • the Board had agreed to assist work to the agenda defined by the new structures whilst maintaining the corporate structure and overview;
  •  the Board had agreed that a Chief Executive for the IA should be appointed as soon as possible to drive the process of creation;
  • the Board wanted to be involved in the branding preparations for the two new bodies. 

Quarter 4 and Full Year Report April 2003 – March 2004     (AP04/15)

In attendance, Tim Lunel.

29.   Introducing the paper, Tim Lunel outlined that the paper updated Board members on achievements for the full year April 2003 to March 2004.   The report highlighted by exception those areas of work which had not delivered as expected.   The majority of the Corporate Plan objectives had been met.   The key areas falling short on planned outcomes were A2, A3 and C2.   A2 was a key area of work for the new Countryside Agency (NCA) and though delays had been experienced due to slow recruitment of staff there was now confidence that this programme area was now at the right point for launch into the NCA.   A3 work on the Forest of Dean Integrated Rural Development programme had also experienced staffing issues which had led to delay in delivery.   B2 Open Access programme had experienced no significant change or slippage and was on target to deliver but remained the Agency’s key area of risk.   C2 had other priorities now impacting on its work and in some cases the merger proposed through Modernising Rural Delivery (MRD) made some work less relevant.

30.   Financial forecasting had improved significantly in all programme areas and there was now more confidence in the future forecast.   The biggest variance had occurred in A1 but the outcomes in this programme area had been good against the requirements of the Rural White Paper.   More generally, efficiency savings had accounted for much of the variance between the outturn spend and the full year grant-in-aid budget.   A decision was needed on whether to request end of year flexibility to assist in the IA transition work.    

31.   The main issues for the year ahead were the continuing uncertainty and delay in announcement about MRD which would result in more areas of work being set on amber or red.   Further delay would create huge challenges internally for the Agency to deliver.   In addition there was a different challenge ahead to provide a clear external understanding on what the Agency was to deliver now, and how this would change with MRD.   A questionnaire was given to Board members to identify where they felt the reporting process needed change or improvement for future years.

33.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   The end of year report needed to be viewed within the context of the last 12 months activities and the lessons that had been learnt within the Agency.   The new report had been successful in demonstrating the new process and approach and, significantly, Programme Directors now had ownership of the reporting process.   Most importantly the reporting process allowed explanations for any variances to be easily found which meant there was little surprise for the Board.   This was an important and positive improvement.

b.   Where there had been significant variance within programmes there were additional lessons to be taken forward for the future, especially during the transition period.   Where a programme area was setting future risk at red more specific detail was required on what solutions were required to tackle this.   It would be useful to undertake an exercise to identify the programme type that experienced the most swing and use this to benchmark for future budget management.

c.   It was important to ensure that MRD did not become a smoke screen, and the only explanation, for all future variance.   Performance management was key to successful budgeting and scrutiny was important to continue despite MRD.   Lessons needed to be learnt and fed into the new programmes and any variance continued to be followed up on.

d.   MRD needed its own ring-fenced budget so it could be monitored more effectively.

e.   The Agency should not be seeking end-of-year flexibility, unless there was some specific area of work to support.   It was highly unlikely that Defra would allow this flexibility as the Agency had underspent in 2003 to 2004.

f.   The year ahead would be difficult to manage.   In particular the optimism and ‘can-do’ attitude within the Agency needed to be watched. 

g.   There were still areas of risk which were not being highlighted within the report.   These included the differential stability in staffing between A and B Directorate, and the failure to achieve all the learning networks proposed.   The detail as to why these had not been successful, or the audit trail on decision making was not mentioned.   Some of the detail would have been included in the 3rd Quarter report, but the final Quarter report should look to include everything from the year.

h.   Board members would be updated through the monthly reports from the Pre-Transition Project Board (PTPB) on the exact situation on staff movements from one programme area to any other, or staff resignations and early movement to the regional development agencies.   Any emerging patterns needed to be identified.

i.   Communications now and in the future were critical both internally where delays on the MRD announcement required careful handling and externally where partner relationships were becoming increasingly challenging.

33.   Summing up the Chair concluded that:

  • the Board had approved the Quarter 4 and full year report for April 2003 to March 2004, and noted the main achievements;
  • the Board had noted that the Agency had met the majority of its corporate plan targets for 2003/04, while also gearing up for MRD;
  • the Board had noted an aggregate unaudited outturn spend for the Agency of £94M against full year grant-in-aid budget of £100M but understood the reasons for this; and
  • the Board had noted that gross expenditure of £110M was close to full year budget of £112M helped by increased activity in some areas generating receipts from partners. 

The Countryside Agency’s Response to Draft Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) – Creating Sustainable Communities    (AP04/16)

In attendance, Tracey Slaven.

34.   Introducing the paper, Tracey Slaven outlined that Planning Policy Statement 1 – Creating Sustainable Communities (PPS1) would set the high level policy objectives for the revised planning system to come into force with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill.   Board members had already been involved in the Agency’s formal response on other recent draft Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance revisions.   The new system provided new opportunities and a new approach to creating sustainable and involved communities in the planning process.   The draft response set out a framework, not the detail, and was based on three main themes – sustainable development, spatial planning and community involvement in planning.   Generally the Agency welcomed the tone and purpose of the Government’s objectives, but had suggested areas where the draft needed strengthening.   These included the importance of achieving a neutral impact by seeing the four aims of sustainable development met together, rather than attempting to achieve a balance over time; protection of the environment to figure more prominently than currently; to emphasise the need for community involvement to be part of the normal planning process rather than as a special add-on; and for sustainable design to be fully encompassed within PPS1.   All formal submissions on the consultation of PPS1 needed to be made within the next few days.

35.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   The Agency’s draft response was of high quality, but there was still a need to make the final response more robust.

b.   There was still not the right balance for full policy integration with economics still appearing to be the main driver.   This could allow for loopholes to be exploited.

c.   It was disappointing that there was no account made for protected areas or the needs of designated areas.   The Minister was known to be particularly supportive of this and the Agency’s response should include it.

d.   Community involvement appeared to underpin government policy, but it was important to guard against community involvement just becoming a tickbox exercise.   Policy had to be predicated on real involvement by local communities.  

e.   Existing data sources, including community strategies, parish plans and Market Town healthchecks, should be used to identify local community need and demand, but should also be viewed as an integral part of the process in determining sustainable development.   Community involvement should not be on the basis of ‘where feasible’.

f.   The capability and quality of local authorities to deliver through proper interpretation of PPS1, the speed at which they respond and their efficiency should be highlighted within the Agency’s response.   Pressure needed to be put upon local authorities to ensure PPS1 was implemented well.   The Agency was already engaged in influencing the training provided by the Planning Institute.

g.   Accountability from central government, through the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), for sustainable development as an over-arching concept was needed.   There could be a role for the New Countryside Agency (NCA) in monitoring the Government’s effectiveness in this work.   This should be added to the Agency’s response and included in the draft prospectus for the NCA.

h.   The Chair would write to Elliott Morley MP to highlight the Agency’s concerns about the need for sustainable development to be central to all planning issues.

36.   Summing up the discussion the Chair concluded that:

  • the Board had welcomed the draft PPS1;
  • the Board had approved the Agency’s response but had pressed for this response to be more robust on the following issues - 
  1. the need for sustainable development to be at the heart of PPS1;
  2. protected areas;
  3. the quality of local authority staff dealing with implementation of PPS1;
  4. proper engagement of rural communities.   The Agency’s response should include examples of best practice; and
  5. ODPM to be pressed to have proper evaluation of PPS1 in terms of community involvement. 

Housing – The Barker Review    (AP04/17)

In attendance, Brian Wilson.

37.   Introducing the paper Brian Wilson outlined that the Barker Review was of critical importance to the work of the Agency and that it backed up the Agency’s key messages about the affordability of rural housing.   The review did have a national focus and applied a framework to affordability.   The review did not mention rural housing specifically.   There was consideration of environmental issues though its primary focus was on the economic, rather than adoption of a sustainable development approach.

38.   The Countryside Agency had an existing policy on rural housing, but had not yet commented on the numbers of houses required as this had always been considered a local decision.   The overall response to the Barker Review was to welcome the report which raised affordable housing up on the political agenda and stated the need for further investment.   How this would be achieved was still unclear.   The Agency’s response to the Barker Review would need to highlight the lack of consideration on rural housing and push for more consideration on high quality development.   The ability to translate open market housing to a local and rural level had not been resolved.   There were two recommendations within the Review where the Agency did have some concern: planning gain and allocation of a buffer.   The Agency would submit written evidence to the Environmental Audit Select Committee and continue to meet with partners to influence on housing.   There was no planned public response from the Agency.   The Agency’s own figures and data on rural housing were now 4 or 5 years out of date.   There were two additional research needs the Board were asked to consider: a housing needs update and identifying examples of good housing development practice in rural areas.

39.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   The Barker Review did flag up the key issues of affordability and the need for high quality and appropriate housing development.

b.   The national perspective of the Review did mean that rural areas were overlooked.   As a result rural proofing of the implementation of the Review’s recommendations would need to be robust to protect rural needs.

c.   The Agency particularly supported the Review’s recommendations on setting a mandatory PSA target at a regional level and the suspension of the right to buy.

d.   The proposed research by the Agency to establish more up to date information could be important to support the New Countryside Agency’s continuing rural proofing role.   It was difficult data to establish and models were needed.   The research should focus on an analysis of existing figures at a local level.

e.   The Review did not include anything on provision, or linking housing with service provision and transport.   This integrated approach was essential for rural areas.

f.   The sub-regional dimension to the Review’s recommendations was important to establish, especially as critical decisions would be taken at the regional level.   The Agency’s efforts and influence would need to shift to regional decision makers to account for this, and to influence government on the need for sub-regional PSA targets.   This would need to be backed up with examples of good practice.

g.   The provision of more housing at the top end of the housing market could have an impact on the quantity of housing available at the bottom end of the market, but this may vary from location to location.   Some rural communities did not suffer from a shortage of housing, but from second home ownership.   In these areas more housing would not necessarily release homes and therefore would not assist rural people.   It could even hasten the decline of some rural communities.

h.   All past attempts to predict affordable housing need had failed.   Demographic changes were critical to this prediction.

i.   The funds released through right to buy would be better allocated where there was need, not necessarily back into the same geographical area.

j.   Housing benefit had been the main way that policy had developed.   Local decisions were now much more appropriate to assessing need.   Careful judgment was needed on where state intervention would assist.

40.   Summing up the discussion the Chair concluded that: 

  • the Board had welcomed the Barker Review, its key recommendations and the overall policy stance taken by the Agency;
  • the Board had agreed that affordable housing rested on more than quantity, and that sustainable development and quality issues were relevant to rural areas;
  • the Board had agreed that the engagement of local people would better identify need; 
  • the Board had agreed that housing targets should be embedded at the sub-regional level, but that the Agency should back this up with examples;
  • the board had agreed that rural proofing would need to be underpinned through careful analysis of information and data on housing need.

Forest of Dean Integrated Rural Development Programme    (AP04/18)

In attendance, Margaret Clark.

41.   Introducing the paper, Margaret Clark outlined that the paper was primarily to update the Board on the Integrated Rural Development (IRD) programme for the Forest of Dean and to seek the Board’s endorsement for an exit strategy.   The IRD was set up in 2000 to consider the options for an alternative approach to landscape designation for the Forest.   It looked to use existing powers to find locally based solutions to safeguard the Forest.   The Agency’s key input had been to build an information base, to help formulate a plan and to provide resources to demonstrate how this could be achieved on the ground.   The Board had visited the Forest and had been introduced to the complexities of the regeneration issues the Forest faced.   In 2003 evaluation of the IRD was carried out which showed that positive progress had been made through the IRD programme.   There had been some staffing difficulties during 2003, but this had been resolved.

42.   The main achievements to date were that baseline studies were now in place, a management group had become part of the strategic approach to the area, the officer post was part funded locally, a website had been set up and regular surgeries took place, and meetings had been held with local groups and individuals. The IRD programme had always been due to end by March 2005.   Some delays had occurred and an extension to September 2005 was now requested to assist transition of the programme from the Agency, through discussion at a local level.   Lessons learnt from the IRD programme would be taken through to the new Countryside Agency.   The Chair had been presented with a report from the Friends of the Forest which would be fed into the final evaluation of the project.

43.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   The Board was convinced that the Forest of Dean had the special qualities including its landscape, culture and communities.   The IRD project had explored the opportunities for sustainable development of the Forest.     

b.   There had been inherent difficulties for a national agency involving itself in a locality and the project had proved to be complex and involved.   When a final report was produced it would be important to learn all the lessons about the process as well as the outcomes.   Not everything had worked well or had produced positive outcomes, including intervention.

c.   There had been encouraging signs of progress through the IRD project on planning issues.   A full evaluation was needed to determine what the next steps should be.

d.   The lessons learnt could feed into both the Integrated Agency for national policy on cultural and land assets, and for organisations which, through the Modernising Rural Delivery process, would take on work currently done by the Agency.   The Regional Development Agency (RDA) was the most appropriate organisation to now lead on IRD type work.   These partners needed to be engaged now to ensure a successful transfer.

e.   It was important that if the Agency was to exit that it did so as close to the original timetable as possible.   Any extension to the March 2005 deadline would need to focus heavily on the lessons to learn for long-term success.

f.   The final report on the IRD project would need to assess what had been distinctive and different to sustainable development in the Forest of Dean as compared to what could have been achieved through designation as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.   The final report should also consider how a transfer to the RDA would work.

44.   Summing up the discussion the Chair concluded that:

  • the Board had noted the progress with the IRD project;
  • the Board had agreed the exit strategy and arrangements for the future;
  • the Board had provided a steer on the exit strategy to undertake a full evaluation to embed the lessons learnt;
  • the Board had agreed a final cut off for the Agency’s involvement in 2005/06;
  • the Board had agreed that the lessons learnt from the IRD project would be the basis of the final report and would highlight both the successes and failures of the project, and would make recommendations for the future.   This would be undertaken with the assumption that RDAs would embrace IRD projects at a local and regional level, while the IA would adopt the policy work.

Implementing the 2003 CAP Reform Package in England:   Cross Compliance Requirements under the Single Farm Payment and other Issues    (AP04/19)

In attendance, Bob Roberts.

45.   Introducing the paper Bob Roberts outlined that the paper came at an important step in CAP reform.   The paper set out the Agency’s position and response to Defra on a medium term strategy.   There had been a lot of collaboration with other agencies on the response, including English Nature and Scottish Natural Heritage, and there was still much work in progress.   The timetable for responses was tight and to ensure the Agency’s view was properly considered it would important to respond by the end of May 2004.   The Agency had taken a pragmatic approach and considered what was now reasonable to expect from cross-compliance and, most importantly, focused heavily on the public benefit of reform.   There was pressure on Defra to keep the system as simple as possible.

46.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   It was important to focus on where benefits could be secured for the public from CAP reform.   There was currently an absence of any stated objectives for the £2 billion of income support that the new CAP legislation would provide and the need to secure public benefit from this money.   There were various ways this could be achieved, including Pillar 1 leverage on Pillar 2.   Opportunities from cross-compliance were limited and application would be restricted under existing EU directives.  

b.   The new de-coupled payment should bring significant environmental benefits as it broke the link between production and subsidy.   In some places this could still have potentially negative effects – for example, reduced stocking could benefit some heather moorlands though lack of management and increased scrub could make access more difficult.

c.   There was still a long way to go to achieve the public benefit that was desirable.   In 2003 reform at the EU level had been very promising, but the national discretion had marginalised its scope and the result was now a conservative settlement with a narrow interpretation of cross-compliance.   The Agency had a duty to push for a more radical approach, including meaningful cross-compliance with the inclusion of access, and increased in Pillar 2 funds with environmental and rural proofing of Pillar 2 action.

d.   The Agency had a longer term vision and it was important to set this out in the Agency’s response.   The Integrated Agency (IA) was likely to be the organisation to take on responsibility for this area of work in the future.

d.   It was important that rural development issues were not ruled out of the equation, or that CAP reform became focused too narrowly as an environmental instrument.   The potential impact of structural funds and off-farm payments on rural businesses as a whole would be important to establish.   The socio-economic elements of CAP would be important for the work of the IA.  

e.   The Farm Advisory Service was an important part of ensuring that the new regulation worked.   The advisory service needed to be in place and be prepared to deal with queries about cross-compliance and prepared to deal with concerns from a wider audience than farming businesses.  

f.   The proposed press release should include the need for a joined up approach to the implementation of CAP reform

g.   The issue of applying regulation only to ‘visible’ rights of way needed to be addressed under cross-compliance.   There was an opportunity for Defra to use regulation to get closer to achieving the Rural White Paper public rights of way targets.

47.   Summing up the discussion the Chair concluded that:

  • the Board had approved the Countryside Agency’s position on a medium term strategy for CAP support;
  • the Board had agreed the response to Defra on their consultation paper, subject to a clear balance between socio-economic and environmental sustainability; for the advisory service to include the broader needs of rural businesses; and for the opportunities for access to be highlighted; and
  • The Board had agreed that the Agency should be brave and robust in its response to ensure the opportunities available through CAP reform where not lost.

Open Access Total Project Costs    (AP04/20)

In attendance, Jeremy Worth.

48.   Introducing the paper Jeremy Worth thanked colleagues in the Open Access team for their hard work in producing the figures for the Board paper.   The review of the Agency’s costs for the Open Access project to the end of year 2003/04 was illustrative and interim.   A full evaluation would follow.   The project was currently running at £1m per month.

49.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   £8.50 per hectare a year to secure access to limited areas of open country in the Peak District, and the £68 per hectare for new access under the Access Management Grant Scheme, was not comparing like with like.

b.   Whether the Government would achieve broad value for money through opening up access in this way was difficult to address in advance of data about the net impact achieved additional usage of access land.

c.   In setting budgets for the integrated agency in future years, Defra would need to take account of the on-costs associated with CROW in the future. 

d.   Evaluation of the project would need to assess what the net impact was, and how effective legislation was in achieving CROW.   This was a complex requirement of the evaluation and the Agency would assist Defra in this work.   A comparison with Scottish Natural Heritage’s method of achieving open access would be of interest and value.

50.   Summing up the discussion the Chair concluded that:

  • the Board had noted the review of the Agency’s costs for the open access project, and the estimate of costs still to be incurred to meet the PSA target and to prepare for the operation of the new rights from 2006/07 onwards;
  • the Board had noted that this new estimate had been sent to Defra so they could update the Agency’s formal approval for expenditure, and amend their estimates of the total costs associated with meeting the PSA target.

Improving Access for Canoeing:   Advice to Defra    (AP04/21)

In attendance, Jeremy Worth.

51.   Introducing the paper Jeremy Worth outlined that there was a link between the issue of improving access for canoeing and the Open Access project.   There was pressure on the Minister to determine the next steps and the Board paper summarised the recommendations the Agency had sent to the Minister.   From research undertaken by the Agency on the Minister’s request there was evidence that there was latent demand for access for canoeing.   It was possible to improve access, but it would require a major capital investment.   A small note of caution for the Board was that there was also evidence that the current state of trespass was considered by some as preferable to the negotiation that would be required to formally establish access for canoeing.   A voluntary approach would need a champion for the scheme.   This project was not a function of the Agency’s core work and the Environment Agency (EA) had shown an interest in taking this forward depending on the resources needed.   The proposed advice to the Minister was to work with the EA and to undertake further cost analysis.

52.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   This was an important piece of work and would benefit from partnership working.   A champion for the project could be hard to identify and the work would be costly.   The Environment Agency (EA) would need funding for capital investment.

b.   The four cases highlighted in the report appeared to demonstrate relatively low costs.

c.   Access for canoeing would interest and involve many different organisations.    It would be important for the Integrated Agency to work closely with the EA on development of this project.

d.   There was no mention in the report of other issues and potential economic gains related to improving access, including tourism.   One NorthEast had already undertaken research which demonstrated that canoe access could be important for local tourism.   There was a danger that the EA would not pick up on these economic opportunities.

53.   Summing up the discussion the Chair concluded that:

  • the Board had noted the completion of phase one of a three year project, as requested by the Minister, to investigate the feasibility of increasing access to water for canoeists by voluntary agreement;
  • the Board had noted the recommendations the Agency had sent to the Minister.

Date and location of the next meeting

54.   The next meeting of the Countryside Agency Board would be on 5 July 2004, Royal Show Ground, Stoneleigh, Warwickshire.