Breadcrumbs
Minutes of the 43rd Meeting of the Countryside Agency
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
Andrew Wood, Director
Mike Grace, Deputy Director
Ursula Brennan, Defra
Oona Muirhead, Defra
Gill Rawlins, Programme Director
Juliet Grace, Head of Management Support Group
Chair’s welcome
1. The Chair welcomed Countryside Agency staff, including Andrew Wood, the new Director for Evaluation, Dissemination and Modernisation (EDM), and Gill Rawlins the new Programme Director for Communications. Ursula Brennan and Oona Muirhead from Defra were welcomed to the meeting.
Declaration of Interests
2. The Chair asked each Board member to declare any interests they may hold in the issues or papers to be discussed. No interests were declared.
Apologies for absence
3. Apologies had been received from Martin Doughty. Board members wished Martin a speedy recovery and it was noted that Martin hoped to be able to join future meetings via video-conference link.
Minutes of the meeting of 20 May 2004
4. The minutes of the 20 May Countryside Agency meeting were approved, subject to the following amendments -
- Paragraph 35 b: to read ‘…with economic development still….’
Chief Executive’s report and matters arising
5. It was noted that 15,000 qualifying holdings did not receive the flyer sent out providing directions to restrict access for Open Access areas 1 and 2. This had been down to human error in Defra and as a result the deadline for receipt of applications for long-term restrictions had been extended from mid-May to mid-June. Steps had been taken to ensure this error would not occur again and the Minister had been briefed.
6. Confirmation of the designation of the New Forest National Park was to be celebrated and the team congratulated on this significant achievement.
7. Board members were concerned that a reduction in the boundary of the New Forest National Park could have a knock-on effect on the work currently being undertaken to defend the designated boundary of the South Downs National Park. The Agency was devoting a large amount of time and energy to this area of work. A full evaluation of the New Forest process, and value added at each stage, would be required to help improve the designation processes, responsibility for which would in future lie with the Integrated Agency. If the Agency had any specific concerns about designations of the two new national parks these could be put in writing to the Secretary of State. Tracey Slaven would provide a separate note to Board Members.
8. Defra was keen to lead on the launches for commencement of the new access rights. The Agency continued to work with Defra on this.
9. The consultations over long-term or permanent restrictions to access land in some circumstances lacked enough information. This would be reviewed by Tracey Slaven to ensure it was adequate.
Corporate Plan 2004/05: Overlay to Reflect Modernising Rural Delivery Activity (AP04/22)
In attendance, Tim Lunel.
10. Introducing the paper, Tim Lunel said that the paper provided an early opportunity for the Board to consider the resources available to the Agency, and the progress and deviations from the Corporate Plan 2004/05. The paper provided a view as to where the Agency currently stood, and a likely end-of-year position. A more detailed first quarter report would be prepared for the end of July.
11. The key points for the Board to note were the staff and financial implications. An overall balance on budget was likely, and delivery areas would face a likely underspend due to the reduced delivery of grants in A1 programme areas, though this would be counter-balanced by the need for additional resources for modernising rural delivery costs (MRD). Potential redundancies of staff were not accounted for in the figures, on Defra’s advice, as these would funded out of the wider Defra family budget. There was possible over optimism by Programme Directors. A summary table providing an overview was tabled.
12. Core support work and the move of C2 Communications to core functions would have additional costs, including the need for external consultants to support Human Resources with the staff changes, and to enable the move from Dacre House to Whitehall. Other core functions would have reduced costs. The cost of MRD on core functions had not been costed in to the paper.
13. The feeling was that spend was proceeding well in A Directorate. However, much of this area of work was dependent upon the outcome of the Secretary of State’s (SoS) announcement and the subsequent impact on staff morale. Morale was still high and delivery of work had not yet suffered. Operations had started to shift away from demonstration work but it was difficult at this stage to put an exact figure on the budgetary situation.
14. The Evaluating, Disseminating and Mainstreaming (EDM) area of work also was unclear at this stage. There were a lot of very committed people within the organisation who would help to carry the Agency through this transition stage. However, a leakage of staff to regional development agencies and other organisations was possible, as was a movement of staff out of the Agency over the next few months. At some point in the future a hard decision would be needed on whether to focus on delivery of this year’s Corporate Plan targets, or on the transfer work. There were risks to the Agency’s reputation and capacity with the drift of staff and it was important not to be unduly optimistic.
15. B Directorate had particular areas of work which had predictable costs, including public inquiry and AONB core costs. The Open Access project had a contingency fund in place and the costs were currently being reviewed every two weeks. Spend in this area would decrease. The impact of MRD would divert the attention of staff and a marginal underspend in B1 and B3 was predicted.
16. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. It was useful to start thinking about the direction of travel, and the future risks and impact of MRD. However, as a ‘snap-shot’ in time any submission to the Minister had to be viewed with caution and only be made with strong warnings of the risks facing the Agency in achieving the Corporate Plan 2004/05. Implementation of MRD and transition to the new structures may have a wider impact than currently predicted.
b. Implementation of MRD would increase the short term costs to the Agency, which were not reflected in the paper.
c. Staff numbers in A1 were decreasing at a time when only a 10% commitment on spend had been made. This was a key area of risk as staff were likely to leave if the New Countryside Agency (NCA) had fewer posts available than in the current year. As posts in A Directorate became available these posts would be harder to fill. In addition, as part of the process of transfer, loan of staff to Government Offices and regional development agencies on a formal basis had begun.
d. Staff in posts likely to be destined for the Integrated Agency (IA) wanted to stay in post and posts becoming available were often filled internally from staff in A Directorate, which again put a strain on the Agency’s ability to achieve across the Corporate Plan.
e. Staff needed certainty as soon as possible, and although the figures looked promising at the moment, the next few months could see a change on the staffing front. The Pre-Transition Project Board was routinely reviewing staffing issues and there was concern that the numbers of staff choosing to leave the organisation would increase with the SoS announcement.
f. Some areas of work, including rural proofing, were critical for the future work and focus of the NCA. The Board were reassured that most of this work was covered in A2 and was safeguarded.
g. The Agency’s optimism was commendable but there was a need to be realistic about the ability to deliver the Corporate Plan. There were no new projects or programmes to divert any underspend to and Defra should be informed as soon as it was clear that the full grant-in-aid would not be drawn upon. Defra would be able to reallocate these resources to other priorities for spend.
h. The Audit and Risk Management Committee had also raised concern about the impact of MRD on delivery of the Corporate Plan 2004/05. Clarity for staff and good leadership was required. In its current form the paper’s first recommendation did not do the situation, or the process of transition, justice.
i. A complete focus on transition and a likely underspend by the Agency would bring with it a communications risk as the message could be that the Agency had given up. Careful communications management was required.
j. The Board would need to discuss this further at the September Board meeting, following the SoS announcement. The focus of this discussion would be on how to balance the impact of MRD on delivery of existing business and the needs of transition.
17. Summing up the discussion the Chair concluded that:
- the Board had approved for submission to the Minister the variations against the Corporate Plan to take account of foreseeable MRD activity within the Agency for 2004/05. However, any submission had to strongly highlight the Board’s and the Accounting Officer’s concerns on delivery. The submission would be made the week beginning 12 July 2004.
Pre-Budget Tax Submission 2004/2005 (AP04/24)
In attendance, Margaret Clark.
18. Introducing the paper, Margaret Clark outlined that this was an initial paper and more detailed and specific proposals would be brought back to the Board in September. The paper reminded Board members of the Agency’s approach to influencing fiscal policy and the previous submissions made. Past submissions had not in themselves been successful but had influenced the Treasury to address rural issues, and the Agency had gained kudos for the quality of submission and the partnership approach.
19. A steer was now required on future areas for submission. Two main areas to focus on were those things specific to rural areas and those relating to small rural businesses and rural community buildings. Consultants would be appointed to support the Agency on economic issues, a meeting would be held with partners later in July 2004 and a submission would be developed for the Board to consider by September 2004.
20. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. A partnership approach was critical for success. Real dialogue was required not only with Defra but with other government departments to ensure more powerful joint proposals were developed. The proposals needed to focus on the end result the Agency would like to see, not on what the Agency could undertake itself. Proposals may therefore need adjustment to bring others alongside.
b. Treasury officials should be approached to help determine the type of changes previous submissions would need to increase the chances of success. The Treasury did seek new ideas and often environmentally based submissions were popular as they were seen as providing a win-win situation.
c. The Agency should revisit previous submissions, despite not being successful in the past, and evaluate them properly to incorporate any feedback. Small, one-off or single submissions should be avoided and instead a package of measures put together. This would be more attractive to the Treasury.
d. A package around community buildings would involve a lot of allies who could also apply pressure. A submission should bring attention to what had already been achieved in similar areas. For example, a lower rate of VAT on church repairs and tax relief on voluntary contributions had now been successful, but had taken many years to achieve. This submission should look beyond community buildings to consider the impact of VAT on small communities which are taxed on grants they secure. The Home Office had identified that small communities required an essential base in order to build community capacity, and a community building did fit with this approach.
e. It was important that if there were dramatic changes in the figures from one submission to another that these were explained in detail. Consistency and accuracy were critical.
f. Proposal 1, Community Buildings, was very attractive but might be over optimistic on the potential for EU agreement of an experimental measure.
g. Proposal 3, Agricultural Property Relief, should be pursued. A lot of work had already been done in this area. It needed to be noted that there was inconsistency in the definitions used for agriculture. The Inland Revenue’s definition was different again and there could be scope for aligning the definitions to gain benefits.
h. The tax system was becoming increasingly more complicated. An aspect of rural proofing should consider the impact of the complexity on small, rural communities which were less likely to have the specialist expertise available to them to gain from new measures. The NCA should have a role in exploring this further.
i. ERM would be asked to do further work on small-scale measures to enhance proposal 3.
j. Proposal 1 would require a lot of further work and a full submission should be developed for next year. This would be an important area of work for the NCA.
21. Summing up the Chair concluded that:
- the Board had agreed that proposals 1 and 3 should be further developed and reconsidered at the September Board meeting.
- The Board had agreed that the tax system did require rural proofing to examine its potential for simplification.
- The Board had approved the partnership approach to submissions, as outlined in the paper.
A Future Approach to National Park and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Boundary Revisions (AP04/25)
In attendance, Bob Roberts.
22. Introducing the paper, Bob Roberts outlined that the Board had recently visited the north west to consider one boundary revision and that the Agency had now received a letter from Defra clarifying the Agency’s powers on revisions. This was an area of work that had not been touched by the Agency for over ten years, mainly as it had been assumed this would result in full boundary reviews of each National Park and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The letter from Defra had supported the Agency’s ability to undertake partial reviews on a criteria and resource basis.
23. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. The Agency should pursue this work, but with caution and pragmatism. Whilst respecting the duty in the legislation it would be important to apply resources first to areas where there was a reasonable chance of success, at a reasonable cost to the Agency.
b. The integrated agency (IA) would hopefully have a role in looking afresh at designations and the rationale for designations - for both landscape and nature conservation. It would be important for this process to look to make sense of a structure that was designed in the 1950s and not always relevant to today. For example, the concept of sustainable development had not been part of the original criteria, but was now prominent. However, such changes would require primary legislation and could be many years away. If the Agency was to look at reviews in the meantime they should concentrate only on those considered small scale, require little resource or which are unlikely to bring much controversy.
c. A partnership approach was essential. The National Parks themselves may wish to contribute. Other organisations, including English Nature and the regional development agencies, should also be involved. It could be counter-productive for the Agency to pursue this work alone.
d. The criteria should focus on the process of designation and the potential benefit of review. The latter would be difficult to define. Creativity and transparency of the criteria and the indicators was needed. A sound business case would be needed, based on sustainable development. There was now a large evidence base on the benefits of the environment and its links to sustainable development. If reviews were to be taken forward some quick wins would be important.
e. Any reviews undertaken should look to provide a gradual alignment of the current landscape and nature conservation boundaries to support the medium and longer term issue of designated boundaries to be adopted by the IA.
24. Summing up the discussion the Chair concluded that:
- the Board had agreed the adoption of a pro-active approach to National Park and AONB boundary revisions by the Agency based on criteria on which the Agency would consult others. Sustainable development should provide the framework for the criteria.
Evaluation of the AONB Programme (AP04/26)
In attendance, Bob Roberts.
25. Introducing the paper Bob Roberts outlined that evaluation of one the Agency’s major programmes had been completed. The data was output, not outcome, driven but the evidence was on the whole very positive. Three years following the implementation of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 much had been achieved with AONBs and all bar two of the management plans were in place. Internally there were areas where the Agency could be more efficient, and there had been some constraints on the core costs last year which had now been resolved. The evaluation was encouraging.
26. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. The team should be congratulated for very good results. There had been a period of volatility over the last 18 months for AONBs but this had now stabilised.
b. The new AONB management structures, production of the management plans and the three-year funding had all been positive for AONBs. This was only a beginning. Activity on the ground was important and focus needed to shift to incentivise AONB partnerships to use their resources to deliver, and to lever in other funds. Buy-in from partners was essential.
c. On-going evaluation, to support the future IA, would be needed to examine the impact of the plans and to capture the difference partnership working had made to AONBs.
d. The Agency’s staff input to AONB work over the last three years had been crucial to the partnerships. The relationship between the Agency and AONBs had been close and would continue to be positive, but could not continue indefinitely. Some further staff resource may be required to support the implementation of the management plans, but the responsibility needed to be placed on the partnerships, not the Agency. This changing relationship would be a delicate process.
e. The National Association of AONBs did have scope to take on the role that the Agency had provided to date, and could support AONBs further in the future. Some local authorities also needed to review and improve their financial input to AONBs.
f. A careful balance was needed between supporting those AONBs who were clearly successful and those which had struggled to build their capacity and adapt to the new structure. Most importantly a ceiling on the growth of core costs was required.
27. Summing up the discussion the Chair concluded that:
- the Board had noted the outcome of the two evaluation studies which gave positive accolades for the successful establishment of new funding arrangements for AONBs.
- The Board had agreed that the level of funding to AONBs should be maintained where possible until a successor organisation took on responsibility for AONB sponsorship.
- The Board had agreed to revised eligibility for core and project costs and greater consistency in administration and improved monitoring and evaluation based on core performance indicators.
Strategic Priorities for Countryside Agency Business 2005/06 – 2007/08 (AP04/23)
Paper held in closed session
Modernising Rural Delivery Update (AP04/27)
Paper held in closed session
Date and location of the next meeting
28. The next (Extraordinary) meeting of the Countryside Agency Board would be on 22 July 2004.
