Natural England

Minutes of the 44th Meeting of the Countryside Agency

Present:

Stuart Burgess, Chairman
Pam Warhurst
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
John Mills, Defra
Juliet Grace, Head of Management Support Group

Chair’s welcome 

1.   The Chairman welcomed Countryside Agency staff, John Mills from Defra and external observers to the meeting.   He and the Board, thanked Pam Warhurst for her work as Chair since April 2004.

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 interest was declared –

• Tony Hams declared an interest, as Chairman of the Peak District National Park and Chairman of the Association of National Parks, in Board paper AP04/34, Annual Advice to the Secretary of State on the Level and Distribution of National Park Authority Funding for 2005/06.

Apologies for absence

3.   Apologies had been received from Martin Doughty.   Tony Hams informed the meeting that Martin had undergone an operation last week and was now in recovery.   The Chairman proposed, with Board member support, sending a letter of greeting from the Board.

Minutes of the meeting of 5 July and 22 July 2004

4.   The minutes of the 5 July Countryside Agency meeting were approved.

5.   The closed minutes of the 5 July Countryside Agency meeting were approved, subject to a correction to the list of those attending.  

6.   The minutes of the Extraordinary Countryside Agency meeting held on the 22 July were approved.

Chief Executive’s report and matters arising

7.   Richard Wakeford welcomed questions and comments from the Board about matters arising from his report.

8.   The suspension of grants from Living Spaces, funded by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, had created problems for the Doorstep Greens Programme.   This had been caused by a higher level of demand than had been expected.   The Agency needed to consider whether to plug the gap from our own funds.

9.   A review had been initiated in Norfolk of the use of second-home council tax receipts for affordable housing.   There had been a larger amount of money than had been expected from the increase of council tax on second homes, and there was pressure by local authorities to use this money on other areas of work.   This should be monitored closely by the Agency.

10.   The Agency’s input to the Environment Observatory should be discussed at a future date.

11.   The Open Access team was to be congratulated for the launch events on Sunday 19 September in the lower North West and the South East.   The launches had marked a momentous occasion and a significant milestone in the project.

12.   The IBM contract (SPIRIT) faced challenges in meeting the demands of the Agency and in supporting the Agency’s work as it went through structural changes.   It was important that SPIRIT could work for non-Executive members and those needing to work remotely, as well as the differing requirements of the new Countryside Agency and the integrated agency.

13.   A copy of the report about the Access Management Scheme was available to Board members.   The two applications to pursue judicial review had still to hear whether they could apply.   This was a potential risk to the Agency in meeting its PSA target as a review would delay work from being completed on time.

14.   The MOSAIC project had provided a good and encouraging start in introducing black and ethnic minority Britons to their national park heritage.   However, there was a long way to go in this area of work before it could be considered a success.   Diversity review and focus groups would be central to the progress made towards an integrated agency.

Implementing the Rural Strategy – September 2004    (AP04/28)

15.   Introducing the paper, Richard Wakeford outlined the progress on implementing the Rural Strategy, and asked for the Board’s approval on four specific issues.   The Defra Programme Board, which had met the previous day, had not added anything to the debate.   However, there were issues for Defra to resolve on the interrelation of projects.   Work towards an integrated agency was supported by the appointment this week of a Project Director to begin on 5 October 2004.   This would help to relieve Tracey Slaven’s workload.   Tracey was thanked for her hard work and the production of a draft Project Definition Document.   This area of work was progressing well.  

16.   John Mills explained that Royal Assent would not be feasible for a Bill before the summer of 2006.   A general election could impact on the timescale too.   It was therefore important to have a good, short and fairly uncontroversial draft Bill ready in the hope that it could be included in the first round of Bills considered in the first session of a new Parliament.   This required prompt action now to ensure a draft Bill was ready.   The pace would need to be fast, though there was room for debate and input from the Board to ensure its views were considered in a measured way.   A memorandum from the Board to Defra would be very helpful in setting out its desires.   John Mills was to provide the Secretary of State with a submission by the end of September and, again, help from the Board would be greatly appreciated.

17.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   The independence of the new Countryside Agency (NCA) as a non-departmental public body was essential.   A robust position statement from the Board was now required to express the opportunities that would be missed without a strong agenda and independent role for the NCA.  

b.   The credibility of the new Rural Advocate, and the status and watchdog role of the NCA, would depend on statute.   This was the only way the NCA would be taken seriously.   A statement from the Board to the Secretary of State needed to clearly express what the Bill should contain.  

c.   The progress towards an integrated agency was moving too slowly and the process now required to be driven by the appointment of a shadow Chair and subsequently CEO, who would provide the visionary “pull” to complement the current teams’ “push”.   If this was going to take time to deliver, for example because of the need to await Second Reading of the Bill, a short term transition manager at CEO level should be considered.   On the other hand, a short term appointment should be resisted as it was important to the process and to staff to have continuity in the role.   Without this there could be a lack of ownership of the process by the appointee, and cultural problems for the merging agencies.

d.   Three CEOs and one director from Defra were currently driving the development of the integrated agency.   A degree of confusion existed about the purpose, function and role of the confederation, the proposed steering group and the Chairs group.   The joint meeting of the Agency Board and the English Nature Council members in November 2004 would be a good opportunity to focus on the recommendations for progressing the integrated agency.   The proposed Steering Group would provide the CEOs with one focus.   Harmonising the corporate plan processes would be one of the Steering Group’s first tasks.  

e.   There was a considerable risk to the Agency’s reputation within rural communities if the Local Heritage Initiative (LHI) was not continued in some way.   Yet, the steer from the Department had been to mainstream this delivery project by the end of March 2004.   The Heritage Lottery Fund had said that they were constrained in taking the scheme in-house by the numbers of staff attached to the project.   That meant that if they were to take on the management of the project it was likely to change significantly, not be mainstreamed or possibly would be closed down completely.   The Chairman should invite the Minister to write to Richard Caborn at the DCMS to try to resolve this; a simple dispensation on HLF running costs ought to allow the scheme and the associated staff to transfer.   HLF Trustees were due to meet on the 12 October to agree a position on LHI.   The Board would liaise and agree an approach before this date to be submitted to Defra and the Minister to help him in his discussions with DCMS.

18.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:

• the Board had approved an agreed position on the status of the new Countryside Agency (NCA).   He would write to the Secretary of State particularly emphasising the importance of the independence of the NCA and the need for a legal basis for rural proofing;
• the Board had approved the creation of an Integrated Agency Steering Group, conjoined with English Nature and the Rural Development Service.   The Board agreed that the five representatives from the Agency would be Pam Warhurst, Kate Ashbrook, Tony Hams, Peter Fane and Tayo Adebowale;
• the Board had made clear its preference on the appointment of a shadow Chair and shadow CEO for the Integrated Agency, and the need for a transition director;   and
• the Board had approved the negotiating stance on LHI.

Quarter 1 Report and Period 5 Forecast April – June 2004   (AP04/29)

In attendance, Tim Lunel.

19.   Introducing the paper, Tim Lunel outlined that the paper reported on progress in outcomes and outturn.   Annex 1 highlighted the detailed achievements of the Agency.   In particular these included – A3: Stepping Stones and the Market Towns Conference which had reached the stage of completion; B2: the successful Countryside Code launch and the significant steps made towards the Pennine Bridleway and the Discovering Lost Ways projects; C: publication of the State of the Countryside Report; D: implementation of a new payroll system, and an extended 3 month lease for Dacre House to allow time to find appropriate office space for the working style of the NCA.   Key risks were outlined in the paper.   Most critically the risks were – the need to populate communications posts to ensure this was embedded in all areas of the Agency’s work, and the pressures associated with the modernising rural delivery process.

20.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   It was important to acknowledge that the Agency continued to deliver across its range of programmes.   All credit was given to staff for their hard work during a most difficult period.

b.   Spend in the 1st Quarter was well behind forecast.   Spend to date was now further behind budget on committed spend.   An underspend of between £2m - £5m was predicted over the whole year.

c.   Programme Directors needed to undertake a reality check and take responsibility for their programmes, and thus determine what the Agency would realistically be able to deliver in the time available.   

d.   The process used in quarterly reporting was sound, though there were still forecasting issues to overcome.   It would be important to try to mainstream the use of this particular reporting model into the process for reporting in the integrated agency.

e.   The contingency plans for additional spend were welcomed by the Board.   Some of this was new work, consistent with the corporate plan, which could be brought forward to reduce pressure in 2005/06.   A far smaller amount of work highlighted for additional spend was opportunist (eg National Trails work as a result of the Cornish coastal flooding).   Accelerating the work on National Trails would prevent a need for spend on maintenance in future years.   Officers should make the nature of any additional funding clear (for example, the additional money for AONBs was one-off and not a consolidated funding position carrying through to the following year).

f.   It was important that the Agency could be as flexible as possible to reallocate or carry forward monies to support projects that may not be mainstreamed as quickly as had been hoped.   This was particularly important for the A1, A2 and C3 work where there was the most staff uncertainty and increased MRD activity.   A2 was severely restricted in the regions where staff had reduced significantly.   In some regions no staff were working on A2.   Ways to continue and complete work were being progressed with Regional Directors and the focus would remain on delivery. 

g.   In other areas of underspend business planning had flagged up the vulnerability of projects, and a change of direction had been implemented.   For example, the proposed 3 year demonstration projects for young people had been reassessed and, as the NCA would not have a demonstration role, this work was being progressed in other ways with less spend this year.

h.   There was scope for some further spend in the Evaluating, Disseminating and Mainstreaming (EDM) work.   More could be done on national activities including Rural Housing Enablers and the Market Towns Environment Forum.

i.   The Aggregates Levy was managed as a separate project and was not funded through grant-in-aid.   Underspend in this work was due to a programme review and an extension to the project which had been agreed late, and with the amendment of the criteria for applications.   This had resulted in some projects being unable to be progressed.

j.   Communications would be a key area of work for the transition period to the NCA and integrated agency.  

k.   The EDM team had developed exit strategies for activities that were to be mainstreamed.    The capacity to complete would depend largely on whether staff remained engaged, and the finite resource available to do the work.  

l.   MRD activity would continue to be tagged separately to enable the Board to clearly identify spend in this area of work.

21.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:

• the Board had approved the Quarter 1 report for April 2004 to June 2004, and had noted the Agency’s main achievements;
• the Board had noted that, at the first quarter, there was a grant-in-aid underspend of £2.4m against a budget spend of £21.5m and that this had risen to £5.1m underspend at Period 5 against a budget of £37.6m;
• the Board had noted with approval the exercise commissioned by the Chief Executive following the reported underspend at Q1, to identify good use of funds in the current year;
• the Board had noted that the Agency anticipated the slowing of delivery programmes in the socio-economic area to maintain flexibility for RDAs to direct the future direction of these programmes;
• the Board had noted that the EDM team forecasted an additional spend of £900k on project management and evaluation and dissemination activities for the EDM project;
• the Board had noted a period 5 forecast outturn in line with the grant-in-aid budget of £92.5m.

Outline Corporate Plan – Countryside Agency 2005/06 – 2007/08   (AP04/30)

22.   Introducing the paper, Tim Lunel outlined that the paper reflected and summarised the work by the Board at their Away Day on 9 September 2004.  

23.   John Mills explained that there was a proposal for the Minister to meet with the Board in October to provide the Board with a steer.   The aim was to develop a clear understanding of the issues that may be problematic.   In particular the Minister might wish to set a baseline figure for grant-in-aid at the equivalent of £90.5m, not £93m, out of which funds had to be found for the RDAs and Government Offices.   The budget proposed in the Rural Strategy for the new countryside agency was ‘something approaching’ £10m (and this would probably need to include a fair share of the core costs).   The Aggregates Levy project lay outside the grant-in-aid funding, but there was optimism that the Treasury would be able to find the funds to secure the project.  

24.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   The paper provided a useful and helpful summary, and did reflect the Board’s steer on 9 September.   John Mills was thanked for his openness and steer to the Board at this early stage.   Many of the decisions about resources had been based upon assumptions, which had been all the Agency had to work with.

b.   It was now important to identify all options for presentation to the Minister.   Feedback from Defra would then help in the development of detailed business plans.

c.   In programme area B1.2 the modest growth for CAP reform work was questioned.   This was one area of work where it would possible to pool resources across the confederation and gain advantage from the new working structure.   The same applied to land acquisition where significant opportunities now existed to gain from the three agencies working together.

d.   The issue of rural deprivation needed to be reflected more strongly in the proposals for the NCA.

e.   Land designations would move into the integrated agency.   These were often time-consuming and contentious.   It would be confusing at this stage to make designations a priority.   It was more appropriate for the Board to focus attention on post Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to ensure that CAP Reform made a real difference to public benefit, along with access to coastline.

25.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:

• the Board had noted the outline corporate plan for grant-in-aid over 2005-2008;
• the Board had noted that the corporate plan continued to show a cash level baseline, after removal of socio-economic demonstration funds to the RDAs and GOs from April 2005;
• The Board noted that the sum for the NCA programmes and staff had been based on the sum of £10m.   A figure of somewhere approaching £10m would also need to include core costs for the NCA;
• The Board had noted that the budget of £40.071m for the LAR division included continuation of on-going priorities and the policy areas to catalyse the integration of activities in the integrated agency confederation;
• The Board had noted the modest cash savings in core costs, with major savings coming from the creation of the new statutory bodies in 2007;
• The Board had noted that the Agency continued to assume that Defra would fund the major Rural Strategy implementation costs, such as those associated with any redundancies.

EDM Mainstreaming Strategy    (AP04/31)

In attendance, Ken Roy.

26.   Introducing the paper, Ken Roy said that the paper outlined the thinking for the next 6 month period for EDM.   There were three main objectives – the transfer of functions from the Agency to other organisations; the delivery of the 2004/05 Corporate Plan, and evaluation of the process to identify and share the key lessons and solutions to delivery of projects on the ground.   It was recognised that much of the mainstreaming of the Agency’s ideas and approaches would be achieved through the successful transfer of staff to regional and local delivery organisations.   Cross-cutting evaluation work had been initiated across all work streams to ensure a robust evidence base about what had been achieved.   The mainstreaming work had always been an explicit objective for the Agency’s work.   Work would be developed based on five key themes that underpin many of the Agency’s socio-economic demonstration programmes.

27.   The paper also outlined the evolving Putting Down Roots proposal and updated the Board on the engagement of regional staff in embedding their understanding about the future of rural communities into the new arrangements.   This programme’s feasibility had been further tested and an initial risk analysis carried out.   Most critical was the need to achieve value for money, which could be jeopardised by the tight timescale being worked to.

28.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   It was important, in the light of the future advisory role of the NCA, to get the evaluation right.   It was important to include in the review the lessons learnt about how good the Agency itself was at evaluation.

b.   Presentation of the key themes would need to be done well.   The cross-cutting approach to dissemination was positive, but it was important to avoid the approach becoming too focused on process.   Too much focus on the Agency’s own processes would make it difficult to keep people engaged.   A more exciting and radical approach to the key themes was needed.

c.   It was essential to link the Agency’s key themes and its legacy of knowledge and experience to the work of the NCA.   This should be with stakeholder commitment.  

d.   A major risk was not achieving stakeholder buy-in to act as the Agency’s voice and champion in the regions.   The Agency’s staffing capacity at a regional level would be a critical factor in gaining their buy-in.   £300k had been designated for training and materials to equip staff moving to new organisations with the lessons learnt.

e.   The proposals for exit strategies from each programme area would be brought to the next Board meeting.   

f.   The research phase of the Putting Down Roots programme was sensible, though there were risks associated with the events phase.   These were specifically the overlap with existing events and unclear stakeholder buy-in.

g.   The Accounting Officer would need to be sure that planned expenditure met with the Agency’s obligations to ensure value for money with the Putting Down Roots proposal.

h.   It was difficult to foresee a positive outcome in the proposed events phase.   Rural communities would not necessarily wish to input to this process at a time when they were being most hit by the change in government support arrangements.   In addition, the Agency did not have the wider stakeholder respect and support.   This would make the proposal difficult to deliver.   It might be better to consider working instead with the regional development agencies and regional forums and linking in with existing networks.

29.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:

• the Board had noted the activity in hand and the possible financial implications;
• the Board had provided a steer on the Key Themes intended to capture the Agency’s legacy;
• the Board had noted the debate on Putting Down Roots and provided a steer;
• the Board had provided a steer on the priority to further mainstreaming activity in relation to transfer preparation and delivery of the 2004/05 Corporate Plan.

State of the Countryside Reporting – 2005 Onwards   (AP04/32)

In attendance, Ken Roy.

30.   Introducing the paper, Ken Roy outlined that the State of the Countryside Report (SOCR) had been recognised by the Board as a key success of the Agency.   It was a document that had broad reach and wide recognition.   It helped to raise awareness and people’s understanding of rural issues and provided an integrated and annual healthcheck for rural areas reflecting all aspects of rural disadvantage.   With the move to the NCA imminent, it was important to recognise the importance of the SOCR in focusing on a range of social, economic and environmental issues relevant to rural areas, and to ensure that this major publication was sharper and had wider impact in the future.   In particular it should address issues of disadvantage and equity in future reports.   In helping to set the scene of the NCA a broad level governance structure was proposed.  

31.   The national report had broad scope with indicator themes which had provided continuity over a number of reporting years.   The Board would need to determine whether these themes should be maintained or flexibility given to create a sub-section for new and emerging themes.   The NCA could continue to produce regional reports, but this could only be achieved through partnerships in the regions.   This would require an investment in time now to ensure it could be sustained.

32.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   The SOCR was a key, flagship document.   It had been developed each year using a systematic process with results that had been routinely tested.   The SOCR had been a critical piece of work in enabling the Agency to influence others.

b.   Future ownership of the document would lie with the NCA and its concerns and research.   The SOCR would continue to address those issues considered important by the NCA, and would represent the style and tone of an independent NCA and how the NCA was different.

c.   The existing 20 indicators, or themes, in the report had provided important continuity in gauging and tracking changes in rural trends and the impact of rural policy over a number of years.   It was important to maintain the SOCR’s broad base of indicators.   This was particularly important in supporting an integrated and sustainable approach to rural areas.   However, some flexibility with the indictors was important to allow the document to remain relevant and up to date.

d.   The NCA would have a remit that focused on disadvantage and deprivation.   This would need to be reflected in future SOCRs.

e.   Where relevant the SOCR should include international comparisons.

f.   The SOCR should continue to provide the reader with both statistics and analysis.   There was scope to provide more analytical data and be more focused on being policy-aware.   Statistics could also help to streamline the document which needed to be shorter and tighter.  

g.   The SOCR should be considered as more than a report, but as a document which would be used and debated throughout the year.   New approaches and technologies should be considered to make better use of the document in future to keep it alive throughout the year.   The executive summary leaflet should also be used to help increase knowledge and readership of the SOCR.

h.   This year’s regional reports of the SOC could continue, though the work to develop the sources and partnerships at a regional level would need to be done now to ensure it had a chance of success.   It was more important for the regional SOCs to be mainstreamed so they fed directly into regional debate and policy, and was not realistic for the NCA to continue to produce.   The national SOCR would continue to have statistical appendices which would highlight the key indicators for the regions.   Regional collaboration with the NCA could provide a bottom-up link to the national report in future. 

33.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:

• the Board had approved the overall process for the SOCR and the indicative timetable for production of the 2005 report;
• the Board had approved the retention of the 20 indicator themes, with some flexibility to apply additional indicator sub-themes where relevant;
• the Board had approved a continuing single volume, of about half the current length, concentrating on analysis as the added value of the new Countryside Agency;
• the Board had approved the introduction of a new governance structure for the SOCR; and
• the Board had approved further work to test the feasibility and value of the partnership model for delivery of regional reporting.

European Union Rural Development and Regional Development Policies 2007 - 2013    (AP04/33)

In attendance, Richard Lloyd.

34.   Introducing the paper, Richard Lloyd said that the paper outlined the main elements of the proposed European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the main changes from the current Rural Development Regulation coming in 2007.   Critically the EU budget would face massive constraints and it was likely that the UK would lose out.   It was a complex subject and Defra was seeking clarity through a number of consultations.   The Board’s view was sought on the Agency line for these consultations.   

35.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.  The redistribution of resources away from the single farm payment, which appeared to have no policy purpose, towards rural development was essential and urgent.   A rebalancing of expenditure would be far more effective in boosting sustainable rural development than many of the measures under consideration, and should be pursued with vigour.

b.   There was not support for the concept that environmental cross compliance measures should apply to axes 1 and 3.

c.   There was likely to be some rebalancing between expenditure on the 3 axes.

36.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that: 

• the Board had endorsed the positions set out in the paper (paragraphs 10-14) as the basis for developing the Agency’s response to consultations expected in the coming months.

Annual Advice to the Secretary of State on the Level and Distribution of National Park Authority Funding for 2005/06    (AP04/34)

In attendance, Bob Roberts.

37.   Introducing the paper Bob Roberts outlined that the proposed recommendation was for this year’s grant to National Parks be distributed on a flat line or to provide a small inflationary increase.   The Minister had given assurance that no National Park would experience a decrease in grant.

38.   In discussion Board members made the following point:

a.   The same formula that had been applied in previous years had been used to establish the grants for National Parks this year.

39.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that: 

• the Board had agreed that the Minister should consider bringing National Park funding to the real term levels indicated in the 1991 Edwards Report as soon as the financial position allowed; and
• the Board had approved the distribution of this year’s grant in line with the advice in the paper.

Spending Review 2004   (AP04/35)

In attendance, Margaret Clark.

40.   In discussion Board   members made the following points:

a.   The greater freedom to set local priorities with a new tier of PSA Standards was a welcome next step to ensuring PSAs were relevant at a regional and local level.

b.   Influencing PSA targets in the future would be a key priority of the NCA.

41.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that: 

• the Board had noted the largest additions in funds related to transport and housing;
• the Board had noted that there did not appear to be significant changes in PSAs from the 2002 Spending Review, but some targets had been amended and a new tier of PSA Standards had been introduced; and
• the Board had noted that it was too early to assess whether the Agency’s priorities for the Spending Review had been met, although some of the generic issues appeared to have been picked up.

The New Forest National Park Decision and the Implications for the South Downs   (AP04/36)

In attendance, Tracey Slaven.

42.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   There were significant differences to the confirmed New Forest National Park boundary to that designated by the Agency.   An internal review of the findings confirmed that the Inspector’s report indicated that the Agency’s approach was sustainable.   If it had not been, the designation would not have been confirmed.   

b.   It was noted that officers did not believe that the changes to the New Forest boundary had any implications for the proposed designation in the South Downs.

43.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that: 

• the Board had noted that the Minister had announced that, subject to a number of modifications, he had decided to confirm the designation of the New Forest National Park and establish a National Park Authority;
• the Board had noted that the confirmed boundary covered a 14% smaller area from the designated by the Agency, but had concluded that this posed no questions about the application of our detailed designation policies.

Update on the Impact of CROW Mapping Appeals on the CROW Conclusive Maps   (AP04/37)

In attendance, Tracey Slaven.

44.   Summing up a short discussion the Chair concluded that: 

• the Board had noted that the conclusive maps for mapping areas 1 and 2 had been issued; and 
• the Board had noted that the appeals process is still under way in mapping areas 3-8, and that therefore final conclusions could not be drawn at this stage.

Date and location of the next meeting

45.   The next meeting of the Countryside Agency Board would be on 11 November 2004.   A Board Away Day on the 14 October 2004 would be held in Sheffield.   An external facilitator would attend the day to work help the Board evaluate its own effectiveness.