Natural England

Minutes of the 46th Meeting of the Countryside Agency

Present:

Stuart Burgess, Chairman
Pam Warhurst
Kate Ashbrook
Norman Glass
Tony Hams
Martin Doughty
Philip Lowe
Tayo Adebowale
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

Chairman’s welcome 

1.   The Chairman welcomed Countryside Agency staff and external observers to the meeting, including John Mills, Defra.   Martin Doughty was welcomed back following an absence due to illness.     

Declaration of Interests

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

• Kate Ashbrook, as Chair of the Council for National Parks, declared an interest in Board paper (AP04/52) Joint Working Arrangements for the EHJAC and the SDCB.
• Martin Doughty, as Chair of English Nature, declared interest in Board paper (AP04/45) Implementing the Rural Strategy – December 2004.

Apologies for absence

3.   Apologies had been received from Alison McLean and Frances Rowe.

Minutes of the meeting of 11 November 2004

4.   The minutes of the 11 November Countryside Agency meeting were approved, subject to the following amendments -

• Page 1, paragraph 3 to be amended to read – Margaret Clark would take on the role of Acting Chief Executive from 1 January to 31 March 2005.
• Page 3, paragraph 12b to be amended to read – The perception had been that the Board’s focus of attention had been on the NCA and the balance as regards LAR now needed to be better.
• Page 12, paragraph 30b to be amended to read – the NCA should look at the desired outcomes in determining the thematic studies and their timings.
• Page 9, paragraph 22c to be amended to read – a view on governance structures could be taken.

Chief Executive’s report and matters arising

5.   Richard Wakeford updated the Board on his previous day’s visit to the European Commission in Brussels, where he had given a presentation to 450 vets from throughout Europe.   The presentation had been part of a joint campaign by the UK and Holland to highlight the need for readiness for animal diseases, such as Foot and Mouth, and the wider economic implications for rural businesses and communities.   It had been a good opportunity for the Agency to demonstrate at a European level its role as a critical and constructive friend of government.

6.   Negotiations with Defra were continuing over the proposed move from Dacre House to Portland House, London, taking account of the needs of both the new Countryside Agency (NCA) and Landscape, Access and Recreation (LAR).   The detailed costs were being worked out.

7.   Margaret Clark reported two positive developments relating to affordable housing in rural areas.   At the recent launch of Defra’s Five Year Strategy, it had been announced that, when published, the revised Planning Policy Guidance Note on Housing (PPG3) would include a new policy to enable local planning authorities to allocate land for affordable housing and would also retain the existing exception sites policy.   This was in line with the Agency’s advice to government.   In addition, following concerns that, from 2006, the rural housing target for Regional Housing Boards was to be widened to include market towns or settlements between 3,000 to 10,000 population, the ODPM had issued further guidance to RHBs that they were still expected to meet the needs of the smaller settlements and the targets they set should distinguish between settlements up to 3,000 and those above.   This is something that the NCA would need to continue to monitor.

8.   The new IT specifications being developed for the NCA were positive, but it was important that the Board were included in arrangements to improve connectivity and new ways of working.

9.   The public inquiry into the proposal for a South Downs National Park was not due to end on the 16 December, but in February 2005.

10.   The State of the Countryside Report 2005 would be the first significant publication by the NCA with the existing Agency.   Although responsibility for the publication of the State of the Countryside Report (SOCR) would lie with the NCA, this remained a corporate responsibility for the full Board.   The strategic overview and thinking for the SOCR 2005 would still come to the full Board for their input and comment.

11.   Tim Lunel updated the Board on the quarterly report forecast on potential underspend by the Agency in 2004/05.   The forecast had not significantly changed and remained at a full budget outturn of £92.5m with the possibility of an underspend of between £2-5m.   An extended inquiry in the South Downs would spend an additional £250k.   It was wise though not to be too optimistic.   Staff were being allocated to new posts and were clearly beginning to look ahead to new business priorities.   The Board would need in due course to make clear decisions about whether staff should concentrate on existing or new business. 

12.   John Mills explained that he would need information from the Agency to report before Christmas to Defra’s finance team on underspend.   Ministers were anxious to avoid last year’s embarrassment on underspend.   It was important that the Agency was as realistic as possible and were clear about how much of the budget would be surrendered.   However, the Chief Executive said that the Board did not have the information available to enable them to take such a decision at this time.   Tim Lunel was asked to double check with all Programme Directors what spend was already committed and what would be the most realistic forecast of outturn.   In addition, guidance would be sought from Defra about the expectations on priority business spend for next year.

13.   It would be important to make best use of the skills, experience and regional networks that any applicants for the vacant Board posts could offer.   The advertisements had been placed and did not tie the vacant posts to either LAR or NCA work.   There would need to be a certain flexibility on the part of new members to ensure the best use of all Board members.   Board members were again urged to approach and encourage suitable applicants.

Implementing the Rural Strategy – December 2004    (AP04/)

In attendance, Richard Wakeford

14.   Richard Wakeford introduced the paper and explained that it emphasised the need for the Board to take an increasingly strategic view, despite the increased activity occurring within the LAR and NCA.   Progress was being made in all areas.   The MRD Programme Board had met that week and had focused on what will be different post-April 2005, potential dates of announcements, the possible impact of a general election and the obligations of the regional development agencies (RDAs).

15.   There were five issues for the Board: the delays on the draft instructions to Counsel for the NCA and how that position differed from the integrated agency (IA); the importance of a clear brand and identity for the NCA; the informal messages from Defra about the case for reducing the size of the NCA still further; the outcomes of the negotiations with the RDAs; and the obstacles that had impacted on setting up of IA project team.   Two key decisions by the Board were now sought – the branding and identity of the NCA and LAR and the draft reply to the Secretary of State (SoS) addressing her concerns in her letter to the Chairman.

16.   In discussion, Board members made the following points:

a.   The Agency had not yet seen the instructions to Counsel for the NCA.   This was in contrast to the instructions for the IA, where the Agency had seen and commented on them before they had been sent to the Minister.   The instructions for the NCA would be available soon and the Agency’s lawyers were ready to provide advice and explanation, as necessary.

b.   Statutory independence had been secured for the NCA, although, once the Bill had been prepared, it would be important to ensure that this did not change.   Without statutory status, the NCA would not be able to achieve the things it wanted and the Government’s expectations and needs would not be met.

c.   The Board were concerned about the drop in morale of staff, as a significant number were now facing an increased possibility of redundancy.   The deal struck with the RDAs and Government Offices was less promising than originally expected, but the long term size and location of the NCA; and the core teams had a prolonged agony of jobs until 2007, after which there was no certainty of job security.   Work was continuing to try to secure the entitlement for Agency staff to apply for posts within the Rural Development Service.   The Chairman’s visits to the regional teams had highlighted how the focus for many staff members was drifting, as they focused on their own immediate futures.   A drop in morale would become a specific issue for the Agency from January 2005.

d.   Members of staff in the ‘at-risk’ category would be approached in January to determine whether anyone would like to be considered for voluntary redundancy.

e.   It was the Board’s responsibility to provide clear and strong leadership through the transition period.  

f.   The Chairman’s letter to the SoS needed to address a number of issues.   These included the size and location of the NCA and determining which functions would definitely be undertaken by the RDAs in future.   It would be important that the RDAs took on an integrated approach to a sustainable rural economy.   The NCA’s role as watchdog could be crucial in ensuring that, as far as possible, this occurred. 

g.   There had been no explicit instructions received on the size of the NCA.   The Board had developed a structure and staffing designed to deliver the agreed remit within the defined budget.   It was intended to carry out a full review of the structure and ways of working after the first year of operation.   The arrangements for the NCA needed to proceed as planned, if the target of launching it on 1 April was to be achieved.   It would be valuable to begin to demonstrate the different ways of working of the NCA as soon as possible, so that they could be tested and adjusted if required over the following 12 months.   The corporate plan should indicate that the NCA workings were not set in stone and were unlikely to be the same by 2007.

h.   It had not been possible to carry out a detailed process for developing a new logo and brand for the NCA (and LAR) due to a lack of time.   The ideas for names for the NCA   had been developed and tested internally.   The three front-runners were – Advocate for Rural England, Rural Advocate for England, and Advocate for Rural Communities.   It was difficult to incorporate disadvantage in the title but it would be included in a strap line. The link with the Countryside Agency would be included in both the LAR and NCA material but with different emphasis.

i.   The draft Bill was due to be published at the end of January and it was desirable for a name for the NCA to be included.   There were pros and cons of the use of ‘advocate’, ‘office’ and ‘commission’ in the title.   The Board’s preferred name for the NCA was Advocate for Rural Communities, but the Chairman would seek Alun Michael’s views before writing to the Secretary of State formally recommending the name.      

j.   There were concerns that a number of good schemes would be lost on transfer to other organizations, because they were part of the national support work that had no obvious home in the future.   Some elements would be hosted, but it was important to be clear that there were some which would be lost.   These concerns would be raised with Defra to ensure as many loose ends were tied up as possible.

k.   Little had been lost from the national or statutory roles the Agency had had in rural transport, which the RDAs and LAR had taken on board.   There was some continuing debate about how the RDAs would deliver this function and the RDAs had been asked to join the Programme Board to agree on delivery arrangements.

l.   There was some concern about the capacity and resource of Government Offices (GOs) to deliver the additional functions that had transferred to them.   Some GOs had only 2 or 3 identified members of staff to deliver these functions and would be looking to adopt a more strategic approach and bring in others (for example, Rural Community Councils) to do the delivery on their behalf.

17.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:

• the Board had agreed that the Chairman’s letter to the Secretary of State would include the concerns and issues about transfer of functions and staff to the RDAs, leadership through transition, staffing and redundancies, the size, status and future location of the NCA and identifying loose ends and exit plans and
• that he would seek Alun Michael’s views on the preferred name for the NCA before writing formally to the SoS

Local Heritage Initiative – Plan for Managed Closure and Mainstreaming   (AP04/46)

In attendance, Andrew Wood.

18.   Introducing the paper, Andrew Wood reported that, since the Board’s meeting in November 2004, the Agency had been in intensive discussions with the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) to address the issues raised by the Board.   Progress had been made and the Agency now felt it could proceed, having reached agreement on funding and a decreased Agency input with no impact on the amount of grant aid available.   The new agreement would see day to day reporting by the team to HLF.   The Agency had agreed to reduce numbers of Local Heritage Initiative (LHI) staff to 21, the relocation of regional Agency LHI staff into HLF regional offices, where possible, and to open up any internal vacancies to HLF staff.   Redundancies would be delayed until October 2006.   Risks had been minimised.

19.   The indications were that HLF were committed to mainstreaming LHI.   LHI fitted into the plans HLF had for their own schemes.   An assessment would be carried out by the Agency into the longer-term impact that LHI had had on the communities that had taken part and on the ability of those communities to use the LHI funding as leverage for additional funds.   Further talks would be required with HLF about adopting the objectives of the LHI scheme into their other schemes.

20.   In discussion, Board members made the following points:

a.   The outcome of negotiations was the best possible in the circumstances.

b.   LHI had been praised for its ability to build community capacity and had been a good example of working successfully with disadvantaged communities to build such capacity.   The scheme had been expensive in staffing terms, but this was considered to be a modest investment for a significant return.   It was important that the assessment of LHI did not focus just on heritage, which was dropping down the Government’s agenda.   This raised questions about the ability to mainstream.

c.   There was still a risk that loyal LHI staff would leave before the end of the initiative.   Staff had had huge disappointment to contend with and little incentive to stay.

d.   It had been determined that a handover to another agency, English Heritage, with a change of name would not take LHI much further towards mainstreaming.   It was important that a handover from the Agency would see LHI as a wider and more influential scheme across the whole country.

e.   HLF were responsible for the LHI.   The Agency had done what it had been requested to do and would manage any disappointment with absolute clarity for applicants about the final deadline.

21.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:

• the Board had endorsed the arrangements that enabled the Agency to operate the Local Heritage Initiative for a further two years. 

Revision of the Countryside Agency Corporate Governance Handbook   (AP04/47)

In attendance, Richard Wakeford.

22.   Introducing the paper, Richard Wakeford reminded Board Members that the paper flowed from previous Board discussions and that formal decision and ratification was needed, in order to make formal amendments to the Agency’s “Corporate Governance Handbook”.   The previous Board discussions had pointed to the creation of 2 formal Agency Committees, one for NCA and one for LAR.   Draft Terms of Reference for these Committees and other subsequent formalities (including delegations) were included as amendments to the Handbook.

23.   In discussion, Board members made the following points:

a.   Concern was expressed regarding the proposal for Committees to meet at the same time, since it would automatically mean that the Chair and CEO could not attend both.   There needed to be flexibility for the Chair and CEO to attend both, if they wished, in order to maintain their corporate overview.

b.   If Committees were to be created, then there were a number of consequential issues around the nature and extent of delegations.   Concerns were expressed that, given the Board remained a corporate, legal entity until legislation, all decisions should be taken by the full Board.   Equally, it was also important that, if more formal “task group” were implemented, these were not simply talking shops.

c.   The Chairman and Board needed to be completely confident before introducing any formal new procedures and working arrangements.   Since there was no unanimous view, it might be better to take a step back and reconsider what arrangements were needed, before taking a decision to create Committees.

d.   Board members had also commented on the importance of not losing any impetus gained in taking forward new governance arrangements, and concern had been voiced about the increased amount of time Board members had had to make in the period of transition to date.

24.   Summing up the discussion, the Chairman concluded that:

• The proposals should be reviewed in the light of the Board’s comments and discussed further with the Chair and Deputy Chair. 
• The Board would return to the issue of corporate governance at its January meeting.

Corporate Plan    (AP04/48)

In attendance, Tim Lunel.

25.   Introducing the paper, Tim Lunel outlined the main issues arising, including whether the NCA section of the plan brought to life the new ways of working and outcomes of the NCA.   In addition, the LAR section needed to provide necessary cross-linkages to demonstrate the confederated working across the integrated agency partners.   It would be important to align the expectations of both the Agency and the sponsorship team.   More detail was provided about the core functions and the 10% increase or decrease to budget was outlined for the Board to consider whether these reflected their own priorities. 

26.   In discussion, Board members made the following points:

a.   The plan was comprehensive, but, as the plan represented the first time that the Agency’s future agenda was likely to be made public, an opportunity had been missed in selling the activities in a more exciting package.   For example, there should be an overt statement explaining the new ways of working for the NCA at the beginning of the NCA section.

b.   Some consistency was needed across the whole document to ensure that the LAR and NCA sections were seen as belonging to the same plan.

c.   There was concern that there did not appear to be a compelling argument either way for a 10% increase or decrease in the budget.   It was important that it was clear what opportunities could be provided by an increase, or alternatively, what would not happen   as a result of a decrease.   In particular, there was a lack of specific ideas for the work that could be done by the NCA which would be seen as a current weakness in attempting to secure a 10% increase.

d.   The core budget for 2007/08 amounted to 15% of the total budget and the Board needed to know more about the internal overheads, how much was variable and how much was committed.

e.   The presentation of key new ideas was currently lost or not highlighted enough in the plan.   For example, disadvantage did not receive the appropriate acknowledgement in the plan and, the unique selling point of the NCA needed further clarification, as did the new agenda for LAR.

f.   It was important that the plan highlighted those areas of work in LAR that would be undertaken by the Agency alone and those which would be achieved through partnership. 

g.   The plan had made no mention of the relocation for the NCA and LAR and any associated costs. It should be explicit that any such costs were not included and would need to be found separately and not through the grant-in-aid budget.

h.   Defra would want to see the forward plans from the Agency, the Rural Development Service and English Nature before any formal sign off.   This was unlikely before early February.

27.   Summing up the discussion, the Chairman concluded that:

• the Board had agreed, subject to discussion and decision at their 20 January Board meeting, the draft corporate plan, based on an annual grant-in-aid baseline of £62m for 2005/06;
• the Board had agreed that disadvantage would be more prominent within the plan; 
• that the whole plan required the unique selling points highlighted; and
• that the Board would have the opportunity to comment of a revised plan at their meeting in January 2005.

Corporate Governance – Risk Management Issues    (AP04/49)

In attendance, Tim Lunel

28.   Introducing the paper, Tim Lunel explained that the paper outlined the individual risk plans for the Agency, the NCA and LAR.   The Business Risk Table provided the key risks with its current status and any action that was proposed to mitigate risks.

29.   In discussion, Board members made the following point:

a.   With the ongoing impact of MRD, the action plan should be continuously updated and reviewed.   It required more crispness and detail in the actions proposed to inspire confidence. 

30.   Summing up the discussion, the Chairman said that:

• the Board had confirmed their approval of the Business Risk Management Action Plan.

Freedom of Information Act    (AP04/50)

In attendance, Tim Lunel.

31.   Introducing the paper, Tim Lunel outlined that the Freedom of Information Act would be introduced on 1 January 2005 and was relevant to the whole of the Agency’s work.   Although the Agency was not anticipating huge numbers of enquiries under the Act, there were certain areas of the Agency’s work that could be targeted heavily.   A process had to be in place to ensure the Agency’s compliance with the Act.   It was important for Board members to understand that evidence of their own decision-making processes needed to be retained, as they may be obliged to provide such evidence under the Act.

32.   Summing up the discussion, the Chairman concluded that: 

• the Board had noted the progress against an action plan, as the Agency prepared for the changed legal framework which the Freedom of Information Act would introduce from January 2005.   The Board had noted that this affected all members and staff; 
• the Board had noted that a centre of expertise would be established and promoted to staff and a monitoring system for Freedom of Information enquiry exceptions would be set in place; and
• the Board had noted that continued training and awareness raising for staff was required.

European Landscape Convention    (AP04/51)

In attendance, Bob Roberts.

33.   The paper was noted. 

Joint Working Arrangements for the EHJAC and the SDCB    (AP04/52)

In attendance, Bob Roberts.

34.   Introducing the paper, Bob Roberts outlined that since the paper had been drafted he had had a productive meeting with the Leader of Hampshire County Council.   He had received assurance that the Council would not be looking to take advantage of the new arrangements and that the Leader had been happy for Bob Roberts to report this back to the Board.

35.   The new arrangements were known to be legal, but a new issue that had since been identified was that Agency nominees to such a committee could not have their voting rights retained without a new Statutory Instrument.   In earlier discussions, the Agency had already suggested that it would support proposals that would realise effectively some of the advantages of South Downs wide administration in advance of the creation of a National Park Authority.

36.   Paragraph 5 required a correction – 16 December was the date of the last day of the hearings, not the end of the public inquiry.

37.   In discussion, Board members made the following points:

a.   As long as the new arrangements did not undermine the case for creation of a National Park Authority and that other key safeguards were met, the Agency should not tell the EHJAC or the SDCB how to organize themselves.   

b.   The position of nominated members should not be undermined, but the route of obtaining a new statutory instrument would hold up progress.   Lord Renton had provided assurance that the status of Agency nominees would not be undermined and this had been the case for a period of 18 months, when the SDCB had first been established in 1992.   Work was needed to explore this issue further, but, unless Agency nominees agreed, the Agency should not agree to non-statutory arrangements.

c.   The conditions of the new working arrangements were as important as the voting rights.   There was a danger of losing long-term people.   Board members would attend a meeting with Lord Renton on the 22 February 2005 to discuss this further.

38.   Summing up the discussion, the Chairman concluded that: 

• the Board had agreed to the formation, for a limited period, of a South Downs Joint Committee, provided that certain conditions could be met;
• the Board had agreed that, if these conditions could not be met by April 2005, the Agency would recommend instead that the two AONBs form a joint members co-ordination group;
• the Board had agreed that officers should respond to the formal consultation from the SDCB, reflecting these arrangements; and
• the Board had requested that the paper be circulated and that they have an opportunity to return to this discussion at a meeting in the new year.

Farewell to the Chief Executive

39.   The Chairman thanked Richard Wakeford once again, on behalf of the whole Board, for his dedicated work for the Agency and the Countryside Commission before that wished him well for the future and in his new post in the Scottish Executive. 

40.   The Chairman also thanked the Executive and Management Support Group for their continued advice and support.

Date and location of the next meeting

41.   The next meeting of the Countryside Agency Board would be on 20 January 2005.   It would be held at John Dower House, Cheltenham.