Natural England

The minutes of the 47th Meeting of the Countryside Agency

Present:

Stuart Burgess, Chairman
Pam Warhurst
Kate Ashbrook
Norman Glass
Tony Hams
Tayo Adebowale
John Varley
Peter Fane
Frances Rowe
Alison McLean                                                                   

In attendance:

Margaret Clark, Acting Chief Executive
Tim Lunel, Director
Tracey Slaven, Director
Andrew Wood, Director
Brian Wilson, Acting 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 Ray Woolmore, representing the Friends of the Lake District.  

2.   The Chairman welcomed both Margaret Clark and Brian Wilson to the meeting in their respective new roles of Acting Chief Executive and Acting Director.

3.   The Chairman and Board congratulated Pam Warhurst on her award of a CBE in the New Year’s Honours and Richard Lloyd for the award of an MBE.   The Chairman would send a letter of congratulations to Richard Lloyd from the Board.

Declaration of Interests

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

• Kate Ashbrook, as General Secretary of the Open Spaces Society and Chair of Council for National Parks, declared an interest in Board paper AP05/06 – Countryside Agency Involvement in the Whinash Wind Farm Public Inquiry.
• Tony Hams, as Chair of the Association of National Park Authorities, declared an interest in Board paper AP05/06 – Involvement in the Whinash Wind Farm Public Inquiry.

Apologies for absence

5.   Apologies had been received from Graham James, Philip Lowe and Martin Doughty.

Minutes of the meeting of 11 November 2004

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

• Paragraph 27 bullet point 1 to read – 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.
• Paragraph 29a 1st sentence to read – With the ongoing impact of MRD, the action plan should be continuously updated and regularly reviewed.
• Paragraph 23 to note – 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.

Acting Chief Executive’s report and matters arising

7.   Margaret Clark congratulated and thanked both the originators of the January Board papers and the Management Support Group, and Felicity Carr and Claire Walkley in particular, for their hard work and commitment in meeting the tight deadline for the January Board meeting.   She also apologised to Board members that her report did not reflect their efforts and involvement in the National Park appointment processes.

8.   The input of staff time and energy in the National Park appointments had been considerable and very supportive to Board members.   Tony Hams reported that the interviews for the New Forest had been held and that a good set of recommendations would be made to the Minister.   It was noted that there had been no decision made by the Minister about the panels for the next round of appointments, or the involvement of the Agency in the process in the future.   It was important for the Board to consider how best this should be handled and a paper was requested before September to clarify the Agency’s position and view on the appointment process. 

9.   The appointment process for both Exmoor and Dartmoor National Parks had seen many skilled candidates, but often with little background knowledge.   A training programme for people interested in applying should be considered to help bridge this gap.

10.   A lot more work was still needed to address the lack of diversity of people applying to become National Park members.   Drip-by-drip improvements were welcome but too slow in effecting change and more radical measures, possibly linked to the training of prospective applicants, were now needed.   It would be important to monitor successes in attracting more diverse applicants.   A formal review would need to be undertaken with others, as the appointment process was not the sole responsibility of the Agency

11.   An update on the proposals for the South Downs National Park would be brought to the February Board meeting.   It was important that the Agency’s views were communicated early.

12.   It was confirmed that Defra had agreed to cap the costs of the rent on Portland House, London for a period of two years.

13.   The number of staff at risk of redundancy was not yet concluded.   There were still a possible 40 posts within the Regional Development Agencies and Government Offices that Agency staff could fill and a match between staff and a further 20 vacant LAR posts was to be undertaken internally over the next few weeks, before opening the posts up to external appointees.   A clearer picture would, therefore, be reported at the February Board meeting.

14.   The National Audit Office’s Value for Money team were undertaking a phase 1 investigation to determine whether or not to audit the access project.   The Board would be informed of their decision.

15.   The Agency’s work on positive planning had great breadth and depth.   It was important that the value of this work was transferred to the integrated agency.   The Agency had brought a different perspective and integrated approach to planning and this dimension should not be lost.   Design ideas had also begun to be mainstreamed and audiences needed to continue to be engaged in this process.   It would be valuable for a report to come to the Board on development and monitoring of a sustainable framework on planning.

16.   The Walking the Way to Health Initiative team were congratulated on winning the prestigious international ‘industry innovators’ award.

Corporate Governance    (AP05/01)

In attendance, Margaret Clark.

17.   Margaret Clark introduced the paper and explained that it followed on from the Board’s discussions at their December meeting about the Agency’s future governance arrangements.   Since that meeting she had met the Chairman and Deputy Chair to look at the issues that had been raised by Board members.   The most important issue was to find the right balance between the ability of any new Countryside Agency (NCA) and Landscape, Access and Recreation (LAR) task groups to move business forward and the needs of the corporate entity.   As a result of this meeting it was felt that it was premature to have formal committees of the Board, although this could occur later as the organisational landscape changed, for example with the appointment of a shadow chair of the integrated agency (IA) or shadow chief executives for the IA and NCA.   The task groups would meet to conduct business for NCA and LAR but this situation would be kept under review and it was suggested that the Board should revisit it in May 2005, once the major changes in working arrangements were in place.   A decision would also be needed about Board member responsibilities and a paper with proposals would be brought to the February Board meeting for consideration.

18.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   It was important in a fast changing world to maintain the unity and integrity of the Board, whilst allowing enough scope for the task groups to make decisions and progress the work.   The Board would review how this important balance was being maintained in May and then periodically after that.

b.   At this stage, the proposed model 1 was the most suitable for the Board to adopt, although further clarity was needed about the strategy, so that members were confident about the scope and delegation of the informal task groups.   It was essential for members to have a clear steer about the task, the strategic outcomes required and the framework and boundaries in which the task groups would operate, so that members could operate with confidence and there was full support and trust in the work and decisions of the task groups.   There should be no ambiguity.

c.   As from 1 April it would be important for the Agency to demonstrate new ways of working.   This was especially important to bring meaning and distinctiveness to the NCA.

d.   Integrated Agency work was in partnership with others and it was important that the Agency was able to maintain the same pace as these partners, rather than having to refer all decisions back to the full Board.

e.   Board members had been working far in excess of the two and a half days per month that they were contracted to do.

f.   The Minister would be looking in February for confirmation that the Agency had governance structures in place that were fit for purpose

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

• the Board had agreed the continuation of the existing governance arrangements, including informal task groups for LAR and NCA;
• the Board had agreed to review the governance arrangements at the Board’s meeting in May 2005;
• the Board had agreed that the Executives would produce a short paper on the strategic framework and guidelines on the type and level of delegation for the task groups; and
• the Board had agreed that the Chairman should write to the Minister outlining the proposed governance arrangements before the February Board meeting which the Minister was likely to attend.

Implementing the Rural Strategy – January 2005   (AP05/02)

In attendance, Margaret Clark.

20.   Introducing the paper, Margaret Clark said that the paper was intended primarily to update Board members on progress towards implementation of the Rural Strategy.   She had attended the Modernising Rural Delivery (MRD) Programme Board which had discussed the relationship between the integrated agency (IA) and regional and local delivery; strategic outcomes and efficiency benefits of the MRD; a name for the new Countryside Agency (NCA); and the timetable for legislation.   The Agency’s agreed preferred name for the NCA – Advocate for Rural Communities – had been discussed with the Minister and, as a result, the Board needed to review its earlier decision, but it was important that their final recommendation was sent to the Secretary of State (SoS) today.   The legislation timetable had slipped, but publication was still expected in early February, with the Bill reaching Parliament in May.   A second reading could be achieved in June or July, though this would be a very tight timetable to maintain.

21.   Kate Ashbrook and Tony Hams provided feedback from the IA Steering Group.   There had been general agreement that it was, as yet, unclear what was going to be different under the new arrangements.   A brainstorming session in February was being arranged to establish this.   Agreement between the Agency, English Nature and the Rural Development Service would be sought about the Bill and its relationship to the IA.   Risk management issues had been added to the IA risk register – including key stakeholders not buying-in to the new arrangements and that the SoS may not consider the IA to be different to current arrangements.   Branding for the IA was in discussion.   No name had been established and IA would therefore initially appear in the draft Bill.   The proposed efficiency benefits for the IA in later years were a major concern.

22.   The Chairman had attended the Chair of Chairs’ Group on the 12 January 2005.   English Heritage (EH) had given a presentation exploring the possible relationship between EH and the IA.   It had been agreed that there would be no formal ties, but a close and informal working arrangement.   There had also been discussion about terms of reference and legislation and reports from Heather Peck and Martin Doughty.   There had also been a dinner with Richard Ellis, the chair of EEDA, with a discussion about the relationship between the IA and the RDAs and how to achieve the necessary buy-in from the RDAs.   Heather Peck would write clarifying the framework for this relationship this week.

23.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   The Board needed to provide a steer on the IA priorities and it’s vision.   Defining the purpose of the IA was needed quickly.

b.   From 1 April it was important that the difference between confederation and Agency working was clear and external stakeholders were not confused or alienated by the process.

c.   It would be important to show the benefits of confederate working and capture people’s imagination.   An opportunity to do this could be work that was developing on access to coast.

d.   The Agency’s Audit & Risk Management Committee should be asked to evaluate the risks as identified to date.

e.   The Chairman had visited each regional team before Christmas.   The level of commitment from staff remained high and was to be applauded.   However, there was a tension between those members of staff who had secured employment and those who had not.   The Chairman was planning to revisit all teams during February and March

f.   It was possible that four to five people in each regional team could face the prospect of redundancy.   The Agency would support these individuals as much as possible.

g.   Some areas of work had not yet found a new home post April 2005.   It would be important to be realistic about the likely perception of rural communities, if some areas of work were lost.  

h.   Staff with posts in the NCA were under increasing pressure as they tried to complete existing work and take on the new roles and responsibilities.   Some contracts would need to be less intensively managed by the Agency to allow staff time to concentrate on those areas of work deemed important for the future.   Evaluation and a value for money assessment would still be required on all existing projects, which would have a reduced input by the Agency, a clear audit trail of the decision making processes and careful communication with external partners to ensure as much clarity as possible.   Progress on the exit strategies for all projects would be presented to the Board in February 2005.

i.   The Agency would write jointly with the RDAs to all the recipients of support from any project which came under Evaluating, Disseminating and Mainstreaming (EDM).   This would help explain the process and the changes to grant contract management that would follow.   After 1 April Defra would be involved in signposting those interested in work which came under EDM to ensure continuity was not lost.

j.   There was currently a lack on continuity in the Agency between the IA steering group and the Chair of Chairs’ group.   Pam Warhurst already attended the IA steering group and the Board felt it would be valuable for her also to attend the Chair of Chairs’ group if necessary as an observer.   The Chairman would speak to Martin Doughty.

k.   A meeting had been held with Defra about the level of efficiency benefits the Agency was expected to contribute flowing from the MRD programme.   A formal letter would be sent to the Agency soon.   The levels proposed would be a major challenge for the Agency.   The Executive did not agree with some of the basic assumptions that had been made by Defra in reaching the totals proposed.   It was impossible for the Board to respond in detail at this stage, although it was felt that a ‘surprise’ of this magnitude at a time of complex and difficult change could undermine the serious business the Agency was trying to undertake.   It was important to be robust about what was achievable and the likely impact of efficiencies on the Agency’s ability to deliver, whilst at the same time being prepared to look for further efficiency benefits in the future where it could.

l.   A contract was about to be let on the relocation of the NCA to a lagging rural area which would include an assessment of the NCA’s business.  

m.   Following in the light of the Chairman’s discussion with the Minister, the Board voted in favour of the future name of the NCA to be Commission for Rural Communities, rather than Advocate for Rural Communities.   On the whole, Commission was a known term, had a parallel with the Sustainable Development Commission and was considered relevant to an organisation which had an aim to influence Whitehall.   However, Board members were still keen that the Chairman’s role as Rural Advocate should be embedded within the legislation.

n.   Board members would be sent the designs for the NCA logo and branding for their comment.

24.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:

• the Board had noted the updates on the NCA, LAR/IA, EDM, Core, Corporate Plan Quarter 4, legislation and MRD, subject to the comments made in discussion. 

2005/06 – 2007/08 Corporate Plan   (AP05/03)

In attendance, Tim Lunel and John Mills.

25.   Introducing the paper, Tim Lunel explained that the main issues raised at the December Board meeting had been addressed in the revised Corporate Plan.   These included a rewrite of the introduction to the NCA section, a revised introduction to the LAR section – though agreed text was awaited about the confederation working and the links to other Agency programmes - and the core services section had been enhanced with more information about the intelligent customer and the modest savings that could be achieved.

26.   John Mills explained that all corporate plans were proceeding across the department.   A meeting between the Minister and the Agency’s Chairman, Deputy Chair and Chief Executive was arranged for 3 February 2005 for final consideration of the Agency’s plan.   The Department was facing a tight budget next year and it was likely that the Minister would want to ask the Agency to make a modest further reduction in its budget, in particular looking at some of the proposals for LAR with reference to his previous comments on programme areas.   This was particularly focused on proposals for B1.1.2 and B3.1, though a trim off the overall programme spend would be welcomed.   The Minister would also want to see the Agency’s proposals for handling a 10% increase or decrease in its budget.

27.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   The changes to the corporate plan were all positive, but further improvements could still be made. 

b.   There was some scope in agricultural and land management programmes for better delivery and savings through partnership working.   This area was critical to the confederation working.

c.   Efficiencies could also be gained through cross-integration between programme teams.   For example, the new methodologies adopted for the access project should be shared with other programmes.

d.   The B3.1 programme area was not all focused on growth areas.   It included influencing work and the implementation of the rephased countryside around towns programme.   There could be a credibility issue for the Agency in cutting spend in this area.

e.   Regional corporate planning was a positive inclusion and an area which would be of increasing importance.   It would be important for the plan to recognise and capture the fact that the regional development agencies would be the big players and investors in the future of projects like the Northern Way.   The plan also needed to clarify that the Diversity Review went beyond just black and disabled people.

f.   The budget for NCA and LAR communications had been embedded in the NCA/LAR budgets.   A central resource for corporate communications was included separately, in core.

28.   Summing up the discussion the Chairman concluded that:

• the Board had agreed the draft corporate plan, based on an annual grant-in-aid baseline of £62m for 2005/06, subject to the discussions at the meeting with the Minister on the 3 February 2005 and taking account of the cross-linkages of access to sustainable transport as well as recreation.

New Countryside Agency: First Year’s Thematic Studies and Inquiries    (AP05/04)

In attendance, Brian Wilson.

29.   Introducing the paper, Brian Wilson explained that the Board had provided an initial steer on the criteria to be used in establishing which topics should be tackled by the NCA at their meeting in November.   Since November, an internal workshop had been held to look at a list of topics, which had then been scored against the criteria and with a mind to how eye-catching the topics were for a launch of the NCA.   Rural disadvantage was the most obvious topic with which to launch.   The team was now ready to begin the business planning stage and there was a need to move quickly, especially if this work was to be ready for the launch of the NCA.   Other organisations would need to be consulted in developing the detailed terms of reference and it would be important to avoid the focus being too dry with emphasis on an evidence base alone.    The focus needed to be on the future and on any big policy implications that might arise from the study.

30.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   This first study would be an important and key message about the work of the NCA and it was critical that both the content and approach was right.   A baseline study relying upon statistics alone would be too dry.

b.   Rural disadvantage was the only sensible topic to launch the NCA.   This should look at the current situation and possible future scenarios.   There was also work to be done on what rural disadvantage was, as it was a wide topic area.   Some of the work would need to explore further perceptions of rural disadvantage, as well as opportunities for future rural advantages.

c.   The other proposed topic areas were not inspiring, not people-orientated enough and focused too much on processes.   Social enterprise was not a subject exclusive to rural areas and had many players already involved.   It was important that all topics chosen in the 1st year made an impact.   For example, topics could include children and young people in rural areas, or old age and retirement in rural areas, or access to broadband.   The criteria should include whether there was a market for the subject amongst key policy and decision makers.

d.   Rural disadvantage would help to set the context and subject for the other topics.   The team would start the scoping exercise and the Board would review progress later in the year.

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

• the Board had agreed that the first thematic study would focus on rural disadvantage and be part baseline study and part people orientated.   This topic would be announced at the launch of the NCA;
• the Board had agreed that some scoping work should be done on the other five topics for the first year but that they should be reviewed by the Board in the light of the initial findings from the rural disadvantage study and through consultation with other organisations.

NCA Draft Communications Strategy Jan-Sept 2005    (AP05/05)

In attendance, Nick Holliday.

32.   Introducing the paper, Nick Holliday said that the key driver for the development of a communications strategy was the imminent launch of the NCA, as a distinctive body by 1 April 2005.   Brand values had been established and should be carefully maintained in order to ensure the NCA remained distinctive.   There were three stages which provided opportunities to deliver the message and brand of the NCA – the pre launch warm-up, which would provide speaking opportunities and the chance to work closely with stakeholders; the launch itself, where the proposal was to have a low key but targeted approach concentrating on priority audiences; and post launch activities.   There was now a level of urgency as the launch was likely within weeks and the name, logos, date and the first NCA study needed to be developed.

33.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   The Secretary of State had voiced her preference for the launch during the week beginning 7 March 2005. 

b.   A low key launch with priority audiences was the preferred option rather than a big bang.   A further opportunity to launch the NCA would arise at vesting day.

c.   The launch would be supported by the new NCA website which had a total of 6 pages and links to the Countryside Agency website.

d.   The final NCA communications plan would be an ambitious programme.   It would be important for the NCA task group to look at this in detail and then for it to be brought to the full Board for approval.

e.   The presentation of the NCA and the Agency to the outside world required further discussion and agreement by the Board in February.   This debate should be closely linked to the proposals on Board member responsibilities.

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

• the Board had agreed option 3 for the launch of the new Countryside Agency;
• the Board had agreed the proposals for work in the run up to the launch and outline proposals for communications plans in the months immediately after the launch; and
• the Board had agreed to review the communications strategy in October in the light of progress.

Countryside Agency Involvement in the Whinash Wind Farm Public Inquiry    (AP05/06)

In attendance, Bob Roberts.

35.   Introducing the paper, Bob Roberts said that it was unusual for the Board to be involved in development control issues, but the Agency had a statutory duty to conserve areas of outstanding landscape quality.   The wind farm proposal at Whinash was a potentially huge development which fitted the criteria of schemes that would be considered by the Board in the Agency’s “Planning Tomorrow’s Countryside”.   It was also relevant under the recommendations in PPS22 for the Board to comment on this issue.   An initial objection from the Agency had already been made and this paper proposed further objection to the development.

36.   In discussion Board members made the following points:

a.   The Agency had been criticised in the past for being invisible on some similar development inquiries.   This was an opportunity for the Agency to re-establish its credibility with the National Parks, to utilise the landscape character work that had been developed and to demonstrate the Agency’s credentials on landscape protection.

b.   The Agency’s involvement would set a precedent for the future.   The fact of the Agency’s involvement highlighted the importance that the Agency put upon development of this scale.   The Agency’s involvement and the setting of precedent now may result in not having to be involved in the future.  

c.   The Agency had experience of the costs of inquiries and the request for resources to make an objection to the scheme was reasonable.

d.   The development was out of scale with the proposed location.   Board members had visited the proposed site for the wind farm development last year and were therefore able to talk with authority about the impact the scheme could have, on the surrounding landscape.

e.   Development proposals of this scale could in future offer the opportunity to the Agency and English Nature to develop a joint approach and consistent voice on land management and environmental impact.   The area in question was not a key priority for English Nature and it was believed that English Nature would not be taking any significant action.   The Agency would, however, work closely with the local authorities and the National Park Authorities, who were all known to be preparing objections to the development.

f.   No mention had yet been made that a part of the area that would be affected was registered common land.   The Agency should have a view on this.

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

• the Board had agreed the Agency should work with other objectors to present a joint case on the impact on designated areas and the character of the wider landscape; and
• the Board had agreed that the Agency should appear at the inquiry to pursue its our objection to the likely significant detrimental effect of the proposal on the quality of the site it would occupy.

Any other business

38.   Board members had received the dates for Board business in 2006.

Date and location of the next meeting

39.   The next meeting of the Countryside Agency Board would be on 10 February 2005.   It would be held at Dacre House, London.