Breadcrumbs
Minutes of the 48th Meeting of the Countryside Agency
Present:
Stuart Burgess, Chairman
Pam Warhurst
Kate Ashbrook
Tony Hams
Tayo Adebowale
John Varley
Peter Fane
Alison McLean
Graham James
Philip Lowe
In attendance:
Margaret Clark, Acting Chief Executive
Tim Lunel, Director
Tracey Slaven, Director
Andrew Wood, Director
Brian Wilson, Acting Director
Juliet Grace, Head of Management Support Group
Chairman’s welcome
1. The Chairman welcomed Countryside Agency staff and external observers to the meeting, including Jane Lutman from Defra.
Declaration of Interests
2. The Chairman asked each Board member to declare any interests that they may hold in the issues or papers to be discussed. No interests were declared.
Apologies for absence
3. Apologies had been received from Frances Rowe, Martin Doughty and Norman Glass.
Minutes of the meeting of 20 January 2005
4. The minutes of the 20 January Countryside Agency meeting were approved, subject to the following amendments -
Page 8, paragraph 28 to read – 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.
Page 2, paragraph 4 to read – Kate Ashbrook, as General Secretary of the Open Spaces Society and Chair of Council for National Parks.
Page 2, paragraph 4 to read – Tony Hams, as Chair of the Association of National Park Authorities.
Page 4, paragraph 18e to read – two and a half days per month.
Page 9, paragraph 31 to read – scoping work.
Acting Chief Executive’s report and matters arising
5. Margaret Clark explained that the Corporate Plan had been amended to strengthen the Commission for Rural Communities’ advocacy role and revise the language about the interdependence of the urban/rural. The Board’s agreement on the changes, in the light of the Minister’s comments and the proposed cuts of £1.5m, was needed. The Minister had not been content to see a further £0.5m cuts on national trails and rights of way. The Plan needed to take account of the Minister’s comments on the future of the Forest of Dean and the impact of the current IRD project. There had been no mention by the Minister about the future the AONB budget. The Dti had agreed to fund the Community Renewables Initiative which would be a help. It was suggested that the board agreed the proposed reductions of £1.5m and that there should be some flexibility on where the additional reduction of £0.5m should be found within the overall budget for LAR. This was agreed.
6. Board members noted that redundancy letters had been sent out yesterday to those members of staff considered to be at risk, to outline what the probable route forward was for each individual affected. 10 people were currently likely to face compulsory redundancy and 34 voluntary redundancy. 9 people had been successful in the swap of posts into suitable alternative employment and a further 22 posts, mainly with Landscape, Access and Recreation, would undergo a matching process to try and place further members of staff with suitable employment.
7. The Board agreed that the response to the consultation on Defra’s proposed new voluntary and community sector programme, when made, should be on behalf of the Countryside Agency, not just the Commission for Rural Communities. An Agency response was most appropriate, as this was where the experience on delivery lay. This was, however, an issue the Board would need to consider for future responses and consultations.
8. The Agency was in close discussions with Brighton and Hove Council about the creation of an access route on to the Downs and different options for achieving this exciting set of outcomes. The Agency had offered technical assistance to develop an options appraisal and had offered to co-fund the consultancy costs. The original expectation of Brighton and Hove, that the Agency could grant fund substantial projects during 2004-05, had been based on their anticipation that the Agency would have a substantial underspend this year, which was not the case. The Agency was enthusiastic about the concept and was working closely with Brighton and Hove to find the best value for money way to achieve this vision.
9. The work on the future of the Howgills in relation to National Park designation had had slipped but there was no reason why the evidence gathered so far should not be used in relation to the Whinashwind farm proposal, although it was important that the latter should not be confused with the issue of possible designation. Work was in hand and evidence and information being gathered that would assist the Agency. The Board’s view had been clear that the proximity to the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks and the quality of the landscape supported an objection. Other objectors needed clarification that the Agency was not looking at designation and an objection to Whinnash as one issue.
10. The Board would receive an update about the South Downs National Park at their March meeting.
Corporate Governance (AP05/07)
In attendance, Margaret Clark.
11. Margaret Clark introduced the paper and explained that it was part of a series of papers that the Board had debated about future governance arrangements. It was intended to have settled any outstanding issues by April 05. In March the Board would have the opportunity to consider papers with proposals for Board member appraisals and amendments to the corporate governance handbook. This paper set out the framework for the task groups, their terms of reference and the strategic framework and level of decision making within which they would operate. The proposals in the paper on lead responsibilities needed reviewing in the light of the Board members’ meeting with the Minister earlier that morning. It was, therefore, proposed to defer discussion on responsibilities and come back to the Board with further proposals at the March meeting.
12. In discussion Board members made the following points:
a. The aims of the task groups were supported.
b. Further work was required on Board member responsibilities.
c. The work of the Integrated Agency Steering Group continued at some pace. The Board endorsed this progress.
d. The contracted two and a half days per month required of Board members was not sufficient time to enable all the work to be covered satisfactorily. This issue would be explored further at the March Board meeting.
13. Summing up the discussion, the Chairman concluded that:
- the Board approved the ‘strategic framework’ to guide the business of the LAR and NCA Task Groups;
- the Board had agreed to defer a decision about lead responsibilities until the March meeting to take account of their discussions with the Minister.
Quarter 3 Report – October to December 2004 (AP05/08)
In attendance, Tim Lunel.
14. Introducing the paper, Tim Lunel thanked all officers for their hard work and help in the production of the Quarter 3 Report. He reminded Board members that the forecast at Quarter 2 had been of a significant underspend. Now it was expected that the Agency would be close to budget and that the predicted £2m underspend was unlikely, even within the A2/A3 area. An overspend of £1.8m was now forecast. This did raise an issue about budget control, but was good news, as it meant that the Agency had delivered despite the distractions that staff had faced. In addition, there was now more transparency.
15. There were three areas of note. The first was whether the Board wished to make a case for additional Modernising Rural Delivery (MRD) funds to meet the predicted overspend, which was almost entirely due to expenditure resulting from MRD which had not been allowed for in the original budget. Defra had requested details from the Agency about their spend in this area and this was currently being drawn up. Second, there were still two months until the end of the financial year and it was likely some areas would find it difficult to meet the forecast. Third, there could be pro-active management to reduce spend by between £300k and £500k. This was not yet a commitment but would be desirable and work was being done to identify where this may be achieved. There was some possibility of achieving this within Core and by delaying work within A2 and B areas. The launch costs of the Commission for Rural Communities could also be reduced.
16. In discussion, Board members made the following points:
a. It was positive that the Agency had achieved its financial target, but value for money spend was critical. Over the next 6-8 weeks there should be an emphasis on quality spend not just spend for its own sake. Programme Directors should be asked to review the forecasts with a mind to value for money.
b. Savings of £1.75m would be positive if quality spend had been achieved. A steer from Defra would be useful.
c. Delaying spend on projects would be realistic only if this did not undermine the ability to deliver next year. Defra’s steer had been to not delay spend this year, if it resulted in unreasonable pressure on next year’s budget. Any delay in B2 would impact next year.
d. The Agency had a good case for requesting money from Defra through the MRD Transition funds, though Defra were reluctant to commit this fund as it faced automatic carry-over.
e. It was important to capture the concerns of staff from the regional reports relating to the Commission for Rural Communities. These would give the Commission a head start and help with future priorities.
17. Summing up the discussion, the Chairman concluded that:
- the Board had approved the Quarter 3 Report for October to December 2004;
- the Board had noted that the expected slow down in delivery programmes had not yet materialised;
- the Board had noted the forecast spend;
- the Board had noted a forecast outturn at Quarter 3 of £94.3m; and
- the Board had agreed that the Agency should seek to manage final Corporate Plan outturn within the grant-in-aid budget of £92.5m and make a case to Defra for additional funding to meet the costs of implementing MRD. If no additional funds were forthcoming, the Executive would take action to manage down the predicted outturn to the budget.
EDM Transfers to RDAs and GOs – Update (AP05/09)
In attendance, Andrew Wood.
18. Introducing the paper, Andrew Wood wished to record his thanks to the team who had worked hard on the transfer work and, in particular, his thanks to Gordon Morris for the work on transfers to Government Offices, Liz Newton for the work on transfers to the regional development agencies and to Gill Payne, whose work had been pivotal to the whole process. He also wished to pay tribute to all Agency staff who had continued to deliver, despite working under stress. It was remarkable that so much had continued to be delivered.
19. The paper outlined the deals that had been made and the process that had been followed for 39 Agency staff to transfer either to Government Offices (GO) or to regional development agencies (RDAs). It was disappointing that a further 24 posts within the RDAs and GOs had not been filled. It would have helped to have secured the deals more quickly. There appeared to be a lot of disenchantment amongst Agency staff about the commitment of the RDAs to deliver the Rural Strategy and, as a result, many staff members did not engage in the process or chose not to apply for transfer. It had also become apparent that many Agency staff did not have the necessary interview, presentation or CV skills to secure posts. This issue needed to be addressed before the move to an integrated agency. The Commission for Rural Communities might also need to monitor the ability of the GOs and RDAs to deliver, based on the staff resource that they had identified as being needed. There was a marked difference from region to region on staffing numbers to undertake the work of delivering the Rural Strategy.
20. In discussion, Board members made the following points:
a. Board members thanked staff for their hard work in this sensitive area during a very stressful time and Andrew Wood for leading the process.
b. It was good that it had been possible to reduce the number of compulsory redundancies had reduced to 10, although 54 members of staff were considered at risk.
c. The package that had been offered to staff to support them through interviews with the GOs and RDAs was considered to have been very good.
d. It was critical for the Commission to take on the lessons that had been learnt through the process of transition and to monitor the ability of the RDAs to deliver.
e. The May Board meeting would sign off the transfer process. Lessons learned would be central to this paper. The paper would also assess those programmes which the Agency was to continue, including the Local Heritage Initiative and the Community Renewables Initiative.
f. The unfilled posts within the RDAs and GOs would remain open. The Agency was in discussions to try to match Agency staff with the vacant posts.
g. The regional differences in the number of posts in the RDAs assigned to socio-economic and voluntary/community workstreams varied enormously. The numbers in the GOs were closer to each other, as they had been centrally driven by Defra. The RDAs had had complete discretion and their numbers had been influenced by the strength of their own teams and their own styles of working.
21. Summing up the discussion, the Chairman concluded that:
- the Board had noted the outline agreements the Agency had with Defra and the regional development agencies on transfer;
- the Board had noted the number of staff who had found posts elsewhere (56), or had been transferred to RDAs and Government Offices (63), of the 141 members of staff who had been identified as working on EDM workstreams;
- the Board had noted that a number of these posts had attracted no applicants and overall application numbers had been disappointing; and
- the Board had noted that at least 31 people were ‘left over’ from this process, but more (51) were at risk where posts did not meet existing location or grading structure.
Implementing the Rural Strategy (AP05/10)
In attendance, Margaret Clark.
22. Introducing the paper, Margaret Clark said that the draft Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill had been published today and that Board members had each been provided with a copy. The formal deadline for written consultation on the draft Bill was 11 March, but the EFRA Select Committee was due to be taking evidence in February, before the Board met again. It was proposed that a short submission to the Select Committee should be circulated to Board members for their input. The purpose of the consultation was to assess whether the legislation would deliver the Rural Strategy, not to open up new areas for debate. The launch of the Commission for Rural Communities operating division of the CA would take place on the 9 March and invitations to all members would follow.
23. In discussion, Board members made the following points:
a. Board members needed the opportunity to communicate as a Board before the launch, possibly via a telephone conference.
b. Board members should take the opportunity to ask, through the consultation process on the draft Bill, the likely number of Board members required for the integrated agency and for the Commission for Rural Communities. There was currently a disparity between the resources available and the number of activities to be undertaken.
c. A clear communications strategy was needed for the national Outdoor Week. With three partners it was a very complex message to get across and Board member discussion was needed to establish a robust position for Landscape, Access and Recreation.
d. A date was yet to be confirmed for a briefing for Members of Parliament and Peers to support the launch of the Commission. The Minister had expressed a wish to host this event. Board members were concerned that this would make it a Defra event and that this was not in the spirit of the new Commission.
24. Summing up the discussion, the Chairman concluded that:
- the Board had noted the updates on the Commission for Rural Communities, Landscape, Access and Recreation (Confederation), work towards the integrated agency, EDM and the Modernising Rural Delivery and Legislation.
Any other business
25. The Chairman had spoken to Martin Doughty, Chair of the Chairs’ Group, about Pam Warhurst’s attendance and had received positive feedback.
26. The April Board would not be a formal meeting, but a visit. Details would follow.
Date and location of the next meeting
27. The next meeting of the Countryside Agency Board would be on 9 March 2005, following the launch of the Commission for Rural Communities division. It would be held at Dacre House, London.
