Natural England

Minutes of The 49th Meeting of The Countryside Agency

Present:

Stuart Burgess, Chairman
Pam Warhurst
Kate Ashbrook
Tony Hams
Martin Doughty
John Varley
Peter Fane
Alison McLean
France Rowe
Philip Lowe
Norman Glass

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 everyone to the meeting, including John Mills from Defra.

2.   The Chairman reminded Board members that both Martin Doughty and Frances Rowe would be leaving the Board at the end of March, having completed their terms of office, and that this meeting would be their last.   On behalf of the Board, he expressed his appreciation and thanks for their hard work for the Countryside Agency.   He also congratulated Pam Warhurst, Philip Lowe and Kate Ashbrook on their reappointments for a further term as Board members. 

3.   The Chairman thanked Becky Shrimpton, Brian Wilson, Isobel Coy and their teams for the hard work that had gone into the morning’s successful launch of the Commission for Rural Communities as a division of the Agency

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 -

• Frances Rowe declared an interest, in her capacity as a member of One NorthEast, in any discussions about the Hadrian’s Wall Path.
• Martin Doughty declared an interest, in his capacity as Chairman of English Nature, in discussions on Implementing the Rural Strategy AP05/11.

Apologies for absence

5.   Apologies had been received from Graham James and Tayo Adebowale.

Minutes of the meeting of 10 February 2005

6.   The minutes of the 10 February Countryside Agency meeting were approved, subject to the following amendments -

• Page 2, paragraph 8 to be substituted with – “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.” 
• Page 3, paragraph 9 to read – “Lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks”. 
• Page 3, paragraph 9 to read – “Whinash”, not Whinnash. 

Note of Board Members’ Meeting with the Minister for Rural Affairs – 10 February 2005

7.   Page 5, paragraph 4j should have included the proposal for those Board members with National Park responsibilities to meet the Minister.   The Chairman, along with Tony Hams, as chair of ANPA, would be meeting the Minister the next day to discuss the on-going role for the Agency in National Park work.   Board members expressed their surprise that other members with National Park responsibilities had not been invited to this meeting and it was agreed that Pam Warhurst and Kate Ashbrook should also attend.

Acting Chief Executive’s report and matters arising

8.   Margaret Clark drew attention to the promised up-date on the South Downs National Park had been sent to Board members prior to the meeting. 

9.   A letter had been received from the Minister asking the Agency to revisit the issue of AONB status for the Forest of Dean at the end of the Integrated Rural Development project.   The Chairman had replied explaining that the project had been extended for a further year with support from the South West Development Agency.   The issue of designation would need to be considered as part of the full evaluation of the project at the end of this further year’s work.   However, an interim report on the evaluation was expected to be available for the July Board meeting and members would have the opportunity to review the issue then.  

10.   Margaret Clark also drew attention to the note in the report on the Community Renewables Initiative.   The Dti had agreed to extend their funding, and the Agency would continue its involvement in funding for local groups for a further year with a view to mainstreaming by April 2006.   This would have an additional cost which had not been included in the Corporate Plan.   Resources would be found from the B1 programme work.   The strategy was to achieve mainstreaming of CRI into energy provision policy through a clear message about the need for local ownership and buy-in by local communities for small-scale initiatives. 

11.   Andrew Wood updated the Board on progress with exit strategies.   Defra had not yet responded to the proposals on ‘loose ends’, but the Executive had agreed that all projects and programmes would cease, except for the following outstanding issues- 

• Rural Community Council Director Pension Fund – until legislation the Agency would continue to have a statutory function and responsibility.
• Village Hall Loan Fund – this was to come to an end 2-3 months into the next financial year and discussions were ongoing with Defra.
• Vital Villages Database – would cease but the Commission for Rural Communities division would use some of the information as the basis for a rural communities database.
• Compact with the Voluntary and Community Sector (see separate item).
• Rural Housing Service – the Agency was in discussions with Defra to find a way to continue this work.
• Market Towns – Defra may be able to find a small amount of money for some core funding, but not much more.   Work was continuing to support local arrangements between Action for Market Towns (AMT) and the regional development agencies.
• Community Development Workers/Rural Transport Partnerships – an update would be provided at the May Board meeting.

12.   John Mills confirmed that Defra was trying to secure resource for core market towns work and was in discussion with AMT, as well as ACORP on community transport initiatives.   He confirmed that support for market towns would be phased out and that the Minister would reiterate this message when he spoke at the forthcoming Market Towns Conference.   Defra was working with the regional development agencies and a decision on resources would be reached early in the new financial year.   Philip Lowe stressed the critical function of partnership working and ownership of policy development to provide continuity.   Loose ends like this were unfortunate.

13.   The Diversity Review roadshows had gone very well and had demonstrated creative working.   It was important that this work contributed to the recreational work of the integrated agency.   It would be valuable for the various chairs of each of the roadshows to meet to identify common threads and share outcomes.   This might also apply to the chairs of the regional dissemination events that were taking place over the next couple of weeks.

14.   Confirmation of the additional funding for AONBs was still awaited from Defra.   Discussions were on-going and figures would need to finalised soon for the grant-in-aid letter to be issued from Defra.

15.   A statutory instrument for the South Downs was now urgent.   Until this was in place the members appointed by the Agency had no vote.   The Chairman and members had had a positive meeting with nominees to the South Downs Conservation Board.   Some people had over-ambitious views about the status of the joint committee, but the Agency had been clear about its position.   It was important that all Agency staff involved were clear that a joint committee was not a precursor to the national park authority.    The appointment of a chief officer was a matter for the South Downs, not the Agency.   There was also a lack of clarity about the responsibility for appointment of parish representatives.   This was not an Agency role.   Guidance had been issued from Defra on how National Parks can engage effectively with local communities and businesses.

16.   Tim Lunel provided an update on this year’s spend as at the end of February 2005.   The Agency had absorbed most of the costs of the modernising rural delivery programme and Programme Directors had been instructed to recheck their forecasts for the final month of the year.   Savings in the B1, B2 and B3 areas had now reduced the forecast overspend of £800k.   It was desirable to reduce this overspend still further to come in on budget, but there was little further specific action that could be taken at this stage. 

Implementing the Rural Strategy – March    (AP05/11)

In attendance, Margaret Clark.

17.   Margaret Clark introduced the paper and explained that the minutes of the Landscape, Access and Recreation (LAR) and the Commission for Rural Communities task groups were attached as annexes to the paper.   These would be presented to the Board as a regular agenda item.   She updated the meeting on the Rural Development Service’s appointment of 3 non-executive members, which meant a total number of 5 members in post.  

18.   The Chairman, Tracey Slaven and Brian Wilson had given oral evidence to the EFRA Select Committee inquiry into the draft Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill.   The Committee had received 23 positive responses and only 3 negative ones on the draft Bill.   Issues raised had included - 

• The Commission for Rural Communities to have an environmental element to its work and whether there was too great a focus on rural disadvantage
• The power and independence of the Commission from government
• The future of the programmes transferring from the Agency
• The capacity of the regional development agencies to do the work required
• The proposed future rural delivery structures
• The Sandford principle was raised and the view that it would be too restrictive was not shared
• The integrated agency’s roles in access and biodiversity might run counter to each other
• ‘Quiet open air recreation’ was preferred to ‘all pursuits’
• The JNCC should have a change of name and cover landscape issues
• Membership of national parks

19.   Tim Lunel explained that the 34 members of staff who had been awarded voluntary redundancy had now received formal notification and release dates were being negotiated.   Most would not work the full 6 months of redundancy notice and instead would receive an in-lieu payment.   4 of the 9 people who had been issued with compulsory redundancy notices had been found posts within the Rural Development Service and 1 post had been found within HM Treasury.  

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

a.   The Agency team responsible for the staff alignment process had worked hard and been very successful during a difficult time.

b.   The launch of the Commission for Rural Communities division had gone very well and those responsible were to be congratulated

c.   It was useful to have the minutes of the task groups presented to the Board as a regular agenda item.

d.   It was important to identify the benefits of the modernising rural delivery programme.

e.   The name of the integrated agency would be decided on the 4 April when the Integrated Agency Steering Group would meet.   The name would be announced in the House later that same week.   Good progress had been made on what the integrated agency would stand for and the Board’s ideas had been fed-in to this process.

f.   One significant gap in the Bill was the lack of any mention of the Rural Development Service (RDS) and where its current functions would go.   Martin Doughty had been asked to provide a note to the EFRA Committee about where he believed these functions should belong.   The RDS were unhappy with this, but it would be a useful exercise if greater clarification emerged from the process.   This was particularly important for RDS staff who were facing the same challenges and uncertainties as the Agency’s staff had over the last year.

g.   It was important that the Agency’s Board maintained a strategic overview.   In particular, there was increasing importance for the Board as a whole to have a better understanding of the European agenda and its likely future impact on both land management and rural communities.   A Board seminar on this subject would be valuable.

h.   The Agency’s relationship with its key partners and the Land Use Policy Group (LUPG) were important to maintain.   The RDS were currently not members of the LUPG and they needed to be brought into these discussions as soon as possible.   The mechanics of how English Nature and the Agency could achieve this had started to be investigated.

i.   On his visits to the Agency’s regional offices, the Chairman had found some optimism on the part of those members of staff, who were either transferring to government offices or regional development agencies, and some natural concern and uncertainty for others.   A letter would be sent to all members of staff from the Chairman, Deputy Chair and Acting Chief Executive on behalf of the Board to thank everyone for their resilience and commitment to the end of the transition process.   The Agency had excellent staff who had managed to achieve a great deal.

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

• the Board had noted the updates on the Commission for Rural Communities, LAR, Integrated Agency, EDM and the MRD and Legislation.

Board Members – Performance Appraisal, Development and Induction   (AP05/12)

In attendance, Tim Lunel.

22.   Introducing the paper, Tim Lunel explained that it was the result of the Board’s discussions in October 2004 about the need for a more robust induction and appraisal system for Board members.   The recommendations were for an internally coordinated 360 degree appraisal system for individual Board members, to tender externally for the whole Board appraisal and for the induction process to be managed through the Core Management Support Group as from April 2005.   The Chairman had received reassurance from the Secretary of State that new Board members would soon be appointed and, therefore, the new induction process needed to be in place soon. 

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

a.   The induction process had been lacking and it was important to improve this.   The proposals outlined in the paper should be implemented immediately.

b.   The induction meeting with the Chairman needed to include what the Chairman was looking for from Board members and the relationship with the Chairman and the rest of the Board.

c.   A mentoring or buddy system for new Board members with existing members might be useful – particularly if more than one mentor/buddy was available to present different perspectives and skills matches for new appointees

d.   The proposed appraisal system for the whole Board needed to be short, simple and inexpensive.   It needed to focus on the standard of operation of the Board, whether it was achieving what it was set up to do, teamwork and how the Board’s performance could be improved.   On the one hand bringing in external consultants for any of the process might not be helpful.   On the other some external input to the whole Board appraisal could be valuable, if it provided a benchmark on high performing Boards and a view on how the Board could develop.   This might be particularly useful during the next year, when the membership of the Board itself and the business of the organisation were undergoing significant changes.

e.   Gaining external input to the whole Board appraisal should be considered further to avoid the appraisal becoming too self-centred and to test out the impact the Board had with critical organisations and its key partners.   The Board would be meeting and interacting with Ministers throughout the year and this could provide a constant process of appraisal of Board performance.   However, it was difficult to see how the Board could be assessed by external people across the range of its work.   With strong leadership from the Chairman, the Board should be confident in it’s own abilities.

f.   The whole Board appraisal should also consider the Board’s interaction with the Executive.   The Board had sometimes been too passive in setting forward agendas and had been too reactive in its approach.

g.   The proposals for individual Board member appraisals were over the top.   What was needed was to make the present system work better.   Defra required a short annual report from the Chairman on each member and reappointments were not permitted without individual appraisals on performance.   A full 360 degree appraisal was considered excessive, though the ability to gain sources of intelligence on each member would be valuable.   The individual appraisal system needed to be amended to reflect the relationship between the Chairman’s function with the members.

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

• the Board had agreed to adopt the proposed induction programme and that it should be facilitated by the Core MSG team;
• the Board had agreed to improve the existing system to provide a more satisfactory and robust individual appraisal system for members; and 
• the Board had agreed to return to the issue of whole Board appraisal at their next meeting, following discussion between officers and small group of members, comprising the Chairman, the Deputy Chair, John Varley, Alison McLean and Norman Glass.

Corporate Governance – March 2005    (AP05/13)

In attendance, Margaret Clark.

25.   Introducing the paper, Margaret Clark explained that the paper outlined the necessary revisions made to the Corporate Governance Handbook to take account of various changes which had taken place eg the new task groups and outlined the roles and responsibilities of members as of April 2005.   This required Board member ratification. Proposals were also included for Board member lead responsibilities: Core and policy lead responsibilities of members had been agreed in outline at the Board’s previous meeting, but the proposals for national park responsibilities required member agreement.   Until new Board member appointees were in post, it was proposed that members would double-up on responsibilities to share the load.

26.   In addition, a paper had been tabled with proposals for regional leads which attempted to address the concerns of the Minister, as well as the differing needs within the Agency functions, for example where the Commission for Rural Communities would have no regional presence and Landscape, Access and Recreation (LAR) would continue to deliver regionally.   The paper proposed a ‘team’ approach by Board members, liaising and keeping each other in touch on issues in their respective regions.   In the Commission’s case, more imaginative ideas were needed in how to engage regionally making the best use of members’ limited time.   One option was form members to develop informal networks at a regional level to act as the ‘eyes and ears’ for rural issues and concerns.   This group would have no status but would be able to keep the Board up to date.   All the proposed lead responsibilities were, of necessity, interim and would need to be kept under review as things evolved.   Not least the advent of new members would require a review of lead responsibilities.   

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

a.   The papers, including the tabled note on regional responsibilities, were helpful in outlining the issues facing members in carrying out their work for both the Commission and LAR.   It would be important for members to remain as flexible as possible and be prepared to review and change as the new working structures were implemented and new Board members appointed.

b.   Over time the LAR work could be taken over by confederation members.   It would be essential to work closely with English Nature and Rural Development Service partners to ensure they were in a position to share this work in the regions.

c.   The approach to regional responsibilities in the tabled paper was sensible.   It would be important to promote a different identity for Commission and LAR work in the regions, but not to overload people in the regions through liaison.   Board members would need to influence over a broad agenda.   The suggestion of informal regional groups could seem too cosy and cause concerns but regional dinners (perhaps hosted jointly by LAR and Commission Board members) might be an option for bringing together the people and the opportunities for sharing of information and views.

d.   Board members who had not been allocated a region would need a steer on what their regional responsibilities would be and how these should be undertaken.   Board members needed to be clear about what their role and responsibilities were and how they would be measured, how much time they would need to give and what the priorities would be.   This would differ from region to region.

e.   Prioritisation of work and strong diary management would be essential to make best use of members’ time.   This was a major issue and one soon to be exacerbated by an increase of work for those members involved in the confederation work, who had also been allocated two regions, and for those involved in Commission work.  

f.   The proposals set out in paragraph 4(ii) of the tabled paper was a vast task in itself.   A member for London should be identified in addition to the South East representative who would otherwise be covering three regions.

g.   Some Board members were already working more than two and a half days a month for the Agency.   Defra’s aim was to secure sign-off from the Secretary of State on the appointment of new Board members before the end of March.   New members would be appointed to provide a balance of skills for Commission and LAR work.   The Board was currently working with too few members, though it would be possible to appoint five or six new members to take account of the increased pressures.   This would have a positive impact and it might be better to assess this impact before making a case for a generic increase in members’ time, especially as new members had applied on the basis of two and half days per month.   The agreed increases in individual members’ time would also need to be reviewed once new members were in post.

h.   A revised Management Statement needed to be agreed with Defra urgently.   A draft would hopefully be brought to the May Board meeting to reflect the new structures for the Commission and LAR.

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

• the Board had agreed the revisions to the Corporate Governance Handbook to reflect the Board’s decision to maintain existing formal governance arrangements, together with the creation of 2 informal task groups; and
• the Board had agreed, with the understanding that some amendments to suggested individuals’ responsibilities, with the revised roles and responsibilities for Board members.   A definitive list would be issued and promoted as from April 2005.   These would be reviewed in May, once new members had been appointed.

The Countryside Agency and the Voluntary and Community Sector Compact    (AP05/14)

In attendance, Brian Wilson.

29.   Introducing the paper, Brian Wilson explained that two years ago the Agency had signed a Compact with the Rural Community Councils (RCC), which was due to finish at the end of March 2005 when responsibility for funding the RCCs passed to Defra and the Government Offices.   An annual review of the operation of the Compact gave a mixed picture.   On the positive side, it had helped to enhance the dialogue between the Agency and the RCCs.   On the negative side, the changing priorities and direction, arising from the modernising rural delivery programme, had hampered the joint ability to address issues.   Although this particular Compact would disappear, it was recommended that the Agency should be Compact compliant across all its work in future.  

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

a.   Board members were particularly concerned about comments made by the Chair of ACRE at the launch of the Commission for Rural Communities division, which had been critical of the Agency and unhelpful.   His behaviour was not in line with paragraph 6.1 of the Compact.   A meeting would be arranged between the Chairman and Chief Executive of ACRE and the Chairman, Deputy Chair and Acting Chief Executive to talk about the issues and the future relationship.

b.   the Modernising Rural Delivery programme had been a major distraction this year.

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

• the Board had noted that the review of the Agency’s formal Compact with the RCCs had concluded that the process had proved valuable in bringing transparency and understanding to some long-standing relationship and management issues;
• the Board had noted that in future the Agency would ensure it was Compact compliant across the breadth of its work with the voluntary and community sector; and
• the Board had noted that it would receive an update on actions in July 2005, followed by an annual report in July 2006.

Any other business

32.   The proposed Board visit on 14 April 2005 would have a combined agenda looking at rural disadvantage and environmental and heritage issues.   The visit would take place in Cornwall and further details would be circulated in due course.

Date and location of the next meeting

33.   The next meeting of the Countryside Agency Board would be on 5 May 2005.   It would be held at Dacre House, London.