Natural England

Minutes of the 50th Meeting of the Countryside Agency

Present:

Stuart Burgess, Chairman
Jim Cox
Kate Ashbrook
Richard Burge
Tony Hams
Peter Fane
Philip Lowe
Sheena Asthana
Mark Shucksmith
Norman Glass
Graham James
Alison McLean
John Varley
Howard Petch
Michael Winter

In attendance:

Margaret Clark, Acting Chief Executive
Tim Lunel, Director
Tracey Slaven, Director
Andrew Wood, Director
Joanne Flatman, Management Support Group
Felicity Carr, Management Support Group
Martin Hurst, NE Transformation Director (from Item 6)

Chairman’s Welcome 

1.   The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced the new Board members.   The Chairman also welcomed Dr Colette Blackwell and Jane Lutman from the Rural Policy Division, Defra, and the new Programme Director for Core, Barbara Fletcher.

2.   The Chairman noted that this was Tim Lunel’s last Board Meeting.

Declaration of Interests

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

• Kate Ashbrook declared an interest in her capacity as Chairman of the Council for National Parks in discussions on AP05/17 and AP05/18.
• Tony Hams declared an interest in his capacity as Chairman of the Association of National Park Authorities in discussions on AP05/17 and AP05/18.   Counsel had queried this interest at the Whinash wind farm public inquiry.   As a result, Mr Hams had made a statement to the Countryside Agency’s Counsel to the effect that neither the Association of National Park Authorities, nor the Peak District National Park, of which he is chairman, had discussed the proposed development.
• Jim Cox declared an interest in AP05/18 as a resident of the Lake District National Park

Apologies for absence

4.   Apologies had been received from Pam Warhurst and Tayo Adebowale.

Minutes of the meeting of 9 March 2005

5.   The minutes of the 9 March Countryside Agency were approved subject to the following amendment:

11.    Page 9, paragraph 27g, 5th line to read “too” instead of two.

Minutes of 20th Meeting of NCAF

6.   The Board noted these had been received.

Matters Arising 

7.   Margaret Clark reported that some Board Members might have received correspondence from Mrs Mary Newton from the Forest of Dean querying the word “at” on page 3 paragraph 9 of the Board minutes for the March meeting and stating that it should be “before”.   The misunderstanding arose from the Minister’s letter to the Chairman in February, about revisiting the issue of AONB status for the Forest of Dean, which incorrectly assumed that the Integrated Rural Development (IRD) Project had already come to an end.   The Chairman had replied and explained that, although the Agency’s direct funding of the project had ceased, the project still had a year to run, funded in future by SWRDA.   A report would be made to the Board in June on the interim evaluation of the IRD project, which would also provide an opportunity for the Board to discuss issues relevant to possible AONB status in the future.  

8.   Alison McLean asked if the meeting with ACRE, (p10 paragraph 3 of the Board minutes), had been set up.   Margaret Clark explained it was in hand, but a date had not yet been set.

9.   Kate Ashbrook updated the Board on a meeting with the Minister, Alun Michael, on National Park appointments and asked whether the note of the meeting could be made available.

Acting Chief Executive’s Report

10.   Margaret Clark explained that the report was longer than usual but she had thought it would be helpful for new Board members to have a flavour of the range of activity in which the Agency was engaged, in addition to organisational change, and also to bring existing Board members up to date.   She drew attention to the following item, in particular:              

• The conclusions from the OECD rural policy conference in Oaxaca, Mexico, which she and the chairman had attended, were tabled at the meeting.   This was the third conference in a series and further conferences were planned including one in Scotland next year.   There was a growing interest, not just on mainland Europe, but around the world, in the broader rural policy agenda as opposed to agricultural policy and the Countryside Agency had been able to play a key role in shaping this agenda.

11.   Tim Lunel tabled a report on expected outturn for 2004/05.   A full report would be made to the Board in June, but, meanwhile, the draft figures showed that overall outturn for programme areas was £92.6 million, compared to the Corporate Plan budget of £92.5m, which meant that the Agency had come very close to delivering outcome and expected budget throughout the year.   In addition, there had been expenditure of £1.9m attributable to MRD.   He reminded the Board that, because of the predicted underspend at Q2, we had said that we would not need the additional £2.5m held by Defra for implementing some of the MRD programme.   In the light of the total overspend now showing of £2m, we would discuss with Defra whether they could find the funds to meet this overspend.   A report would be made to the Board on the outcome and implications at their next meeting.   In the meantime, he registered his thanks to all staff for their efforts, especially during a year of change, which was echoed by the Board.

12.   Alison McLean raised concern about responses to consultations, such as the Planning Policy Statement 10 on Page 4, and whether the LAR or Commission points of view were being co-ordinated.   Margaret Clark reassured that staff continued to work together on such issues and that, if differences were identified, they would be brought to the Executive and, where necessary, to the Board.  

13.   In response to a query from Tony Hams as to whether there was certainty about the funding for AONBs and CROW Act in the grant in aid letter, Margaret Clark explained that only a draft had been seen at this stage and the figures might still change.

14.   Graham James referred to Annex 2, the Local Heritage Initiative (LHI) update, and congratulated everyone involved.   He raised anxieties about whether further work was needed on the two year agreement that the Agency was funding, in light of the discussions about a possible earlier vesting, particularly where the LHI staff in regions would go.   Andrew Wood said there were three possible options:

• if vesting fell in the middle of the year, there might be a residual body to finish work until the end of the financial year.
• the programme could be closed early, but this would have consequences in terms of the impact on staff and loss of mainstreaming opportunities.
• the programme could be handed over to the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) to run.

15.   Option 3 would be most realistic and, once the vesting date became clear, discussions would need to begin with HLF.

Implementing the Rural Strategy – May AP05/15 

In attendance, Margaret Clark.

16.   Margaret Clark introduced the paper and explained that it was a regular information paper.   She drew attention to the following items:

a protocol was being developed on communications between confederation members in the Natural England project.   The default would be that all communications would go out under the confederation banner with the logos of all the respective organisations, except where there were clear reasons for this not to happen eg where one of the bodies was carrying out its statutory duty.   This would be considered on a case by case basis.

Annex 5 set out the values which the MRD Programme Board wanted to adopt for the programme as a whole.   It followed, therefore, that they would need to be adopted by each of the organisations and, therefore, needed the agreement of the Board.

• the Chairman, Deputy Chair and the ACEO had met Lord Whitty with other members of the Chairs’ Group and Agency CEOs to discuss the response to the Efra Select Committee’s comments on the draft Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill. No major issues had arisen and a redraft of the Bill was expected soon.

17.   Tony Hams reported on the two main issues which had arisen at the recent meeting of the Natural England Steering Group:

• an unsatisfactory start to the revamped vision for the Agency.   An extended vision was in the paper but it was light on the “people” agenda and it had been agreed that this should be reworked to included this.
• a debate was had about the timing of vesting day.   All three organisations were keen to make progress quickly.

18.    The Chairman reminded Board members of the CRC seminar to be held on 1st June and stressed the importance of the Commission developing an exciting and forward looking vision.  

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

a.   Although the tone of the values outlined on page 17 was satisfactory, the organisational values seemed particular to Defra and it was important to bear in mind that the Agency would have its own values as well.  

b.   How the values were executed and how they were to be measured was also important and the MRD team needed to think how it was going to deliver and their priorities.

c.   The Board should express a view formally on the issues raised by the select Committee on ‘quiet’ recreation and disadvantage, given the Agency’s statutory responsibilities.   It would be a matter for decision by Ministers whether to include the Committee’s recommendations or not.

d.   There had not been wholehearted support for the agreed name for “Natural England” and the process for identifying it had been truncated by the political timetable.   The strap line “for people places and nature” was important, but there were concerns that it would not always be used.   The most important issue, however, was what Natural England did, rather than its name.

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

• the Board had agreed to adopt the values identified for the MRD programme on the understanding that these were mostly Defra values and would not override the Agency’s own values.
• The board formally recorded its view that it did not agree that open air recreation should be qualified by the term ‘quiet’, as recommended by the Efra Select Committee, but they welcomed the new focus for the CRC on disadvantage.
• the Board noted the updates on the Commission for Rural Communities, LAR, Natural England, EDM, MRD, Efra Select Committee and Legislation update.

Board Member Appraisal and Development AP05/16  

In attendance, Barbara Fletcher.

21.   Introducing the paper, Barbara Fletcher explained that it reflected the previous discussions of the Board and the views of the small group of Board members which had met to discuss the proposals, following the last meeting.   There were two specific aspects:

• actions of the Board as a whole.
• individual appraisals.

22.   It was recommended for the appraisal of the Board as a whole to use the services of external consultants and a facilitated away day.   For individual appraisals, the form had been revised but not made overcomplicated.

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

a.  Whatever was set in place for the whole Board appraisal would only be in place shortly before vesting, but could be seen as a learning opportunity.   There was, however, an issue as to whether this element should be delayed given the changes taking place.

b.  The CRC would require more innovative thinking about how Board members performed their roles and, therefore, an element was needed in the whole Board appraisal that tested novel ways of working.

c.  There was no element of self appraisal in the individual appraisal form and this needed to be built in 

d.  The expenditure on external consultants seemed large and needed to be justified.   At this stage, it was difficult to demonstrate value for money. It could be left to the chairman and the CEO to decide whether the Board was working effectively

e.  The paper was helpful in differentiating between individual contributions and how the Board worked together.   Some external input into the latter was necessary and would be helpful.

f.  The emphasis should be continuous improvement involving all aspects of the Board’s activities.   The consultants would need to talk to stakeholders and partners as well.

g.  The role of external consultants needed more clarification.   Whilst it would be helpful to have an external input, there were doubts about the value of consultants observing and reporting on Board meetings.

h.  It was suggested that the Board might use one of its awaydays to look at how it should operate over the period to vesting of the new bodies.   Some external input to the day might be helpful but not on the scale envisaged in the paper.

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

• the Board had agreed to the individual appraisal form with the inclusion of self appraisal.
• the Board agreed that consultants would not observe them and report back at Board meetings.
• the Board agreed to hold an internal Board development day to look at the way it would operate over the period towards the dissolution of the Agency, with focus on different roles and skills needed.   A date was to be set as soon as possible.
• the Board agreed that the small group of Board members should reconvene to work out a programme and how they could best use external input.

Tests to guide the decision making process when considering suggestions for protected landscape boundary modifications AP05/17

In attendance, Bob Roberts

25.   Bob Roberts introduced the paper, drawing attention to two main issues:

• paragraph 1: the proposed tests were intended to be used as a tool to help sieve proposals, not as a replacement to the statutory criteria.   The tests would be an aid to help prioritise.
• paragraph 6: it was important to differentiate between the Agency’s statutory duties regarding National Parks and its responsibilities on AONBs.

26.   In responding to the paper, Tony Hams commended the tools to the Board and drew their attention to Annex 3 which showed the responses to the consultation.

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

a.   Paragraph 5c “benefits” needed also to look at economic benefits and should be making a sustainable development appraisal.   The Agency also needed a clearer understanding as to what the benefits and disbenefits might be.   It was important to show those impacts had been identified and addressed.  

b.  It was important that the Agency made decisions based only on the statutory criteria.   However, if resources were available, information on economic benefits or sustainable development could be used to inform advice about future management

c.   In Annex 4 the Norfolk Broads was not mentioned, as they had their own process for boundary review, but there was a small overlap between the AONB and the Norfolk Broads.   The Norfolk Broads Authority had proposed a more general boundary review to the Minister.

d.   This was an excellent piece of work but the response rate to the consultation was disappointingly low.

e.   Paragraph 5b “evidence” should make it clear that the absence of a landscape character assessment should not be seen as a disadvantage, since the local community could be encouraged to do one.

f.   The last sentence in Paragraph 5d on   “priority” was misleading, since a threat of development could be seen as giving an area priority.   It would not, however, be used as a reason for designation.

g.   It was a pity that no international organisations had been consulted, since there were issues which needed to be taken into account to ensure consistency on an international basis.

h.   There was no comment under what circumstance boundary changes would have to go to public enquiry.   This was not a primary consideration but could be a secondary one.

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

• the Board agreed to adopt and publish the tests in paragraph 5, subject to amending the last sentence of Paragraph 5d.

Recommended areas of search for land worthy of national landscape designation in the North West region AP05/18

In attendance, Bob Roberts.

29.   Bob Roberts introduced the paper and explained that the Board was being asked to make some important decisions, in principle, about whether several areas of land in the North West of England met the statutory criteria for designation as a National Park or an AONB.   The Board, in doing this, were exercising their statutory duties and powers referred to in Annex 1.

30.   Advice had already been received from expert consultants, who had followed a rigorous and thorough process of assessment and evaluation of the areas involved, and a technical advisory group, referred to in the paper. Some Board Members had also visited the study area. Having considered the evidence, officers believed that all the areas shown on the map in the papers met the criteria for designation as a National Park or an AONB. If the Board accepted the recommendations in the paper, this would start a process which would proceed according to the provisions also set out in legislation. The next steps would take account of lessons learned from the New Forest and South Downs and would build in early consultation.   Proposals would then be put to the Board for decisions on where the draft boundaries should be drawn for formal public consultation; subsequently on the boundary for statutory consultation; and finally for approval to make the variation orders that are then sent to the Secretary of State for confirmation. The process could be stopped at any stage, but, in that event, the Board would need to be able to give convincing reasons for not proceeding to some form of conclusion.

31.   In reaching decisions, the Board should not be influenced by any other factors not in the criteria.   The proposed wind farm at Whinash was not a reason to decide either way.

32.   Rosemary Budd gave a detailed presentation on the approach to defining an area of search for each of the areas under consideration.

33.   In discussion, the Board made the following points:

a.   This was unfinished business.   In many cases the quality of the landscapes outside the two National Parks in question was equal to and sometimes better than those within.   The process of designation had been made easier by the Minister’s letter confirming that a full boundary review was not automatically required in order to amend a section of the boundary.

b.   The Countryside Agency had learnt a lot from its experience in the South Downs and New Forest and the costs and that, if they were going to carry out this work, they had to do it well.

c.   There had been strong consensus amongst those Board members who had visited the area on the areas of search, although there might need to be some minor adjustment made.

d.   The Board needed to be sure about the quality of advice that had been received and the quality of mapping.

e.   Since the process would happen during the period of establishing Natural England, it was important that English Nature and the RDS were involved in the consultations, although the statutory duties remained with the Agency at this point in time.

f.   When considering Annex 6, they needed to ensure they would be able to overcome all the hurdles that would occur, this was not the first time the status of the area had been considered.   At some point during the process it was likely that vesting of Natural England would happen and statutory duties would be passed to that body.   The Board needed to be clear about the potential commitment to be transferred.

g.   The board needed to understand why this area had come forward now and not others.   They also needed to be clear about the costs and whether the necessary resources to undertake the task would be available.

h.   An important lesson from the South Downs was the need to consult local authorities early in the process, so that they felt involved.   There was also a need to be sensitive about local feelings and issues.

i.   It was not always clear from the papers why some areas had been proposed as extensions to the National Parks and others as AONBs.

j.   The Agency needed to be even handed in its approach to AONBs across the country.   If the Board agreed today on areas of search for AONBs, would that automatically make them a priority compared to other areas.

34.   At the invitation of the Chairman, Martin Hurst raised the issue that there was currently no process for agreeing future priorities for Natural England.    It was likely that the Natural England Board would be sympathetic to designation, but might also want to look at priorities from a sustainable development and environmental impact point of view.   There was also an issue of the impact on the Regional Spatial Strategy and what the RDA view might be.   He wondered whether it might be appropriate to consider how this work would fit within the new Natural England, once vested, and queried whether the 3 chairs should discuss the issue first.

35.   In response to the issues raised in discussion, the following points were made:

• the proposals passed the tests that the Board had agreed in the previous paper and that it was about the scale of potential. There was very unlikely to be another area in England where so much land was worthy of designation. 
• the Countryside Agency had a duty to proceed with the designation of National Parks but the same duty did not apply to AONBs. 
• the costs were dependent to on whether or not there was a public inquiry and how long the inquiry was. The indications were that there was not the same level of opposition to the proposals as there had been in the South Downs.
• historically, local authority boundaries had been used to define the National Parks.   The boundary reviews in the 1980s by the Countryside Commission had been stopped because of escalating costs.   The boundary for the Lake District NP had drawn along the A6 but, since the construction of the M6, the road no longer provided such a barrier.
• the results of the evaluation showed why some areas met the criteria for a National Park and others for an AONB.
• a socio-economic review could be done at any time but would not be part of the designation process, as that had to be based on the statutory criteria.
• if the Board agreed to go ahead with designation, funds for the work this financial year would be found from within the existing budget.   It would form part of the corporate planning process for future years, but was likely to be given priority for funding.   The variation in cost depended on whether it was a contested or uncontested designation.   The Board would be passing on a financial commitment to Natural England.  
• the Board needed to be clear about their statutory duties and to be careful about vires.   The Bill to establish Natural England had not yet entered Parliament, so they should not make any assumptions about it and its work.   The current decision could not be made jointly with English Nature and RDS, because the wider issues could not be taken account of in designation, which was a duty of the Countryside Agency.   English Nature and RDS had both been on the technical advisory group, so they had been involved in the work, but there was a need to separate this from the statutory duty which belonged to the Countryside Agency alone.

36.    The Board considered each are in detail and reached the following decisions:

• areas 4,5,6,7,8 and 9 – proposed variation to Yorkshire Dales National Park - the areas met the statutory criteria but particular attention should be paid to the northern part of area 4, where the quality appeared to decline, when the draft boundary was drawn up.   The Board also agreed that the area of search should be extended to include the land between areas 7 and 12, as this land was of equal quality and merited inclusion.
• areas 10, 11 – proposed variation to Lake District National Park – the areas met the statutory criteria, but particular attention should be paid to the impact of the M6 in area 11.
• areas 1,2 and 3 – proposed area of search for North Pennines AONB – these areas were agreed and should be considered alongside other proposals for modifications to AONB boundaries.
• area 12 – proposed area of search for Arnside and Silverdale AONB – these areas were agreed and should be considered alongside other proposals for modifications to AONB boundaries.

37.   Summing up, the Chairman said that the Board had agreed:

• the areas of search as identified on the map and as modified in Paragraph 36 above, as meeting the statutory criteria for designation as National Park or AONB and that the actions set out in Paragraph 12 of AP05/18 should be undertaken.

EDM Transfer/Evaluation/Mainstreaming  AP05/19/20/21

In attendance, Andrew Wood.

38.   Andrew Wood introduced all three papers together as there was some overlap and continuity.   He was joined by Ken Roy and Barney Smith and thanked them for all their hard work.

39.   EDM had been asked to continue to deliver the socio-economic programme and bring it to an end effectively, transferring staff and financial commitments to RDAs and GOs and to mainstream as far as possible.   Outturn would be picked up in the Quarter 4 report at the next Board meeting and the Board had already received a paper on mainstreaming.   A document entitled “Learning to change” would be circulated shortly and was based on a questionnaire sent to EDM staff and staff who were made redundant as well as interviews with Defra colleagues.

40.   Referring to the three Board papers Andrew Wood reported there were some key lessons:

• transfer    -   this had been very significant in that it was approached with differing expectations between the transfer partners.   The Agency had thought it would be a block TUPE transfer of staff but that had not proved to be the case.   In terms of achievement, not all staff working on the programmes were transferred, so there had been some failings.   The main lessons were:

o       having clear and consistent communication;

o       ensuring proper resources are in place;

o       not forgetting the people and being prepared to invest a lot of time.

• evaluation    -   it had proved difficult to make cross programme comparison.   There were lessons in going forward for LAR, particularly in how to demonstrate value for money.   For the CRC, which would not deliver programmes and therefore not do evaluations itself, there was something to learn in recognising best practice and challenging other bodies to evaluate from the outset.
• mainstreaming    - this had proved to be very complicated.   Inevitably as programmes transferred there was some watering down.   The CRC would need to keep an eye on progress and actively promote best practice.   This was ongoing and was something they should return to in a few years to identify lessons learned which had been carried forward.

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

EDM Transfer:

a.   There had been no compulsory redundancies which was a good achievement.

b.   The comments on improved relationships with RDAs and GOs were very welcome and showed the commitment of staff.

c.   In Annex 1 – Exit Plans – “no decision from Defra” appeared with regularity and this was worrying particularly in the rural transport area where issues had not been well handled.   This could create some reputational risk to the Commission and undermine the work of the Commission in a vital area.

EDM Evaluation:

d.   There was room for improvement in the Agency’s approach to evaluation and it was good to see the strengths and weaknesses.   How to build this analysis into future work should be referred to the task groups. The LAR division included a central research and evaluation team to provide a quality assurance service.   The key element would be the evaluation of Open Access.

e.   There needed to be a clear purpose to evaluation from the outset and sufficient funds invested to ensure it was done properly.

EDM Mainstreaming:

f.   There had always been anxieties, not just from the Countryside Agency but also from stakeholders, that the transfer of socio-economic programmes could result in them being watered down.   It was the Agency’s duty to continue to show interest and commitment to the areas passed on and to recognise that there might be a degree of staff and Board member time still needed.

g. There needed to be resassurance in the regions that they were equipped to deliver.

h.   The lessons learnt needed to be taken forward, but there was some concern as to whether the CRC would be sufficiently well equipped to take on that role?

i.   It was too early to judge mainstreaming and to get an honest view of effectiveness it should be revisited in a couple of years.

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

• the Board agreed that the Chairman would raise the issue of reputational risk to the Commission of outstanding business, such as transport,   with incoming Ministers.
• the Board thanked the staff involved with EDM for their commitment and hard work.

Any other business

43.   There would be a Board seminar on risk on 25th May in Peterborough before the visit to the Fenlands on 26th May.

44.   The Chairman thanked Tim Lunel for his hard work and contribution to the Agency.

Date and location of the next meeting

45.   The next meeting of the Countryside Agency Board would be on 16 June 2005.   It would be held at John Dower House, Cheltenham.