Natural England

Minutes of the 51st Meeting of the Countryside Agency

Present:

Stuart Burgess, Chairman
Tayo Adebowale
Kate Ashbrook
Jim Cox
Peter Fane
Norman Glass
Tony Hams
Graham James
Philip Lowe
Alison McLean
Howard Petch
Mark Shucksmith
John Varley
Pam Warhurst
Michael Winter

In attendance:

Margaret Clark, Acting Chief Executive
Tracey Slaven, Director
Brian Wilson, Acting Director
Andrew Wood, Director
Barbara Fletcher, Head of Corporate Services
Sue Bennett, Head of Corporate Support


Chairman’s Welcome 

1.   The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced Sue Bennett who had taken over responsibility for corporate governance and would be administering Board meetings in future. 

2.   The Board congratulated Michael Winter on the award of an OBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours and agreed that the Chairman should send their congratulations to former Board Member, Cate Mack, who had been awarded an MBE.

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:

• Graham James declared an interest in AP05/22, in his capacity as a member of the House of Lords.  

Apologies for Absence  

4.   Apologies had been received from Sheena Asthana and Richard Burge.

Minutes of the Meeting of 5 May 2005  

5.   The minutes of the 5 May meeting of the Board of the Countryside Agency were approved, subject to the following clarification and amendments:

• Declaration of Interests, page 2:  Tony Hams’ declaration of interests on papers AP05/17 and AP05/18, in his capacity as Chairman of the Association of National Park Authorities, had been queried by Counsel 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. 
• Paragraph 11, four lines from the bottom: delete ‘good’ and add ‘could’.
• Paragraph 37 should read ‘as modified in paragraph 36’.

Matters Arising 

6.   In relation to the date for the meeting with ACRE, which had been raised at the previous Board meeting, Margaret Clark reported that possible dates had been offered to ACRE and a response was awaited.

7.   Margaret Clark drew attention for the need for clarification concerning Paragraph 36f of the minutes of the January Board Meeting, which recorded that, in discussion, “no mention has 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.”   This point had not been explicitly recorded in the summing up of the Board’s views and the Board were asked to confirm that it had been their intention that this point should be included as part of the Agency’s case to the inquiry.   The Board confirmed that this was the case.

Acting Chief Executive’s Report 

8.   Margaret Clark reported that the Agency had been invited to give evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Environment and Rural Affairs Committee’s inquiry into rural development, with particular emphasis on accessible rural areas and small towns and that Philip Lowe had agreed to appear on the Agency’s behalf on 22 June.   He would be followed by Mark Shucksmith, in his capacity as Professor of Town Planning at Newcastle University.

9.   Attention was drawn to the grant in aid letter from Defra, attached at annex 3 to the report.

10.   A written comment had been received from Richard Burge (who was unable to attend the meeting) on paragraph 13 of the report, outlining developments within the Commission for Rural Communities.   He noted that it still gave the strong impression of treating government bodies as the principal stakeholders of the emerging CRC, but that his impression was that the Board saw it far more closely connected with people and ‘their’ organisations. He, therefore, thought it was premature to identify the CRC’s top 30 stakeholders.

11.   Philip Lowe welcomed the fact that the New Agricultural Landscapes study was shortly to be repeated (paragraph 25). 

12.    In relation to the notes on the Board Risk Seminar at annex 2, the following corrections should be made:

• Page 12.   2 (v) should read: The current draft is out of date and focuses on internal, organisational change risk and does not fully link into the changing external policy context (eg CAP reform) which will have big implications for CA, NE and CRC.
• Page 14. (ix) We need to be independent from Defra and seen to be credible. English Heritage was seen as a model. It is about appropriate balance, being respected and trusted, influencing and providing challenge.

13.   Tony Hams sought clarification of the term ‘wider rural development schemes’ in paragraph 18 of the report. Tracey Slaven explained that it was intended to be a non-specific reference to general, on-going discussions.

14.   Pam Warhurst asked if the structure of the report could be reviewed to make it easier for new members in particular to be able to differentiate between ‘business as usual’ and significant new projects.   Margaret Clark agreed to look at the structure of the report.

15.   In relation to paragraph 4 and the Chairman’s letter to David Miliband, Pam Warhurst said that it was important for the Agency to identify other key Ministers with whom the Agency should be making contact.

16.   In relation to paragraph 12, the pre-Budget submission to the Treasury, Norman Glass said he would welcome a discussion in the autumn.   This would be even more important for the Commission for Rural Communities than it had been for the Countryside Agency and should be the outcome of a year’s thinking and preparation.

17.   Norman Glass also advised that the Agency should think carefully about the motivation of potential sponsorship partners for walking initiatives in relation to wider concerns about obesity and children’s food.

18.   Michael Winter welcomed the news (paragraph 20) that the joint publication ‘Environmental Quality in Spatial Planning’ would be launched at the end of June and looked forward to receiving a copy. He commented that many regions had been deeply involved in its production.

19.   Mark Shucksmith commented on paragraph 3 and reported that he understood that the Rural Affairs Minister intended that the proposed new Rural Housing Commission should report early in the New Year. Michael Winter commented that the Rural Affairs Minister was now referring to it as the Affordable Rural Housing Commission.   In response to a question from Philip Lowe, Margaret Clark reported that the Agency was pressing for involvement in this new Commission.

Implementing the Rural Strategy – June AP05/22  

20.   Margaret Clark introduced the paper and apologised that the notes of the LAR task group meetings had not been included.   These were tabled and would be attached to the paper in future.   She drew attention to the fact that the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill had received its Second Reading and that Committee Stage would take place between 21 June and 5 July. During the debate, the Secretary of State had announced that vesting day for both Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities would be in October 2006.   This gave a timescale for the workstreams preparing for Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities.   In addition, here would be an overarching Countryside Agency workstream to ensure that all the loose ends were tied up to be led by Sue Bennett.

21.   The Chairman reported that he had met Colin Breed MP (Liberal Democrat) to discuss his Party’s views on the NERC Bill.   A copy of the briefing note had been circulated to Board members.   While he felt he was unlikely to have changed Mr Breed’s mind, he had been able to discuss the Commission for Rural Communities in a positive manner. 

22.   In a written comment from Richard Burge on Annex 1, he had said that he felt the notes of the CRC task group meeting failed to reflect the group’s lack of enthusiasm for the first proposed study as being insufficiently dynamic or innovative for people to notice the difference. He had suggested that it would be helpful to have a further proposal before work proceeded. In response, Brian Wilson said that he had taken away a strong message from the task group meeting about the need for the CRC to be seen as different from the Countryside Agency and a ‘blue skies’ workshop had been planned which would include bodies such as the IPPR and people who had worked on urban disadvantage and future trends.   Mark Shucksmith, John Varley and Alison McLean all felt that now the task group had given a clear steer, staff should proceed without having to bring proposals back to another meeting.   Howard Petch agreed that work should start, but felt that the meeting notes did not reflect the radical nature of the work or its importance.   Philip Lowe disagreed with Richard Burge’s written comments but suggested that a couple of Board members should be actively involved in the study.  

23.   Pam Warhurst said that, in the light of the proposal that they should take on some National Park responsibilities, Michael Winter and Richard Burge would be invited to join future LAR meetings but, in addition, she would welcome the whole Board’s contribution to developing Natural England’s future.   The NE steering group minutes would be circulated to all Board members in future.

24.   Tracey Slaven reported that the Natural England Project Board had determined that NE’s head office should small, comprising the Executive and their support staff.   A short list of three locations was to be discussed by the NE project board on the following day.

25.   In a general discussion on the parliamentary progress of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill, Graham James reported that the rural affairs debate on the Queen’s Speech in the House of Lords had been addressed by 36 peers and so there was likely to be a lot of interest in the NERC Bill debate in the autumn. The Board agreed that a strategy should be developed, including developing key briefing points and common messages and how individual members could contribute.   The Chairman said that this would best be done when the issues raised in committee had been considered carefully.   Tayo Adebowale suggested that media coverage of the CRC should be increased significantly to increase awareness.   Margaret Clark said that the need for a strategy had already been identified and briefing notes would be provided for the Board, together with a tactical document and a short Q&A.   The launch of the State of the Countryside report in July would be a good opportunity to promote the CRC.

26.   Kate Ashbrook said that there was some frustration about developments within Natural England; the strapline was not being used and there was a lack of knowledge about how shadow boards would work with existing boards.   Philip Lowe asked that the Board should formally express its concern about the need for clarity on the shadow boards and shadow chairmen as soon as possible.   Margaret Clark said that staff would raise this at the MRD Programme Management Board on the following day.

27.   Tony Hams said that Board members, as well as executives, should be consulted on corporate governance and internal structure of Natural England.   He welcomed the appointment of Andrew Wood as LAR Director: Operational Delivery.   He hoped that a shared solution to the regional director vacancy in the East Midlands would overcome the drop in staff morale within LAR staff in this region.

28. In conclusion, the Chairman said that the Board’s concerns would be registered with Natural England transformation director, Martin Hurst. The various updates included in the report had been noted by the Board.

Quarter 4 Report – January to March 2005   AP05/ 23

29.   Barbara Fletcher introduced the report.   The £1.9m variance in relation to the Modernising Rural Delivery programme was still under discussion with Defra. Apart from this, and despite considerable volatility during the year, the outcome was on target.

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

a.  Clarity on MRD spending should be sought from Defra as a priority.

b.  While the traffic light report had been useful, a refreshed approach may be helpful.

c.  There was concern that the Rural Advocate’s work had a red traffic light.   The Rural Advocate’s work was fundamental to the CRC.   The reason for the red light was due to the gap between the departure of the former Rural Advocate and the appointment of the Chairman.   It was important for the Rural Advocate to be able to visit Ministers independently and not always necessarily with a Defra Minister.

d.  There was concern at the red traffic light for Human Resources, especially during this period of change.   This was partly due to the fact that the head of HR had been away from the office for some months.

e.  After early difficulties with Open Access, it was a tribute to the staff, under Tracey Slaven’s leadership, that it was now on track for completion by the end of the calendar year.  

f.  It should not be overlooked that a new National Park had also been established during the year.

g.  In relation to the overspend, it was important to understand why it had arisen and whether it was as a result of early delivery of the following year’s work.   The Executive needed to be prepared to advise the Board on action required in case Defra did not agree to find the additional £1.9m.   This was also linked to performance in the first quarter of the current financial year.

31.   In response to the queries about the overspend, Margaret Clark reminded the Board that Defra’s Rural Strategy had not been published until July 2004, ie over 3 months after the start of the financial year and, therefore, MRD and implementing the rural strategy had been an additional item.   Defra had originally set aside £2.5m to assist with implementing the rural strategy but it had proved difficult to reach agreement on projects and action to be funded.   In addition, during the year the Executive had identified a risk of underspend and had therefore put in hand additional activity within Landscape, Access and Recreation.   In the event, the anticipated underspend had not materialised. Some of the Agency’s Evaluation, Dissemination and Evaluation (EDM) work had not been included in the corporate plan.   Andrew Wood explained that £1m of the overspend was attributable to EDM.   The remainder was additional work relating to MRD, including the launch of the Commission for Rural Communities.   Expenditure on MRD had been separately identified and, whilst it had been hoped that Defra would make available additional resources to meet this additional expenditure, there had been no formal agreement to this.  

32.   In conclusion, the Chairman said that the Board agreed the report and congratulated the staff on performance during a very difficult time.

2004/05 Annual Review of the Open Access Programme   AP05/24

Roger Ward in attendance

33.   Andrew Wood introduced the paper and said that the Open Access team had delivered a huge amount of work.   The appeals process was complete and all areas would be open to the public by the end of the year.   However, there was still a risk of legal challenge which could throw the programme off course.

34.   Tayo Adebowale commended the team on their achievement in the face of enormous challenges.   She added that an additional risk was the loss of key staff and that there was an on-going need for publicity to encourage the public to make full use of the new right.

35.   In discussion, the Board praised the team’s achievements and raised the following points:

a.  Local Access Fora would be looking for leadership from NCAF (National Countryside Access Forum) on future work in this area.

b.  Fears that loutish behaviour might be widespread in the countryside when new areas were opened up had been unfounded.   This was relevant to debates in Parliament over the purposes of Natural England and whether its role of encouraging access conflicted with that of promoting biodiversity.

c.  A process should be put in place to capture and monitor closures.

d.  It was regrettable that the access management grant scheme had not been fully subscribed and the number of long term restrictions was disappointing.   Wherever possible, the reason for nature conservation closures should be clearly stated, as secrecy caused concern.  

e.  The team should be planning for the decadal review when the benefits of open access would have to be demonstrated.   Over time, it was to be hoped that landowners would recognise the benefits and not seek to impose restrictions.   In the Lower North West area, there had been no complaints received from land managers, estate owners or ornithologists. 

36.   Andrew Wood commented that the team’s leaders would continue to work together to maintain the programme and work on new projects.   Plans were in hand for evaluation, learning from recent experience of the EDM work.

37.   Roger Ward told the Board that the statutory maps had been moved from the contractors, Black & Veitch to IBM. A report on additional support for Local Access Fora was imminent.

38.   Summing up, the Chairman said the Board noted the report and thanked the team for their efforts.

Improving Coastal Access: An Update   AP05/25

Roger Ward in attendance

39.   Roger Ward introduced the paper and highlighted that improving coastal access was a Government commitment and would be one of the flagship projects for Natural England.   A meeting had been held with Rural Affairs Minister, Jim Knight, ahead of work on a formal paper to Defra.   The Minister’s main priority was to provide continuous access to the coast; the issue was how to provide this access.   Fixing a line on a map, as a right of way, was not ideal because of the dynamic nature of the coastline.   An alternative was a section 3 order under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act to extend the definition of ‘open country’ to include coastal land, in order to apply CRoW access rights to it.

40.   Tayo Adebowale said this was an exciting development, following the open access project, and an important project for the partners in the future Natural England, together with the Environment Agency.   There was an opportunity to link flood defence schemes and access.   This was a good example of joined-up working.

41.   In discussion, the Board raised the following points:

a.  There was some doubt about how the additional criterion in Annex 2 of the paper, (vii) – ensuring everyone should have good opportunities to enjoy the natural countryside – could be assessed.

b.  It was recognised that changes to the coastline, including managed retreat (eg removal of hard walls in the Essex estuary) would make general provision of access difficult.   There would also be safety concerns, notably in relation to cliff top erosion. It would be important to demonstrate to landowners and managers that these issues had been taken into consideration.

c.   There should be wide consultation on the environmental and economic consequences of coastal access. Marshlands were extremely fragile habitats under threat from global warming and salt marshes were important shooting areas, particularly for those who could not afford inland game shooting: it was classic co-operative activity preserving the environment.

d.  It was important to take a broad view of access. A national framework should be developed to encourage local action in what would be a new recreational environment that could bring significant economic benefit.   A section 3 order would be preferable to a narrow view of mapping coastal access.

e.  There were already good examples of coastal access working well and it would be important to learn the ecological, environmental and safety lessons.   There was also a need to understand and allay landowners’ fears.   It was important to appreciate what this development would mean for farming businesses; for example, it could reduce the ecological benefits of a set-aside strip along the coastline.

f.   No reference had been made in the paper to Heritage Coasts.   These would be a source of valuable experience.   Tourist bodies and Regional Development Agencies should also be consulted. 

42.   Roger Ward commented that Natural England partners would be working closely with the Environment Agency.   The criteria would be the same as those used before CRoW plus, at Defra’s request, consideration of diversity issues.   While the need to take safety into account was acknowledged, it was pointed out that the CRoW Act reduced landowners’ liability.   In relation to mudflats and salt marshes, CRoW would allow for differing coastal regimes and circumstances and areas did not have to be accessible all of the time. He assured the Board that there would be wide consultation.   The Board would have an opportunity to discuss the issue again in the autumn, when the results of additional trialling were available, ahead of giving advice to Defra.

43.   Summing up, the Chairman said the Board noted the paper.

Forest of Dean Evaluation   AP05/ 26

Bob Roberts in attendance

44.   The Chairman welcomed John Lawes from Friends of the Forest who was in the audience for this item.

45.   Brian Wilson introduced the paper and the interim evaluation of the Integrated Rural Development (IRD) programme.   A letter from the Friends of the Forest had been circulated to the Board, together with emails from members of the management group.   Copies of the annexes were tabled.   The programme had now been transferred to the south West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA)   which was seen as a potential opportunity to embed the lessons learned into their more mainstream programmes.   The Forest of Dean was a unique and distinctive area and there were divergent views, including about the desirability of AONB status for the area.

46.   Bob Roberts explained that there was a lot of local interest in AONB designation.   The Agency did not have sufficient resources to look at this case in advance of consideration of a number of other areas in the New Year, but the Forest of Dean could be included at that time.

47.   Philip Lowe said that, when the Board had met in the Forest of Dean in November 1999, they agreed that it was clearly an area with special qualities equal to other AONBs.   Without ruling out designation, the Board had wanted to look at other possibilities, which might be more appropriate for that rich living landscape rather than pushing ahead with a ‘one size fits all’ approach.   They had felt that IRD would be more appropriate for the Forest’s ex-industrial, cultural heritage and that it could test different approaches and models as a national project.   He welcomed SWRDA’s involvement in the final year of the project to March 2006.   He hoped that the final report would include options for the future. These could include AONB designation and other measures to protect the area’s special qualities and should take account of local opinion.

48.   In discussion, the following points were raised:

a.  The Friends of the Forest had put forward a very professional submission to the Gloucestershire structure plan. 

b.  Tests of boundary modifications of protected landscapes, discussed by the Board in May 2005, might be applicable to the Forest of Dean.

c.  Development pressure was not the prime criterion for AONB status.

d.  The Countryside Agency should emphasise to SWRDA the importance of the area.

e.  AONB status might be inappropriate for the Forest of Dean, the oldest working forest in Europe, because of the failure to respond to livelihood.   An imaginative rethink was required, possibly along the lines of the practice the UK government was trying to encourage in the developing world, to foster sustainable forestry.    

f.  There was concern that AONB status would be a constraint to economic progress, even though the Friends of the Forest believed otherwise.

g.  The Board should draw lessons from IRD, as it was an attempt to approach the issue in a modern, consensual and non-statutory process, encouraging local people to develop their own solutions.

h.  An early conclusion was needed to give certainty to the area, but it should be reached properly and professionally.   AONB status was a ‘top-down’ approach and might not be right for the Forest of Dean.

i.  The Board should be better at acknowledging when initiatives might have failed. It was not clear what has been achieved by IRD that would not have been had AONB status been granted in 1999. However, it had generated a baseline survey that could be fed into any designation process.

j.  AONB designation should not be seen as a prize, implying that there was a first class and second class countryside.   Moreover, if designations became too widespread, the money available would have to be spread more thinly.

49.   Summing up the debate, the Chairman concluded that: 

• the Board had noted the findings of the interim evaluation of the Integrated Rural Development Programme; 
• SWRDA, as new owners of the programme, should be encouraged to act on those areas identified as requiring further work;  
• the Board had agreed that the issue of designation of the Forest of Dean as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty should be considered alongside other proposals put forward to the Countryside Agency and recommendations made to them in due course.  

Commission for Rural Communities – Corporate and Business Planning   AP05/27

50.   Brian Wilson introduced the paper, explaining that the CRC task group had wanted a more detailed discussion of the Business Plan strategy and how to move towards next year’s planning cycle.

51.   The £4.1m programme budget in the Business Plan would, as agreed, be focussed on fewer, larger projects.   In addition to the £265,000, which had been made available for implementing MRD from the Business Area Change Initiative (BACI), there were three groups of projects:

• those ‘inherited’ from previous Countryside Agency activities, including State of the Countryside
• setting the agenda for the future
• new initiatives, for example enquiries where early impact is required.

52.   The plan aimed to manage the balance between giving clarity in setting out projects, with flexibility to accommodate external and unforeseen events. There would be improved project management. Progress would be monitored by monthly exceptions; quarterly traffic light reports; and a six-month review of bigger issues and direction.

53.   John Varley said that the Board’s concern should be to ensure there was a process in place, but there was also a need for tangible outputs and the team should be allowed to get on with it.   The Board would be able to have further input at the proposed six-month review in October.

54.   In discussion, the Board raised the following points:

a.  There should be greater clarity of the role of each project’s contribution towards building the brand and its credibility. For example, regional rural proofing presented an opportunity to build links with Government Offices in the regions.

b.  Despite the need to focus on fewer, larger projects, the list was still extensive.   Being tied to a project-management approach could restrict the scope for big new ideas and having time to reflect on wider issues.   This should be borne in mind for the future.

c.  It was important to identify quick wins and demonstrate early on how the Commission would be working differently, particularly in the approach to and process for engagement and listening.   The Commission also needed to be seen to be monitoring the impacts of current policies on social disadvantage.

55.   Margaret Clark explained that project management was not intended to exclude blue-sky thinking, which would be built into the process.   Brian Wilson added that the CRC had an influencing strategy.   He would ask the task group to look again at the project list but that it was important to get coherence and the right linkages.

56.   Summing up, the Chairman said that the Board noted the CRC business plan and approved the outline approach for managing and reporting on 2005-06 activity, including the task group’s role.

Any Other Business 

57.   The Chairman thanked Claire Walkley for her hard work in preparing for the Board meeting.   He also wished Tracey Slaven well in her new role as LAR Director of the Natural England project and thanked her for her hard work in the past.

Date and Location of Next Meeting 

58.   The 52nd Board Meeting would be on 21 July 2005 at the new London office, Portland House, Stag Place, London SW1E 5RS.   The Rural Affairs Minister, Jim Knight, MP was expected to attend for part of the meeting.