Natural England

Minutes of the 55th Meeting of the Countryside Agency

Present:              
Stuart Burgess, Chairman
Pam Warhurst, Deputy Chair
Tayo Adebowale
Kate Ashbrook
Sheena Asthana
Richard Burge
Jim Cox
Peter Fane
Tony Hams
Graham James
Philip Lowe
Alison McLean
Howard Petch
Mark Shucksmith
John Varley
Michael Winter

In attendance:          
Graham Garbutt, Chief Executive
Margaret Clark, CRC Director
Andrew Wood, LAR Director
Barbara Fletcher, Head of Corporate Services
Sue Bennett, Head of Corporate Support
Jane Gawthorne, Head of Management Support Group
Audrey Wedderburn, LHI Programme Manager
Jacqui Stearn, Diversity Review
Tony Dover, Head of Corporate Governance        

Apologies for Absence

1.   Apologies for absence were received from Norman Glass.

Declaration of Interests

2.   There were no declarations of interest in the matters or papers to be discussed by the Board.

Minutes of the meeting held on 10 November 2005

3.   The Board approved the minutes of the previous meeting, subject to the following changes:

3.1   Paragraph 11 – amend National Park Boards to National Park Authorities.

3.2   After paragraph 18 include additional paragraph to read:

‘Kate Ashbrook said that the Government’s Commons Bill was in the House of Lords and Paul Johnson from the Countryside Agency had been seconded to Defra’s Bill team and was doing a useful job.   The Minister had said in debates that Natural England would champion common land.’

3.3   Paragraph 15 – amend to read ‘….the CRC to learn from the research that is being carried out by the South West Government Office.’

3.4    Amendments to closed minutes – point was made by Jim Cox about the accessibility to the whole of England as well as London – Paragraph 14 amend reference to north Somerset to west Somerset.

Matters arising from the minutes of the meeting held on 10 November 2005

4.   Andrew Wood, in response to a question from Philip Lowe, explained that Martin Hurst would be arranging a meeting with the Treasury, representatives from No 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office to discuss the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP). Board members from the three-confederated bodies would be invited to the meeting, which was expected to take place in January or February. 

5.   Margaret Clark explained that her meeting with Sir Don Curry had been rescheduled for January and undertook to respond by e-mail with an up-date on the current position on the Education White paper.

Chief Executive’s Report

6.   Graham Garbutt introduced the report and said that he had invited Sir Martin Doughty to visit the Agency’s Manchester office with him to hear the concerns of staff.

7.   In response to a question from Michael Winter about the implications of the recent New Forest judgement, Andrew Wood explained that the judgement excluded the Hinton Park Estate from the New Forest National Park.   Defra had sought leave to appeal, after seeking advice from the Agency as the Secretary of State’s adviser, but this might take as long as 12 months.   The Agency might have an option to be a party to Defra’s appeal but the timing of Board meetings would not allow for consultation with the entire Board. It was agreed that, if decisions had to be made, the Board would be content to delegate that responsibility to the Chairman and one or two Board members.   Work on the creation of the South Downs National Park had been halted, as the Secretary of State might have to ask the Inspector to reopen the Inquiry.   If Defra were unsuccessful in getting leave to appeal, the Agency would need to reconsider the application of the statutory criteria for the creation of National Parks.   In addition, the paper on the boundary review in the North West would not be brought to the Board in February.

8.   The Board noted that there might be an option to amend legislation to clarify the definition of natural beauty, via the NERC Bill.

9.   Richard Burge expressed his disappointment that it would not be possible for the Agency to progress the appointment of a Board for the South Downs National Park.   In the circumstances, it should be handed over to Natural England as soon as possible.  

10.   In relation to paragraph 48 of the Chief Executive’s report, Tony Hams explained that the paper on integrated landscapes did not go to the Natural England Steering Group (NESG) but that the confederation would be producing a paper for the next NESG meeting.

11.   Mark Shucksmith asked for an up-date on paragraph 20 and the meeting with the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) and the Minister.   Margaret Clark replied that a meeting had been held with officials from the Social Exclusion Unit and they had been very interested in the CRC’s work. The meeting with the Minister, Phil Woolas, had been postponed until January 2006.   Officials from the SEU and Department for Education and Skills (DfES) had agreed to participate in a study tour to look at rural issues. Margaret Clark undertook to contact Board members with further details.

12.   Further to paragraph 32 on discussions between the Agency’s Growth Areas staff and English Heritage on the meaning of sustainable community, Graham Garbutt reported that he had held a brief discussion with Andrew Wells, director of sustainable community at ODPM, and a further meeting would be arranged to consider the tension between sustainable development and sustainable communities. Margaret Clark added that CRC had commissioned some think pieces on what constituted a sustainable rural community.

13.   Philip Lowe commented that, in respect of paragraph 26 - rural and urban definitions - it was important to raise concerns that government departments were falling back on using local authority districts, which was a more political definition. He welcomed the secondment of David Gluck to IPPR North, who are undertaking a project co sponsored by the CRC, a ‘New Rural Agenda’, but urged that he should be encouraged to take a strategic role.   Howard Petch voiced a concern that the CRC’s three regional staff were spread very thinly as a result.

14.   The Chairman gave an update on his recent Rural Advocate activity and reported that the work, format and lessons learned were to be reviewed in January, the outcome of which would be shared with the Board. There would be a regular Rural Advocate report to the Board in the New Year.  

15.   Alison McLean pointed out the need for both LAR and CRC to be involved in the England Rural Development Programme and that RDAs would take over Axes 1 and 3.  

16.   Pam Warhurst gave an up-date on her recent visit to the Thames Gateway and growth areas, where a small Countryside Agency team was doing an excellent job in influencing a wide range of people.   They had been successful in changing people’s mindsets and had produced a DVD with excellent illustrations of their work.

17.   Pam Warhurst reported on a recent meeting of the National Countryside Access Forum and advised of the need to think through the Agency’s approach to NE about the appropriateness of NCAF remaining as a standing body.

18.   Margaret Clark reported that the CRC had commissioned Deloittes to review the Chancellor’s Pre Budget Report from a rural perspective and to advise on issues on which the CRC might make a Budget submission.   Deloittes would be holding a workshop involving stakeholders, including those who would not normally attend CRC meetings.   Margaret Clark undertook to circulate the outcome of Deloitte’s findings to Board members and would welcome their comments.

19.   The Chairman reported that he had attended all eight of the CRC’s Housing Inquiry meetings and thanked those Board members who had been able to join him.   Margaret Clark confirmed the CRC’s intention to return to the communities to report back on the findings of the Inquiry and what the CRC had done as a result.  

20.   Kate Ashbrook raised concerns about the failure to deliver the Rural White Paper commitment to open old rights of way (paragraph 53), which Andrew Wood agreed to discuss in more detail outside of the meeting.

21.   Graham Garbutt updated the Board on the recently created Board groups that had met to discuss:

i)     CRC structure and culture – members had been asked to give this some thought and report back in the        
       New Year;

ii)    Avian ‘Flu – considering implications for human health;

iii)   HEFCE – holding a teleconference the following week;

iv)   Challenging Government – this was a new suggested grouping.

22.   Richard Burge suggested that the subject of the economic impact of pensions would bear further examination owing to the massively under-funded pensions system and disparity between private and public sector pensions, with a view to considering whether there was a rural dimension to the pensions debate.  

Implementing the Rural Strategy

23.   Graham Garbutt reported that the key critical activity for December was the Natural England staff matching process, most of which would be completed before Christmas.   The interview process for the NE chief executive’s post had been completed and interviews for the executive directors’ posts were scheduled for January.  

24.   Pam Warhurst welcomed the fact that the Board’s priorities were now well represented in Natural England which would add value to the public at large.   She thanked staff actively involved in this work, particularly Barney Smith for his contribution to the Corporate Plan and Bob Roberts, whose contribution would be sorely missed when he retired in December.

25.   Pam Warhurst also reported that the Natural England Steering Group had created two sub-groups, one on strategy (which she would co-chair) and the other on process and overview – structures and estates (to be chaired by Poul Christensen).   At their recent meeting Sir Martin Doughty had asked NESG to think about which three major priorities for NE should be taken forward.   The LAR Task Group would consider this at their meeting the following week, prior to reporting back to NESG on 24 January.   Details of the issues discussed by NESG and the Strategy Group would be circulated to Board members.

26.   John Varley commented on paragraph 4 and stressed the need for a contingency plan to be put in place, if the budget cut was made and to consider worst-case scenarios.   In respect of paragraph 15, he asked how the Countryside Agency was monitoring programmes transferred to the RDAs.

27.   Graham Garbutt responded that, in discussions with John Mills, it had been stressed that the CRC relocation plan would contain a low-cost option.   Costs would be available on the various different relocation options in March. In respect of the 7.5% options exercise, it was clear from discussions that there was some variability in how it might be applied across the Defra family. 

28.   Tayo Adebowale reminded the Board that sustainability should be taken account of in terms of the relocation of CRC and NE staff and that other organisations will be looking at the distances that staff would be travelling.

29.   Philip Lowe expressed deep concern about decisions in setting up the CRC and the relocation of the CRC.   Stuart Burgess assured the Board that the issues were being grasped and a quick solution to relocation and funding, to ensure staff were aware of their options, would be found.

30.   Graham Garbutt explained that he and the Chairman were meeting on a fortnightly basis with key staff and the consultants working on final options. Staff would be consulted about these options.   Jim Knight had indicated that a clear decision needed to be made by the end of March 2006. It was suggested that John Varley, as Chairman of the Audit & Risk Management Committee, should be kept informed of decisions. The Chairman promised feedback on property issues at the next Board meeting.

31.   In summing up, the Chairman reminded Board members to continue their discussions with members of the House of Lords about the NERC and to give feedback to Sue Bennett. 

Diversity Review 

32.   Andrew Wood opened the discussion by explaining that the Diversity Review was one of the major work streams from the Rural White Paper 2000, which required Defra to conduct a review of diversity in terms of access and barriers to the countryside.   The draft Action Plan would be submitted to Defra to develop and consult on in the Spring/Summer 2006.   It was expected that Natural England would deliver the plan and Confederation partners had been involved in its development.

33.   Board members welcomed the report and made the following points during the discussion:

i)     this should not be seen as something ‘special’ but rather the ‘norm’, especially as public money and public benefit was involved;

ii)    a communications strategy and plan was required to highlight the economic and health benefits. There was a need to take account of the lessons learned from the response to the   previous report; 

iii)   an evaluation and review of the action plan itself was needed;

iv)   school visits should be included in the day visitor statistics;.  

v)    diversity should be a strategic objective in the NE corporate plan;

vi)   it was important to work in partnership with others in the delivery of this, rather than to be seen as standing 
       alone.

34.   Sheena Asthana raised concerns about the report’s assumptions and relevance to current thinking on public health and education and agreed to discuss these with Jacqui Stearn after the meeting.

35.   In response to the Board’s comments, Andrew Wood explained that there would be a diversity programme within NE. It would be five or six months before further announcements were made, which would be time to plan that the right messages were communicated.   Points raised by Board members would be discussed with Defra.   The Agency would continue to work with confederation partners and NGOs on a bid to the Big Lottery Fund around green space and access to the environment.  

36.   In summarising, the Chairman congratulated Jacqui Stearn and her team.   He noted that, since the July bombings in London, some ethnic communities were fearful to go outside their own communities.   He noted the Board’s recommendations on communications, the importance of mainstreaming, inclusion of pre-16s, involvement of CRC and integration with the public health and education agendas; and approved the draft Action Plan, subject to accommodating the points made by the Board.

37.   Graham Garbutt introduced the discussion, by stating that the Countryside Agency should be very proud of this initiative and the methodology that had been developed, which should be used in the future.   One of the difficulties in searching for a home for the LHI had been that the CRC would   have no grant-giving powers. It had been reluctantly agreed that this initiative would have to come to an end.   However, there was an option to allow a small team to continue for a few months to ensure that the lessons learned were carried forward and embedded. 

38.   Audrey Wedderburn, LHI programme manager, added that National Digital Archive of Datasets had agreed to house the directory of all 1200 projects. Also,   the team were co-authoring a joint internal paper for the HLF’s Small Grants Review, which had been delayed until later in 2006, because of the DCMS’ consultation on lottery funding.

39.   Board members expressed their deep sadness and regret that it had not been possible to find a way to continue the LHI project.   Some Board members felt that, in order to allow staff the opportunity to apply for posts within NE, it would be fairer to close the project at the end of September, when the Agency ceased to exist.   An alternative view was that it would be better to try to continue the project for as long as possible and continue to seek a new home for the LHI project.

40.   After a detailed discussion, where Board members spoke passionately in favour of LHI, the Chairman asked the Board to vote on two options:

i)      Option 1 – reopen discussions with the Minister, Jim Knight, and others, with a view to bringing a further paper back to the Board in January; or

ii)      Option 2 – take the decision to close the LHI in September 2006.

41.   The majority of Board members voted in favour of Option 2 and, in summary, the Chairman concluded that the Agency and Board should celebrate the success of the LHI project and plan for its closure at the end of September 2006.

42.   Tony Dover introduced the paper by explaining that the Audit & Risk Management Committee, which would   meet straight after the Board, would be considering the paper in detail.  

43.   John Varley commented that he felt the Agency’s risk management process was working well, particularly as the Executive reviewed it on a regular basis and that the risk headings did reflect the areas of greatest risk.   He thanked the team for the accompanying change chart.  

44.   After a number of suggestions were made to be included in the Audit and Risk Management Committee’s consideration of the register, the Chairman thanked Tony Dover for producing a helpful and informative paper.

CRC Review

45.   Margaret Clark introduced the review of the CRC’s first six months, which had focussed mainly on putting the foundations for the new body in place.   The opportunity had been taken to listen to the views of CRC staff in compiling the report.  

46.   Welcoming the review, the Chairman said that it was important for the future location of the CRC headquarters to be agreed as soon as possible and that effective communication of the process would be important for staff morale.   It was also important for the CRC to be prepared to raise its profile after Royal Assent.

47.   There were no other items of business.

48.   The next meeting will be held at Portland House in London on Thursday, 19 January 2006.