Natural England

Minutes of the 58th Meeting of the Countryside Agency

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

In attendance:             
Graham Garbutt, Chief Executive
Andrew Wood, LAR Director
Barbara Fletcher, Head of Corporate Service
Sue Bennett, Head of Private Office
Ken Roy, Programme Director, Rural Analysis
Jeremy Worth, Programme Director, LAR
Roger Ward, Programme Manager, Open Access
Peter Johnstone, Programme Manager, Doorstep Greens
Mike Doughty, Head of Internal Audit
Jane Gawthorne, Head of Management Support Group
John Mills, Director of Rural Policy, Defra                            

1.   The Chairman welcomed everybody to the meeting and explained that Ken Roy was standing in for Margaret Clark, CRC Policy Director.

2.    The Chairman pointed out that this would be Pam Warhurst’s last Board meeting before joining the Board of Natural England on 1 July.   Tony Hams had resigned from the Countryside Agency’s Board on 2 May on joining the Natural England Board.   The Chairman and Board extended their thanks to both for their valuable contribution to the work of the Agency.

3.    Apologies for absence were received from Sheena Asthana and Norman Glass.

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

i)     Kate Ashbrook as Chairman of the Ramblers’ Association and General Secretary of the Open Spaces Society in respect of Discovering Lost Ways and Coastal Access.

ii)     Michael Winter in respect of Exeter University’s contract for Eat the View.

iii)    Graham Garbutt explained that he had confirmed to John Varley that he did not have a conflict of interest in respect of the papers on Discovering Lost Ways and Coastal Access.

5.    The Board approved the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 16 March, subject to the following amendments:

i)     Paragraph 22 – there had been a clear message from the meeting that the Chairman should say to Defra that Countryside Agency Board members appointed to the Board of Natural England should continue to serve on the Countryside Agency’s Board.

ii)    Paragraph 20 (iii) – change ‘focus review’ to ‘Frances Rowe’.

iii)   Paragraph 34 (vi) – the NE corporate plan should take account of all aspects of   sustainable development, including social and economic, as well as environmental land uses.

6.    The Board approved the minutes of the items heard in closed session.

7.    There were no matters arising.

8.    Graham Garbutt opened the discussion by commenting that over the last two months there had been a great deal of MRD-related work. There would be continuing turbulence throughout the Countryside Agency as staff were matched into roles in Natural England.  

9.    Barbara Fletcher, Head of Corporate Services, was to be seconded as Programme Director for Defra’s Shared Services Offer (SSO) from early June.   The Board extended their best wishes to Barbara in her new role.

10.   Following a meeting with Debbie Ellis, Acting Chief Executive of SSO, it had been decided that to avoid disruption, CRC would not use their services in the short term, but would negotiate entry at some later date.  

11.   Good progress had been made on CRC relocation but no public announcement had yet been made. The next stage would be the development of more detailed proposals.

12.   Graham Garbutt extended his thanks to the Countryside Agency’s staff for delivering the budget on target.  

13.   A report by the National Audit Office on open access was due to be published shortly.   The open access project had successfully opened something approaching a million hectares of ‘new’ land to public access at a cost of less than £70 per hectare, which was a significant achievement for the Countryside Agency. Costs had exceeded the original anticipated budget of £28m, and had risen to £56m.   The original budget had been difficult to predict in the absence of a pilot project.   There had been political pressure to complete the project quickly and the inclusion of a pilot would have added two years to the timescale. 

14.   In response to questions from the Board, Andrew Wood said that shortcomings in project management which would be highlighted by the NAO report including poor documentation had been rectified during the lifetime of the project. It was difficult to judge from the records how the original budget estimate had been constructed. By necessity, it had been done in a vacuum as it had been the first such exercise. During the course of the project, the methodology had changed with the addition of an initial mapping exercise and appeals process. The NAO’s findings gave the Agency credit for putting right the failings and carrying forward the lessons into a number of other exercises.

15.   During a discussion about the CRC’s successful housing conference Board members commented that:

i)     news management by the CA/CRC had not only helped to raise the expectations and profile but also helped to generate extensive media coverage of the report and the conference;

ii)    the conference itself was important politically in bringing on board the Ministers, Yvette Cooper, David Miliband and Barry Gardiner, who had all made positive contributions and had undertaken to respond by the autumn; and

iii)   the CRC should invite members of the Affordable Rural Housing Commission to meet again next year.

16.   Pam Warhurst reported that the launch event on behalf of Defra of the Diversity Review had been a great success. The challenge now was to include the whole of society, not just a minority.  

17.   Pam Warhurst also flagged a concern about funding for green infrastructure which was often the first thing to be axed when there was pressure on budgets for development projects.   

18.   During the discussion Board members suggested that:

i)     there would be merit in investing time in talking to editors of more local and regional newspapers about the Diversity Review;

ii)    there was a need to ensure the right messages were conveyed in respect of the Diversity Review; 

iii)   there was a need for organisations such as the Countryside Agency which wanted to promote green infrastructure to join together and speak with one voice; and

iv)    David Miliband had delivered a speech on climate change and biodiversity that would be worth considering in respect of green infrastructure.   Natural England should be encouraged to reflect on a recent World Bank report on millennium ecosystems assessment in relation to human wellbeing (one of the millennium development goals). 

19.   Stuart Burgess reported that the latest information suggested that the Dti consultation on post offices had been delayed.  

20.   Stuart Burgess introduced the report by explaining that his planned visit to the Isles of Scilly visit had been postponed and the joint visit to Lincolnshire with Jim Knight cancelled due following his move to DfES in the recent reshuffle. 

21.    He said that it would be important to focus on meeting a number of Ministers in their new roles, including Stephen Timms (Treasury), Hilary Armstrong (social exclusion) and maintaining contact with Jim Knight (education).   He reported on a challenging first meeting with new sponsoring minister, Barry Gardiner, at which he was accompanied by Graham Garbutt, Margaret Clark and John Mills. The Minister had asked probing questions on financial expenditure and the purpose of the CRC. Stuart Burgess said he had also attended a stakeholder breakfast meeting with David Miliband; while the main emphasis had been on climate change, he had been able to raise the work of the Commission with people in rural communities.  

22.    Margaret Clark had accompanied him on his Rural Advocate visit to Cumbria where he had met hill farmers.   He had subsequently written to the Prime Minister about the plight of the farming community and their problems with the single farm payment scheme but had not received a reply.  

23.    During the discussion Board members commented that: 

i)       there was more work to do on the framework of the Rural Advocate’s visits and related protocols;

ii)      there needed to be a dialogue back to the people met on the visits, in the same way as the Housing Inquiry had fed back to the communities visited; and greater involvement of the local rRAF and Government Office regional teams in planning the visits. A counter argument was raised that the Rural Advocate should retain his independence and not rely too heavily on GOs and rRAFs, creating more of a private sector presence and involving fewer civil servants; 

iii)     a response should be sought from the Prime Minister on the single farm payment scheme; 

iv)     volunteer county representatives could be found to help assist the Rural Advocate visits; 

v)      the migrant workers visit should be rescheduled, irrespective of whether the Minister could be involved.   It should include economic issues that faced migrant workers, including drink and drug-related problems. Further issues relating to migrant workers were their lack of integration within rural communities and the resultant tensions that arose.

24.    Stuart Burgess responded that the migrant workers visit was being rescheduled but that it was not known if Barry Gardiner would be able to attend.   Palwinder Kaur was to be seconded to the CRC from June to focus on migrant workers.   The need to pull together the many streams of government and academic work on migrant workers was acknowledged.

25.   Graham Garbutt introduced the report and said that the CRC was developing its Memorandum of Understanding and Management Statement with Defra. A harder area to agree would be the role of watchdog and critical friend but that it was important that this role was agreed and understood by government. 

26.   The NE Executive was reaching a critical point with the next round of executive appointments. With 48 applicants for 18 posts, it was inevitable that the majority of applicants would be unsuccessful, which might have a negative impact on staff morale. Those appointed would be asked to take up their new roles at least on a part-time basis and the Agency would need to consider the need to backfill their CA roles.   Graham Garbutt told the Board that the key message from the regional Trade Union representatives was that morale amongst staff was already low; although the second matching process had been completed, it was more general and staff did not know their future roles. Regional visits were being planned for Graham Garbutt and Stuart Burgess to the areas where office closures had been proposed.

27.    Philip Lowe had agreed to lead the Agency’s work on dissolution. A series of staff meetings had been held to validate the work being undertaken and it was proposed to extend this to include regional business managers. Philip Lowe raised some of the concerns that had emerged from the previous day’s meeting of the Dissolution Group: 

i)      that dismantling the NE Programme Board and structure had delayed negotiations on some matters that should have been settled;  

ii)     it was important that the Accounting Officer received leadership from Defra for a smooth and consistent transfer before termination of the CA’s obligations; and

iii)    contractual issues relating to the IT contract should be conducted consistently and effectively.  

28.   Graham Garbutt reported that he had asked for an item on the budget process to be included in the following day’s agenda for the MRD Programme Board. Of particular concern was the cumulative impact of budget cuts. The 7.5% budget cut initially proposed was compounded by the possibility that staff displacement costs would not be covered in the MRD budget; and additional salary costs would be incurred if more staff than expected had to be moved into NE.   This, plus the potential up-front costs of setting up Defra’s SSO would have a cumulative impact on programme budgets – which in turn would impact on delivery of both the NE and CRC corporate plans.  

29.   Stuart Burgess reminded Board members of the need to listen to the language coming from the new Ministers and to assimilate the new ideas and new thinking. The CRC taskgroup’s relationship with the rRAF chairs needed to be developed and a meeting between the two groups was being organised.

30.   It was pointed out that in paragraph 15 of the report, line 3 should read: “A decision has been taken that NE should not accede to Defra’s e-nabling contract with IBM until the programme is satisfied that this represents value for money and will deliver NE’s core needs”. 

31.   During the discussion Board members raised the following points: 

i)     A mechanism on reporting on the wider aspects of MRD was needed, including the CA’s former grant-giving programmes;

ii)    that a message of understanding and appreciation to staff for getting on with the job should be conveyed from the Board;

iii)   concern that after all of the trauma caused by the creation of NE, nothing would be seen to be done differently.

32.  Graham Garbutt said he had registered the Board’s concerns about the first NE matching process at the MRD Programme Board and would ensure that relevant action was taken.

Financial report for Quarter 4 - AP06/15

33.   Barbara Fletcher introduced the final report for the 2005/06 financial year. The National Audit Office had yet to confirm the final position so the figures in the report were provisional, but it was clear that delivery in quarter 4 had brought the figures close to target. 

34.   John Varley, as lead Board member, said this was the last financial year for which the Board would have full control and praised the diligence and professionalism of the staff in delivering a good result.  

35.   In summary the Chairman said that the Board noted the report and recommendations, thanked Barbara and her team for their support and wished Barbara well for the future.

36.   Andrew Wood introduced the paper by explaining that Discovering Lost Ways had been through a process where, having run into difficulties, the project had been re-assessed and a new approach developed, drawing on the lessons learned from open access.  

37.   Jeremy Worth presented the paper to the Board and explained that the project stemmed from the Rural White paper commitment to explore and discover lost ways where landowners and users did not have certainty over rights of way.   Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act these rights would be extinguished in 2026. The pilot stage would be completed once key decisions had been taken by the Board on the way forward.   A result would be logged when a new right existed, rather than when a claim was made.   A co-operative approach had been developed with landowners and users whereby all parties review claims together, making the creation of a Claims Trust unnecessary.   

38.   He went on to explain that Highway Authorities had a duty to look for ‘new’ rights and put them on the map. The project would assist in prioritising routes but Rights of Way Improvement Plans should be the main guide. 

39.   While the paper said little about costs, the original estimates for procurement, research and claiming were put at £11 million over 10 years. This did not include the cost of reaching agreement to establish a right.   A collaborative approach would cost more in terms of staff time required and he expected that there would also be pressure from Highway Authorities to provide extra staff to assist them.   Once the pilot had been completed it would be possible to confirm the budget estimate and he agreed to keep the Board updated on this.   He assured the Board that value for money would be a key objective.

40.   Tayo Adebowale, as lead Board member, said this was a complex project which had taken on board the lessons learned from open access.   Board members should not underestimate the importance of the collaborative approach and agreeing objectives with stakeholders.

41.   During the discussion Board members commented that:

i)    lost ways could be a real public benefit in terms of linking urban communities with rural areas and thus reducing reliance on motor transport;

ii)    it was essential to involve local access fora which could be empowered as a result of this work;

iii)   a large number of highways had been lost through development. Discovering lost ways project was a ‘quid pro quo’ for closing the definitive map in 2026;

iv)   there were concerns that some routes would not be claimed, for example, due to local authorities having powers to gate alleyways;

v)    ROWIPs were of variable standards and work might need to be done in helping to improve those that were below average; and

vi)   while there needed to be criteria for assessing expenditure for public benefit, the project had been a promise in the CRoW Act.

42.  When questioned about the Board’s authority to take decisions that affected the future, Jeremy Worth explained that a decision was needed in order to complete the pilot, otherwise the project would have to be suspended which would also have cost implications. The CA was in the middle of a handover period and that if the Board were prepared to support the recommendations it would help NE colleagues with the decisions that they would need to make. 

43.  The criteria to be used in assessing public benefit would be whether the route was at risk and if there was evidence that the network would be improved. He assured the Board that while there was no intention of introducing a ‘rationalisation’ process, a pragmatic approach would be adopted.   He gave an example of the consensus approach, where an historic right was found across a farmyard and it was preferable to all parties for the route to be diverted.   He added that this advice was based on discussions with advisory groups, landowners, highways authorities and conservation groups who believed that this ought to work.   Part of the pilot testing would ensure that it does work and expect that it may need to be tweaked to improve it.  

44.  Andrew Wood explained that the project had been considered during the NE corporate planning and offers process.   If the Board were to say ‘no’ to the report’s recommendations that would not only stop the pilot but also interrupt NE’s strategic direction. Agreeing to support the recommendations would enable the team to progress the pilot, by which time NE would be in the next planning round and would have more evidence available on which to base its decisions.  

45.  In summary the Chairman agreed that the Board accepted recommendations 1, 2 and 4 and that recommendation 3 was agreed when amended to read: 

“to agree that the pilot project would develop an approach to developing guidance and a prioritisation framework   to deliver improvements to the rights of way network.”

46.   Andrew Wood introduced the paper by explaining that although the project had received little attention, it had been hugely successful, largely thanks to Pete Johnstone’s work.

47.   Pete Johnstone explained that Doorstep Greens was a six-year old project with the objective of enabling 200 communities to plan and design multi-purpose green space for their own use, helping communities to gain skills to manage their own green space.   The project delivered a package of advice and support and grant aid which had led to the creation of 193 doorstep greens.   In total, £13m had come from the Big Lottery Fund, £3.5m from Countryside Agency and £15m from partnership funding.  

48.   The Board noted that there were issues surrounding the long-term maintenance of the greens and that endowment funding and regional trusts could help to support these in the future.

They congratulated Peter Johnstone and his team on their achievements, particularly their work in deprived areas.

49.   Ken Roy introduced the report and explained that in future rather than waiting to publish details once a year, messages would be issued as they become apparent.   It was planned to publish the report on 20 July, including the publication of regional press releases via regional partners.   It was intended subsequently to launch the report at a seminar with specific interest groups and possibly with a link to the National Rural Conference.  

50.   Philip Lowe responded that it was critical to make the most of this flagship project moving from the CA to the CRC. This was the 8th report and an effort had been made to refocus it and create a distinctive CRC take.  

51.   Richard Burge commented that he hoped the report would deal adequately with field sports such as shooting and fishing and hunting.

52.   Ken Roy responded that the original content of the information used in the report would be published on the CRC’s website. There was no mention of field sports but he would discuss the matter with Richard Burge outside of the meeting.

53.   Andrew Wood introduced the paper and explained that it had been circulated late in order to incorporate views from a consultation meeting with the National Countryside Access Forum (NCAF) a few days earlier. Since the previous Board paper on advice to the Minister, work had been conducted in partnership with the Natural England confederation as it would ultimately be NE’s responsibility to deliver coastal access.

54.   Roger Ward presented the paper and reminded the Board that Defra had asked the NE partnership to consider how best to improve coastal access.   Annex 1 of the report set out the project and key outcomes.   He explained that the issues raised by the proposal were complex and it had yet to be resolved whether new legislation would be required.   Therefore the Board were being asked to endorse the direction of travel needed to deliver better access, not just more access.   He explained that a piecemeal, rights-of-way solution was not considered suitable for dynamic coasts, subject to erosion and seasonal variation.   CRoW would provide a more appropriate regime. Local management would be required and local access forums would assess needs.   A large-scale mapping exercise was not considered to be helpful. Further work would be required in relation to estuaries, natural harbours and tidal rivers as the project team was not convinced that the same arrangements would apply to these as for open coast.

55.   Tayo Adebowale, as lead Board member, responded that this was a project which, after open access, might appear reasonably simple but raised many complex issues.   The paper recommended a direction of travel that would pass to NE. Already the project had been a good example of the benefits of partnership working and the paper had confederation support.  

56.   During the discussion Board members were concerned that advice to Ministers should make reference to:

i)      the rights and needs of land managers and rural enterprise and the need to include convincing and quantifiable drivers;

ii)     ensuring that damage to rural enterprises – large and small – would be avoided, including to businesses, golf courses, and productive agricultural land.

iii)     an appreciation that occupier’s liability was a major issue, particularly for smaller scale farmers;

iv)    the access delivery mechanisms and risk of adversarial challenge if the rights were not mapped;

v)     the cost of an information campaign to help the public understand what was meant by coastal land. Reference should be made to how lessons from open access would translate into this programme;

vi)    ensuring that public safety would be taken into account, including safety closure orders;  

vii)    experience from coastal access in a wide range of other countries;

viii)    respect for biodiversity and the integration of access with current use such as flooded habitat estuaries and marshland; 

ix)     reference to obligations under the EU Habitat Directive Regulations; 

x)      an understanding of the effect of climate change on sea temperature and the resulting impact on our coastline species; 

xi)     the direction and objectives of the Millennium Ecosystems Assessment; and

xii)    the need for the CRC to rural-proof the process.

57.    In response Roger Ward explained that the importance of the southwest coastal path to rural businesses was recognised and that part of its success was due to the good standard of access generating significant income for the southwest. Nothing proposed in the paper would prevent charging for beach access or marketing a tourism business. Occupier’s liability had been identified as an issue which required further consideration. In respect of public safety, a meeting had been held to explore the issues with a range of organisations such as the RNLI.   The meeting had concluded that good management was the key to public safety and lessons should be learned from examples of good coastal access management which already existed.   In the time available, the team had looked at examples of coastal access in countries that were felt to be most relevant to the English coast.

58.    Board members commented further that: 

i)       they were concerned about approving the paper whilst differences of legal opinion remained; 

ii)       the paper could spell out more clearly the protection of coastal wildlife and biodiversity addressed by CRoW;

iii)      mention should be made of wildfowling and the points raised during previous Board discussions on this topic; 

iv)      the proposals formed initial advice to Defra and therefore would be not expected to give all the answers;

v)       this approach to coastal access worked well in Scotland;

vi)      irrespective of whether legislation was required, the Board should adopt a position;

vii)     the proposals were imaginative and the team had done what had been asked of them. All the issues raised would be thrashed out in the detailed consultation exercise that Defra would be undertaking.

59.     Roger Ward replied to the points raised by explaining that CRoW allowed for restriction of access to protect biodiversity and nature conservation; this had been very effective on open access land.   English Nature supported the recommendations and the ‘CRoW approach’. Nothing in the paper would preclude wildfowling or prevent a range of restrictions being put in place.

60.     The Chairman said the Board’s concerns should be incorporated in the interim advice to Defra and noted Roger Ward’s explanation that interim advice was required ahead of a meeting with the Minister at the end of June but that the Board would be consulted again before final advice was submitted to Defra at the end of July.  

61.     It was noted that under paragraph 17, the recommendation that “government should create a public right of access … along the whole of the English coastline” the words: “subject to further work and agreement on a set of issues” should be added.

62.    Consultation – Andrew Wood reported that the CA’s response to Defra’s consultation on CAP and upland hill farming would probably differ from NE’s and that the LAR taskgroup would consider this further.

63.    Grant-in-aid – in answer to a question about the CA’s grant-in-aid, Graham Garbutt explained that Defra were reviewing budgets and consulting the Treasury and as yet, no confirmation had been received. He added that if there were substantive issues to be resolved, an additional Board meeting might need to be called.

64.   July Board meeting – Graham Garbutt explained that following consultation with the Chairman he would not be at the July Board meeting as he would be attending a meeting of the European State Territorial Representatives in Paris, considering rural issues. 

65.  The next meeting will be held on Thursday, 6 July 2006 at John Dower House, Cheltenham.