SOUTH DOWNS ACCESS FORUM

A sub-forum of the Hampshire Countryside Access Forum and the East Sussex, West Sussex and Brighton & Hove Local Access Forums

Sussex Downs Conservation Board HQ, Ford

13^th February 2004

Meeting Minutes

Present

Members:

Andrew Shaxson (AS)	David Brookshaw (DB)	Glynn Jones (GJ)	Nigel Sloan (NS)
Ben Perkins (BP)	David Taylor (DT)	Janyis Hyatt (JH)	Paul Millmore (Pm)
Craig Thomas (CT)	Derek Cleaver (DC)	John Rennie (JR)	Sue Montila (SM)
David Ashcroft (DA)	Derek Pitter (DP)	Leo Hickish (LH)	Sue Coles (SC)

SDAF co-ordinator:

Keith Tyrell (KT) : South Downs Access Forum Officer

Observers:

Nicola Redwood (NR) : Strategic Access Officer for the South Downs

Andrew Whitnall : East Sussex Local Access Forum Officer

Cath Hart : Hampshire Countryside Access Forum Officer

Phil Belden : Countryside Manager SDCB

Roland Seber : West Sussex Local Access Forum Officer

Public:

Two

Apologies

Members

John Godfrey

Kuljit Randhawa

Malcolm Walford

	Minutes		Action
1	Introductions The Forum Members welcomed Leo Hickish, the new East Sussex cross-forum representative, and Sue Montila who will represent equestrian interests at the Forum.
2	Declarations of Interest There were no declarations of interest.
3	AOB KT brought two events to the attention of the Forum:- 1) The Public Inquiry into the route of the South Downs Way around Beacon Hill SSSI west of the River Meon opens on Monday 16^th February at Meonstoke 2) A new link route to the South Downs Way at Ditchling Beacon will be opened in Mid March, Forum Members are invited to attend. KT will provide further details closer to the date. DA updated members on the new farm payment scheme stemming from the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy which was launched by DEFRA on 12^th February. This will have a major impact on the countryside – for more information visit the DEFRA website at www.defra.gov.uk/news/latest/2004/cap-120204.htm		KT
4	Minutes of last meeting and matters arising The minutes of the last meeting were passed as an accurate record of the last meeting. The web address for the open access maps which was missing from the minutes is:- www.countryside.gov.uk/WiderWelcome/open_access/index.asp
5	Perspectives on open access DT gave a presentation on landowners’ perspectives on open access. The general opinion from landowners is that CRoW will have a minimal impact. The majority of the public want to use designated footpaths rather than wander around. The most likely effect will be to dilute the pressure on rights of way. However, landowners have some concerns. For example, there may be an increase in vandalism at isolated farm buildings in access areas; how will the public be made aware of 28 day closures; how difficult will it be to extend the 28 day closures; and there is still the issue of dogs and grazing livestock. There is also the possibility that if arable reversion land may be classified as downland and hence open access land, then farmers will be reluctant to take part in this scheme. This presentation was followed by one from BP giving the users’ perspective. He said that the first reaction of most walkers in the South Downs to CRoW was one of disappointment. Most land which qualifies as open access downland is either on steep north scarp slope or is in small pockets. It does not meet the needs of walkers who tend to want linear routes. The best hope is to try to provide new links to access areas which would fulfil this need. Rights of Way Improvement Plans and local access forums should play a role here. In the discussion that followed, the problem of what to do with dangerous livestock was raised – in the past farmers put such animals in isolated fields away from the public, this may no longer be possible if their land is open access. Also, concern was expressed about whether excepted land would be marked on OS maps. NS revealed that the Countryside Agency/Defra working group on excepted land has indicated that land with clear boundaries such as parks will not appear on the map, but areas without clear boundaries such as golf courses will be marked as open access.
6	Update on Terms of Reference GJ gave an update on the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the South Downs Access Forum. Three of the Mother Forums have accepted the ToR with minor amendments such as holding the meetings in public. West Sussex LAF has some problems with the ToR. At the last WS LAF meeting the officers were directed to meet to discuss clarifications to the ToR. This meeting took place on 4^th February and the clarifications will be put to the WS LAF at its next meeting.
7	Rights of Way Improvement Plans (RoWIPs) KT gave a brief introduction to RoWIPs before handing over to the cross forum representatives who updated Members on the progress on these in their regions. · Hampshire: SC explained that RoWIPs were discussed in detail at the last HCAF meeting. Hampshire is well advanced on its RoWIP process. It contains two of the 9 national pilot RoWIPs and is therefore at a more advanced stage than some of its neighbours. Hampshire CC have conducted a use and demand study to identify the key issues which will guide the access plans. This research for the Forest of Bere area in Hampshire was presented to the HCAF at their last meeting. HCAF was asked for its advice. Hampshire is breaking down its RoWIP into discrete areas. The SDAF agreed that it would be preferable for one of these areas to be the proposed national park area within Hampshire and asked CH to report this preference to the HCAF. · East Sussex: LH outlined what East Sussex is doing and how the ESLAF is feeding into the process. ESLAF have tried to keep the process simple and have tried to focus on “quick wins” including better mapping and signage, improving linkages, and clearance of overgrown paths. He also revealed that the ESLAF has managed to secure some extra funding to conduct a pilot project in the east of the county using verges to link parts of the existing network to create a safe circular route. · West Sussex: NS revealed that West Sussex has not yet finalised how to set about preparing the RoWIP. A lot of ideas have been tossed around; these will probably be formalised in April. The end result will probably be a combination of top-down and bottom-up: top-down in the sense of WSCC using its GIS mapping to produce an overall framework; bottom-up in the sense of encouraging the sub-forums, parish councils etc. to submit specific path proposals. The aim is to have RoWIP produced in time to feed into Local Transport Plan in mid-2005. · Brighton and Hove: DB explained that the urban nature of B&H made their RoWIP a very different document to those of the other three local highways authorities. B&H are still at a very early stage and there is very little to report. · South Downs Strategic Access Plan: NR gave a brief presentation on the Strategic Access Plan for the South Downs which aims to provide long-term overarching principles and objectives which will guide access policy on the South Downs. A SAP steering group has been set up mostly consisting of rights of way representatives from the four local authority who are also working on the RoWIPs. There is obviously scope for a lot of overlap and cross fertilisation between the SAP and RoWIP. Potentially the SAP will provide the strategic vision and goals, while the RoWIPs will deal with the implementation on the ground. It is likely that the authorities will have sections or chapters on the South Downs in their county RoWIPs and for South Downs work purposes these could be joined together to form a single South Downs RoWIP. In the discussion that followed the presentations, PM said that RoWIPs should include a commitment on the part of Councils to meet their statutory duties. There is not much point in planning to enhance the network when authorities are not even meeting their minimum statutory requirements. However other members were keen that RoWIPs should look at ways to improve the network. NS informed the Forum that West Sussex is focusing its RoWIP on enhancing the network and not on delivering its statutory obligations. SC pointed out that at the last meeting she made a proposal that the SDAF consider setting up a sub-group to work on RoWIPs. She asked that this be included on the agenda for the next meeting.		CH KT
8	Work Program Forum Members were asked to consider a suggested work program for them from WSLAF. This work program contained many common elements with the work program proposed by the SDAF at its last meeting. NS requested that officers work more closely together in future to identify issues which overlap and those which are different		KT
9	Open Access Maps Four working groups were proposed to look at the provisional access maps for the South Downs area. The groups will be split broadly along county lines and all contain at least one user and one landowner/land manager. The four groups are as follows:-
	Work Group 1 - East Sussex Leo Hickish Paul Millmore David Taylor Derek Cleaver Ben Perkins Work Group 2 – Brighton & Hove David Brookshaw John Rennie Janyis Hyatt Kuljit Randhawa	Work Group 3 - West Sussex Nigel Sloan Andrew Shaxson Craig Thomas John Godfrey James Sharpe Work Group 4 - Hampshire Sue Coles David Ashcroft Malcolm Walford Sue Montila Derek Pitter
	KT will mark up the provisional access maps to indicate the outcomes of the appeals process in West and East Sussex and those areas in Hampshire which are still subject to appeal. The work groups will then meet independently before the next meeting of the SDAF to look at the maps of their areas and provide advice on the following: priority areas (e.g. areas which are likely to be the subject of conflicts, have high degree of user pressure, or new islands of access land); missing links; excepted land; and access needs (e.g. new signage, wardening requirements, new bylaws, etc.) These criteria are only for guidance and the work groups are free to set their own priorities when looking at the maps. KT will provide a basic key so the groups mark up the maps consistently. The cross-forum reps will act as the contact point for their group, organise the meeting and report back at the next full SDAF meeting with its advice.		KT KT LH, SC, DB, NS
10	Reports from Mother LAFs · Hampshire: The HCAF last met on 11^th February. SC revealed that the meeting had focused on the Forest of Bere research and how this could feed into the RoWIP. There was also a long discussion on the DEFRA consultation on the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on rights of way which resulted in the Forum agreeing with the response from Hampshire CC. HCAF has written to the national local access forum to ask for guidance on dealing with excepted land, but has not had a very satisfactory response. The Chair will be writing again for more clarification. · West Sussex: The WSLAF met on 20^th January. NS reported that much of the meeting was taken up with a discussion of the terms of reference for the SDAF (see point 6 above). The WSLAF also discussed the DEFRA consultation on mechanically propelled vehicles, West Sussex CC will respond on behalf of the WSLAF with the request that Government needs to place more emphasis - and allocate more resources - to enforcing existing legislation. The WSLAF also discussed the work program of its sub-forums - including the SDAF - (see point 8 above). · East Sussex: The ESLAF met on 7^th January. It discussed RoWIPs and in particular how to persuade landowners to create more access. The ESLAF also discussed the problem of excepted land. The meeting was held at Crowborough Beacon Golf Club at the club’s request because golf courses are emerging as a potential problem area – they will be mapped as access land, but in fact will be excepted land so they will not be subject to public access leading to potential confusion and conflicts. · Brighton and Hove: The B&HLAF met on 28^th January. It too discussed RoWIPs and the DEFRA consultation on mechanically propelled vehicles. DB asked the SDAF to be realistic in its expectations of the B&HLAF. He pointed out that it is a young forum and the urban nature of its area makes it very different to the other LAFs. PM asked that KT circulate the minutes of the mother LAF meetings so that the reports to the SDAF be kept short and that the discussion focus on how to respond to requests or queries from the mother LAFs.		KT KT
11	Agenda items for next meeting · Reports back from the access mapping work groups · The need for a RoWIP sub-group
12	Dates for next meetings The forum agreed the meeting dates for a year in advance. The dates are to fall shortly after the LAFs have had their meetings so LAF advice can be filtered across. The dates agreed were : Friday 30^th April 10.00am Ford Thursday 15^th July 10.00am Friday 29^th October 10.00am Tuesday 7^th December 19.00pm (AGM)