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

30^th April 2004

Meeting Minutes

Present

Members:

Andrew Shaxson (AS)	Glynn Jones (GJ)	Nigel Sloan (NS)
Craig Thomas (CT)	John Godfrey (JG)	Paul Millmore (Pm)
David Ashcroft (DA)	John Rennie (JR)	Sue Montila (SM)
David Brookshaw (DB)	Kuljit Randhawa (KR)	Sue Coles (SC)
David Taylor (DT)	Malcolm Walford (MW)

SDAF co-ordinator:

Keith Tyrell (KT) : South Downs Access Forum Officer

Observers:

Andrew Whitnall : East Sussex Local Access Forum Officer

Barry Lockyer : Rights of Way Officer Hampshire CC

Lisa Creaye-Griffin : West Sussex Rural Strategy

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

Phil Belden : Countryside Manager SDCB

Roland Seber : Local Access Forum Officer

Public:

Three

Apologies

Ben Perkins

Derek Cleaver

Derek Pitter

James Sharpe

Janyis Hyatt

Leo Hickish

	Minutes		Action
1	Declarations of Interest There were no declarations of interest.
2	Minutes of last meeting and matters arising The minutes of the last meeting were passed as an accurate record of the last meeting.
3	AOB · JR informed the Forum that the date for Commencement of open access land in the first areas (Lower North West and South East) has been confirmed for 19^th September. The Countryside Agency is planning a national event to publicise this in the North West. The Forum agreed that it would be desirable for the Agency to hold a similar event in the South East too. KT to draft a letter from the Forum to the West Sussex, East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Forums urging them to recommend that their authorities contact the Countryside Agency and request they organise an event on the South Downs to celebrate and publicise the new Rights of Open Access · On behalf of Derek Cleaver, KT informed the forum of the Duke of Edinburgh Award’s intention to set up a “Wild Country” panel for the South Downs. The Panel would monitor the use of the South Downs Resources (eg usage of camp sites and rights of ways in the area) by youth organisations using the D of E for their expeditions on the Downs. This would be vital information for the award scheme and they would be happy to share this with the SDAF. Anyone who wants more information should contact Derek directly.		KT
4	Dealing with consultations The requirement for the Forum to feed all of its advice through its Mother Forums makes it difficult for it to consider official consultation documents in a timely fashion. It is therefore essential to develop a system to inform the Forum Members about the existence of the documents early to allow them to feed their advice to the meetings of the Mother forums in time to meet the consultation deadlines. It will not usually be practicable to wait until Forum meetings before informing Members of the existence of consultations. It was agreed that KT should circulate details of all consultations to the Forum members as soon as he becomes aware of them. If any Members think the Forum should respond, they should let KT know. KT will ask the Member to prepare a presentation for the next meeting outlining their views and proposing specific amendments which the Forum can consider and vote on.		KT
5	Motor vehicle user representative Jon Willis of the Trail Riders’ Fellowship has indicated his willingness to sit on the Forum representing the interests of motorised vehicle users. The Forum currently has a full complement of 20 members. It was decided that the membership would temporarily be expanded to 21 to accommodate Mr Willis. The membership will revert to 20 when the next member leaves the Forum.
6	Feedback from mapping sub-groups · Generic principles for Access to Open Country on the South Downs NS presented a paper proposing some general principles to guide the opening of access land. The basic reasoning behind the paper is to give effect to the concept of freedom to roam on access land. Entry and exit points should follow desire lines and should be sufficient for the size of the land parcel. NS recognised that there would be costs involved, but if the crossing points are not provided, then the public will simply climb over fences, probably damaging them in the process – this is not in anyone’s interest. DT wanted to know if anyone has looked into how many new access points would be needed in the South Downs area based on the principles. He expressed concern about the costs of providing all this new furniture and who would pay for it. If landowners are left to foot the bill they will be unhappy with such a demanding set of principles. Most farmers do not have a problem with the right of access, but they do have a problem with footing the bill and the extra work it implies. A working principle could be an entry and exit point as a minimum on each parcel. SC expressed the view that, as they stand, the principles are likely to antagonise landowners and make it more difficult to secure good access agreements with them. She expressed a preference for a flexible and incremental approach that addresses access requirements on a case-by-case basis. In particular, setting rigid intervals for the placing of new access points was unnecessary – access points should be placed where appropriate. PM welcomed the paper as a starting point which stretches the mind and prompts some original thinking on the issue. He pointed out that there would need to be a balance between the wishes of walkers who would like to get the most out of the new rights and of landowners who will have to manage the access to their land. He pointed out that in many cases desire lines are not yet known, and it will therefore be impossible to provide entry and exit points for these. However, he saw the development of a general set of principles as a necessary first step to get a uniform approach to access across the Downs. DB informed the Forum that the Brighton and Hove mapping group had found the principles a useful starting point, but recognised that they needed to be amended. The Forum has a role in providing advice to the Mother Forums on a common approach to access on the South Downs. The alternative is for four different approaches with all the confusion and problems that implies. AS said that as a landowner he would be concerned about the cost, but pointed out that at present, landowners have responsibility to pay for furniture on rights of way, but these costs are usually borne by the local authorities. JG urged a more cautious approach. He suggested that the SDAF endorse the principle of an exit and entry point, but that authorities could wait for desire lines to develop before deciding where to site any new furniture. AS pointed out that reaching an agreement with the landowners is key – the principles could be viewed as a starting point for negotiation with them. DA pointed out that fences are expensive and farmers only put them in when they have to. Farmers recognise the need for new access points, but they have to be in sensible places – not at specified intervals regardless of the characteristics of the site. GJ proposed the following text as an alternative to the generic principles – the proposal was seconded by SC "The Forum commends the principle that appropriate entry and exit points should be provided to access land, the precise location and nature of such entry and exit points to be determined in the light of local conditions and experience of use, and to reflect desire lines, while taking into account costs and the effect on agricultural operations." AS proposed that the original principles be modified – replacing any reference to specific distances between access points with the phrase “where appropriate”, and removing the requirement for the provision of exit points opposite to entry points. This proposal was seconded by NS. The proposals were put to the vote, and AS/NS proposal was carried. KT was asked to redraft the principles taking these modifications into account and circulate them to the Forum for approval. The cross forum representatives will present the redrafted principles to the Mother Forums at their next meetings. · West Sussex The West Sussex Working groups met on 1^st March to consider the maps. NS explained that only 2 island sites were identified in the West Sussex area of the Downs. Only 1 site of conflict was identified – at Telegraph House where the landowners are reported to be concerned about the impact of the new rights on their privacy and security. The Group has marked proposed new footpaths and access points on the maps provided. · East Sussex PM reported that the East Sussex Group met on 25^th March. It adopted a minimalist approach and the main aim was to link as many of the new open access sites together as possible. The recommended new access points and paths were marked on the maps provided. · Brighton and Hove DB revealed that much of the Brighton and Hove group’s meeting on 19^th March was taken up with a discussion of the general principles. As a result the groups has not finished considering the maps and will have a second meeting in May. However, they have marked on a number of proposed new paths and access points. The groups considers it essential that the access authorities make adequate resources available to provide this access · Hampshire BL – the Rights of Way Officer from Hampshire County Council assisted the Hampshire mapping group when they met on 1^st April. He gave a report on that meeting and updated the forum on the work the council has done. Hampshire is in Mapping Area 3 and commencement of the rights of access here will be later than in Sussex - the current date is December 2004. Also the mapping appeals have not all been decided in Hampshire yet, and a number of parcels of land which have been identified as access land may be removed. This has made it more difficult for the group to mark up the maps. So far, some 38 parcels of access land have been identified in the Hampshire South Downs totalling 1952Ha. Four islands of access land have been identified and all but one of these are subject to appeal. Only 5 of the 38 parcels are greater than 100Ha, and the majority of the parcels are less than 30Ha. Most of the land already has some form of route to, or along its boundary. Each cross forum representative was asked to prepare a brief summary report of the findings of the mapping exercise outlining key issues of concern, priority areas for action, and potential problems (and if possible solutions). KT will forward these papers to the Mother Forums who will be asked to present them to the Access Authorities for use in the preparation of applications for funding under the Countryside Agency’s Access Management Grant Scheme (see point 7 below).		KT NS, LH, DB, SC NS, LH, DB, SC KT
7	Countryside Access Incentive Scheme The Countryside Agency has announced some of the details of its Access Management Grant Scheme which will provide funding for access authorities to implement the new Rights of Access. KT outlined the key features of the scheme: There is £2million in the pot nationally for the first year, but the schemes is only open to authorities/managers six months prior to commencement and is only open to Access Authorities (not National Parks), though in exceptional circumstances (if an authority has indicated it will not be applying) land managers can apply. The funding will be based on an assessment of 1)the likely use of access sites; 2) vulnerable conservation areas; and 3) existing use. The highest priority areas will be those sites of high visitor demand and/or conservation sites likely to be affected adversely by predicted changes in access. The aim of the scheme is to fund management options which ensure there is no impact on the conservation value of these sites. In order to receive funding, Authorities have to submit an Access Management Plan which should identify priority areas; predict public demand following commencement; identify visitor management measures and associated costs. Consultation is a key point, especially with Local Access Forums. LAFs will have an important role in commenting on and developing the plan – indeed, the output from the mapping exercise conducted by the SDAF should inform a South Downs plan. NR revealed that SDCB has been in contact with the West Sussex, East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Councils to discuss developing a joint access management plan for the South Downs. PM said it would be foolish to miss this opportunity to receive funding to help deliver the new access rights and asked that the SDAF recommend that Brighton and Hove, West Sussex and East Sussex Forums urge their authorities to act quickly to develop a plan in co-operation with the SDCB and apply for funding from the scheme. This proposal was endorsed by the Forum. GJ to write a letter to the Chairs of the Mother Forums.		GJ
8	Proposal for RoWIP working group At the last meeting SC asked the Forum to consider setting up a sub-group to provide advice on Rights of Way Improvement Plans being prepared by Hampshire, Brighton and Hove, West and East Sussex Councils. The Forum decided to set up four working groups to examine the RoWIPS for each of the four authorities. The membership of these groups would be the same as for the mapping groups i.e.
	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
	Each group should select its own chair. KT will inform each of the Mother Forums that a RoWIP working group has been established for their area and ask them for guidance on feeding into the RoWIPs.		KT
10	Update on Terms of Reference The West Sussex Local Access Forum met on 7^th April. The Terms of Reference of the SDAF was discussed. There was disagreement amongst some members of the West Sussex LAF over the handling of SDAF advice. Some of the members of the Forum felt that it was important to recognise that Sub-Forum members were giving up their time voluntarily and were concerned that their views would not be passed to the Highway Authority. However others observed that the West Sussex Access Forum needed to be able to freely and independently give its own advice to the Highway Authority. Therefore it had to be able to accept in part or reject advice it received from other bodies before sending its own advice to the Highway Authority. The matter was put to a vote and the West Sussex LAF decided that it would not feel obliged to pass on the views of the SDAF if it chose not to. If the SDAF decides to bypass the West Sussex LAF by sending its views direct then WSCC has indicated it will not consider these views until the West Sussex LAF has considered them. GJ proposed that the SDAF adopt its original Terms of Reference, but note the position of the West Sussex LAF. Any problems or conflicts which occur as a result of this will be dealt with as they arise. This approach was endorsed by the SDAF.
10	Agenda items for next meeting · English Nature to provide information on conservation assessments of open access land – KT to ask EN to make a presentation · Update on access management plans and grant application		KT
11	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 : Thursday 15^th July 10.00am SDCB HQ Ford Friday 29^th October 10.00am SDCD HQ Ford Tuesday 7^th December 19.00pm (AGM) Venue to be confirmed