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

15^th July 2004

Meeting Minutes

Present

Members:

Andrew Shaxson (AS)	Derek Cleaver (DC)	John Godfrey (JG)	Malcolm Walford (MW)
Ben Perkins (BP)	Glynn Jones (GJ)	John Rennie (JR)	Paul Millmore (Pm)
David Ashcroft (DA)	James Sharpe (JS)	Leo Hickish (LH)	Sue Montila (SM)
David Brookshaw (DB)	Janyis Hyatt (JH)	Jon Willis (JW)	Sue Coles (SC)

SDAF co-ordinator:

Keith Tyrell (KT) : South Downs Access Forum Officer

Observers:

Andrew Whitnall (AW) : East Sussex Local Access Forum Officer

Cath Hart (CH) : Hampshire Countryside Access Forum Officer

Lisa Creaye-Griffin (LCG) : West Sussex Rural Strategy

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

Roland Seber (RS) : West Sussex Local Access Forum Officer

Tim Squire (TS) : Brighton & Hove Local Access Forum Officer

Public:

Two

Apologies

Craig Thomas

David Taylor

Kuljit Randhawa

Nigel Sloan

Item	Minutes	Action
1	Introductions and apologies GJ welcomed Jon Willis of the Trade Riders Fellowship to the Forum. Jon will represent motorised vehicle users. The Forum sadly accepted the resignation of Derek Pitter who has decided to leave the Forum due to ill health. The Forum thanked Derek for his hard work and commitment. SM said she was willing to try and represent carriage driving as well as equestrian interests.
2	Declarations of Interest There were no declarations of interest.
3	AOB JR gave the Forum an update of the launch of the new Countryside Code and circulated information packs about it. He said that the Countryside Agency feels that overall the launch has gone well, but that it has been difficult to explain what the differences between this code and the old one are.
4	Minutes of last meeting and matters arising The minutes of the last meeting were passed as an accurate record of the last meeting. Access event: JR informed the Forum that following the SDAF’s request for an event on the South Downs to celebrate and publicise the commencement of the new rights of access, East and West Sussex have been in discussions with the Countryside Agency and Defra. As a result, there is likely to be an event on 19^th September at Ditchling Beacon sponsored by Defra and the Countryside Agency. JR asked for suggestions of local personalities who might be invited to take part. The two key messages of the event will be to remind people of the new Countryside Code and to explain that although people have a formal right of access, there is still a lot of work to do. General Principles: SC informed the Forum that at its last meeting the Hampshire Countryside Access Forum (HCAF) had considered the general principles for open access developed by the SDAF. The HCAF considered the principles too prescriptive and would prefer each parcel of open access land to be considered on a case-by-case basis. It passed this advice to HCC along with an unchanged copy of the principles. LCG revealed that WSLAF also felt the principles were a bit prescriptive, but that WSLAF had passed them unchanged to WSCC for its consideration and comment.
5	English Nature Presentation on Open Access and Nature Conservation Sites Jenny Bowen talked to the forum about the work English Nature has been doing on managing Open Access. She revealed that over 70% of SSSIs in England are mapped as CROW Access Land and as a result EN have been working very closely with the Countryside Agency for a few years now to assess the effect of the new rights of Open Access on nature conservation and advise the Agency on how to manage this. EN welcome increased access, but works on the “Sandford Principle” which means that if there is a conflict between nature conservation and access then nature conservation takes precedence. However, it also requires the adoption of the least restrictive management option to overcome the conflict. EN drew up a list of 14 sites in the East and West Sussex which could be adversely affected by Open Access. After careful analysis, this has been reduced to one site – Amberley Mount to Sullington Hill. Bastard Cabbage is present here and EN are concerned that an increase in visitor numbers will spread the seeds across a wider area. The basic conclusion is that there is not necessarily a conflict between access and nature conservation. However, EN are keeping a watching brief on the issue and the Countryside Agency is looking into monitoring the sites. If there is evidence of damage, then action will be taken.
6	Update on Authorities progress on access management plans Brighton & Hove: TS informed the Forum that B&H have applied for funding under the CA’s access management Grant Scheme (AMGS) and have been offered £399 for planning. TS revealed that most open access sites within the B&H area are already open to the public and that they do not envisage lots of extra work. In fact they are looking to dedicate even more open access land voluntarily. East Sussex: AW told the Forum that East Sussex officers met with SDCB officers in June and put in a bid to the CA for £12,000 which was successful. ESCC will be working with the SDCB to prepare a full access management plan and implement access on the ground West Sussex: LCG told the Forum, that WSCC had also submitted a bid and received £25,000. Like ESCC, WSCC will be working with the SDCB to prepare a plan. The CA wants plans to be submitted by the end of August, and all authorities are working towards this deadline, but they all recognise how difficult it will be to meet this. The maps prepared by the SDAF are forming the basis of the management plan and are at the heart of the process. PM pointed out that the SDCB has historically provided landowners with gates and stiles free of charge and has ensured they are installed to a high standard. In addition the SDCB has uses local designs for infrastructure. The SDAF is keen to see infrastructure for open access installed to a similar high standard and that it incorporates local distinctiveness.
7	Presentations on motorised vehicle use Jon Willis (motorised vehicle user): JW gave a presentation from the motorised vehicle user’s perspective. Jon is a member of the Trail Riders Fellowship. Jon made a clear distinction between legal and illegal users – he represents legal users and is as keen as anyone to rid the countryside of illegal or irresponsible users. He pointed out that the TRF has a voluntary code of conduct and its members are very careful and con-confrontational with walkers and other users of Green Lanes. TRF Groups regularly volunteer to help maintain Green Lanes and often help other users. All TRF machines are road legal and the local groups research routes before travelling on them. JW pointed out that in West Sussex there are more than 4,000km of rights of way and of these only around 150km are RUPPS or BOATs which motorised vehicles can use. The TRF represents legal and responsible riders; most of the damage is done by illegal riders. If all legal use is banned, then all users will be illegal many responsible riders will sell their machines leading to a glut on the market and drop in price making it more affordable for illegal users. At the moment, TRF riders can exert peer pressure on illegal users and this pressure will be removed. So banning legal use will lead to more damage, not less. David Ashcroft (Landowner): Many Rights of Way are in sunken Lanes which were used to move livestock. They tend to be slow to dry out and are easily damaged. For the majority of their existence they have only been used by pedestrians, livestock, or horse and cart. DA has no problem with responsible motorised vehicle users, but irresponsible users can cause an immense amount of damage and nuisance for other users and landowners. A major problem is that it is very difficult to catch the culprits as landowners are not there 24 hours a day. PM pointed out that one of the biggest problems with motorised vehicles is the damage they cause, and the immense cost of putting this right – he cited the case of one green lane in East Sussex which has cost over £500,000 to repair after motorised vehicle damage. He wants Local Authorities to make realistic bids in their TPPs to reflect the added cost of maintaining existing and new BOATs. RoWIPS should take on board this thinking. AS pointed out that many motorised users are attracted to paths precisely because of their poor condition. Once they have been repaired use by 4x4s decreases and they go and find another poor lane to use. Repairing lanes simply moves the problem on. BP expressed concern that motorised vehicle user groups are applying for the dedication of new routes without taking the appropriateness of the road or its condition into consideration – they are simply trying to get as many miles as possible opened up – the cost implications of this approach are alarming. SC Warned that even though RoWIPs are linked to the LTP, the SDAF should not expect large amounts of additional cash from the transport budget. Money that is allocated to resurfacing BOATs will probably come from the Rights of Way budgets. It is important that RoWIPs focus on improving the network and prioritise actions. JW pointed out that BOATs and RUPPs are part of the highways network and as such authorities have been receiving money for their maintenance from central government for years – it is about time they spent the money on their upkeep. LH asked that the Forum recognise there is a demand for motorised access to the countryside, but he also said it was important for the police to tackle illegal use. JG insited that the police do take this issue seriously and that they have been working closely with the SDCB to tackle the problem, in some cases, using new anti social behaviour orders.
8	RoWIPs Feedback from Brighton & Hove working group: The SDAF Brighton & Hove working group met on 1 July and discussed the progress and issues relating to the Rights of Way Improvement plans in the Brighton & Hove area. JR reported that the working group was concerned at the lack of work on the Brighton & Hove RoWIP. They were also very alarmed to learn that no funds allocated for this work this year and no allocation or availability of staffing time to do any work. The Local Transport Plan work seems to be taking all the priority and all of the budget in B&H. The working group made the following recommendation:- That the SDAF seeks consistency across the South Downs in progressing RoWIPs, not least because they are a statutory requirement, reviews and assesses the work across the South Downs to date, and presses the highways authorities, through the mother fora, for significant progress during the current funding year wherever that progress is lacking. Initially, in our view, each authority should be allocating funding and a member of staff with the specific task of RoWIP work, on the grounds that the work on RoWIPs is an integral part of the national drive towards creating better access for everyone to enjoy. This recommendation was passed unanimously. CH informed the SDAF that there is a suggestion that Defra and DfT guidance on integrating RoWIPS into LTPs will advise authoriuties to do very little until the 2010 LTP and only provide a summary for the 2005 LTP. DB and SC were concerned to hear this and stressed it was essential that the RoWIPs are linked into the LTP quickly and asked CH to provide more information. Priorities for West Sussex: RS presented West Sussex CC’s initial ideas on the areas which will be addressed in its RoWIP. He identified four priority areas: 1. Maintain the existing Right of Way network to a high standard 2. Improve links to and between communities for all users 3. Provide routes to encourage sustainable transport 4. Creation of safe circular routes for all users 5. RS then asked the SDAF whether they thought the issues were adequate and if there were any others that should be included. BP suggested that priority 1 (maintenance) should not be part of a RoWIP as authorities already have a statutory duty to maintain the network and the aim of RoWIPs should be to genuinely enhance the network. PM said that the RoWIPs are a key opportunity to address issues such as prioritising long distance paths; providing a network of circular routes for villages in the South Downs. He also suggested that when considering area 3 (sustainable transport) that lessons could be learned from the SDCB’s transport without traffic initiative. SC suggested a 5^th point – linking access land into the network and wanted to see more focus on creating new rights of Ways. The term RoWIP is too narrow – the plan should be about improving access in general. The Officers will be meeting in the near future to discuss what input they would like from the SDAF into their RoWIPs. KT will then organise the working groups and to achieve this – meetings for the working groups should be scheduled in September.	CH KT
9	Agenda items for next meeting · Update on the South Downs Strategic Access Plan and its relationship with the local authorities’ RoWIPs · Feedback on the commencement of the new rights of access from the access authorities; landowners and the SDCB. · Ask the County Archaeologist to discuss the effect of open access on the archaeology/heritage assets of the South Downs · Clarification from the local authorities on their policies on TROs (including temporary ones) · Examples of local distinctiveness in the South Downs
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 : Friday 29^th October 10.00am SDCB HQ Ford Tuesday 7^th December 19.00pm (AGM) Venue to be confirmed