Document Sample
laf_all_papers_08_01_28 Powered By Docstoc
					Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                             Agenda Item: 3

                        LAKE DISTRICT LOCAL ACCESS FORUM

Minutes of a meeting of the Lake District Local Access Forum held at the Rheged Centre,
Redhills, Penrith at 2.30 pm on Monday 29 October 2007.

Wendy Emmett                                            Malcolm Petyt
Geoff Wilson                                            Hugh Taylor
Sylvia Woodhead                                         John Taylor
Ralph Henderson                                         Ken Taylor

Kathryn Doughty (Natural England)

Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA):
Barney Hill, Team Leader Countryside South
Julia Knott, Access Assistant
Stephanie Conway Countryside Administrator
Dave Robinson Access and Recreation Developer

John Crosbie                                            Peter Garland
Fiona Southern                                          Larry Walters
Charles Flanagan                                        Peter Jackson
Judith Moore                                            Arnold Lancaster
Andy Berlyn                                             Bryan Metz

245.1      A flow chart showing the Forum‟s declaration of interest protocol was handed
           out. The importance of declaring interests was explained to members.
245.2      Ken Taylor declared interests in some elements of Item 10, in relation to Local
           Access Monitoring and the Coast to Coast Mountain Bike route proposal.
245.3      Ralph Henderson asked whether it included relatives as only spouses were
           mentioned. Barney Hill explained that the flow chart was a generalisation and a
           more detailed account could be found in the Induction Pack that all LAF
           members receive when they are first appointed.
245.4      Geoff Wilson declared an interest in Item 9, the Cumbria Countryside Access

246        MINUTES
246.1      Members confirmed the minutes as a true record of the last meeting held on 23
           July 2007.

                                                                                      Page 1
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                               Agenda Item: 3

247.1      Item 234. Access to Coast. Concern was raised that the minister had opted for
           option 4 prior to full consideration being given to consultation responses and well
           in advance of the consultation summary being available, and that the
           consultation therefore had wasted the forum‟s time. Forum members agreed that
           a LDLAF letter to be sent to DEFRA, expressing cautionary concern at the
           apparent haste of the Minister‟s comments.
247.2      Item 240. The members were reminded to send annual report distribution lists to
           Stephanie Conway.
Agreed: that:
              A letter is to be sent to DEFRA, asking for clarification and assurance that
               consultation response times for LAF‟s are being taken into account. Ken
               Taylor and Geoff Wilson to draft the letter.
              All members to send annual report distribution lists to Stephanie Conway.
248.1.     No questions from the public.

249.1      A self evaluation questionnaire was presented to the forum to fill out in order to
           evaluate its performance, and highlight areas that could be improved.
249.2      Concerns were raised by the Forum that there was nowhere to put comments.
           The use of the wording „high frequency‟ in question 8 was thought to be
           inappropriate and should be removed.
Agreed: that:
              Subject to an extra column being added for comments and that the wording
               „high frequency‟ be removed from question 8, members received and agreed
               to complete a questionnaire to help the Forum evaluate its performance, and
               highlight areas that could be improved.
              Stephanie Conway is to send questionnaire by email to members. This to be
               returned by all members by 9 November 2007.

250.1      Five questions posed by Natural England in the September 2007 Discovering
           Lost ways E-Bulletin were considered at length.
           Members were aware of the quotes in the 19 October edition of Farmers Weekly
           attributed to Helen Philips, Chief Executive Officer of Natural England, which, if
           accurate, appear prejudicially compromising to the Discovering Lost Ways
           project and especially so to this consultation exercise.
   Q1.     Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the
           definitive map, what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day
           out in 2020?

                                                                                        Page 2
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                              Agenda Item: 3

           LDNP LAF Response:
           1. Members were conscious that after their day out in 2020, assuming that the
              DLW project had been completed, they would have had a more complete
              network of rights of way available to them to enjoy, and that this would apply
              particularly in locations (parishes) which for whatever reason had not so far
              been delivered the complete network of rights of way that actually existed.
           2. Members felt that the tone of the papers that introduced these issues to them
              did not adequately reflect the breadth of reasons that attract people to use
              rights of way. Especially members felt that the regular use of rights of way
              simply to get from A to B was not apparent, and the „heritage‟ aspect of the
              rights of way network, and the feeling of „walking in our forebears‟ footsteps‟
              was not reflected anything like so strongly as it needs to be.
           3. Given the opportunity that the DLW project provides for recording more rights
              of way in the countryside and the fact that we cannot anticipate what benefits
              these ways may bring in the future, the DLW project should remain a non-
              selective all inclusive project, so ensuring that by 2026 users may have the
              comfort of knowing that maps will carry information on all rights of way for
              which sufficient historic evidence of their existence can be found, and that
              none remain „lost‟.
           4. The forum recognises that at any one time resources available for processing
              rights of way claims are not limitless, and that consequently it will be
              necessary to manage work-load through a mechanism of prioritisation.
              However it is the firmly held view of this forum that resources must be made
              available to complete the project and that the project should not be curtailed.
           5. Initially there were mixed views on the matter of the 2026 definitive map cut-
              off date, but members concluded that the 2026 cut-off date should be
              retained with meaningful „milestone‟ targets set for research and claim
              processes that aim to have the work done by that date. If targets slip then
              much nearer the 2026 date it may be subject to review.
           6. We would add that local highway authorities have a legal duty to correct the
              definitive map where they know it to be wrong. We understand that many
              authorities have „lost ways‟ in their backlog of legal orders to process. Any
              setting back of the 2026 deadline means that they will continue to incur costs.
              In making its decision, Natural England should be mindful of the costs that the
              project will save in the long-term.
Considering Local Access Forums have been set up to give advice on public access:
   Q2      What role do you see the LAF having in DLW?
           LDNP LAF Response:
           1. Members felt that they would not expect to be involved in the research or
              claim process, but saw a role for the forum in giving advice on prioritising
              (within an all-inclusive approach) or assistance with targeting (if an exclusive
              approach is used), raising awareness, and monitoring and urging progress by
              surveying authorities according to the milestones targets.

                                                                                       Page 3
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                              Agenda Item: 3

   Q 3.    If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific
           discussions how could this be handled?
           LDNP LAF Response:
           1. Members are aware of the adversarial nature of the order making and
              confirming process and considered that they may have a role in conflict
              resolution at a local level.
           2. Members expressed the hope that a more streamlined/fast-track / less
              adversarial / less contentious system for getting map modification orders
              confirmed could be established. A consequence of this would be reduced
              demand on resources (both man-power and financial), and an overall
              reduction in cost-per-lost-way.
   Q 4.    What relationship do you see between DLW and the RoWIP?
           LDNP LAF Response:
           1. Members think that the DLW programme should feed into the RoWIP and
              may be a tool to assist delivery of actions within the RoWIP.
Agreed: that:
              The forum had given advice to the chairman on the responses it wished to
               make to questions posed by Natural England on the role of LAFs in the
               Discovering Lost ways project and that the chairman was authorised to
               include the comments in a response letter which had to be submitted to
               Natural England no later than 30 October.
251.1.     The Forum held a workshop prior to the meeting to discuss the details of this
           item. The forum will advise Natural England that all access points should be
           gates and that there should be at least 2 points of access at each parcel of land
           (and 3 or 4 in some places). Preferred access point locations had been marked
           up on maps supplied by Natural England.
251.2      Fence height clarification is required. 800 mm implies all fencing. This appears to
           be too low.
251.3      It was considered that the wording of the Natural England document did not
           reflect sound understanding of open access. The Chair responded by saying the
           point had been made at the meeting with Rob Vatcher and that future documents
           would include a section dealing purely with open access.
Agreed:        that the forum submits advice to Natural England on preferred access
               arrangements to the six areas of woodland and scrub proposed for planting
               on Mungrisdale Common. The Chair to deliver the advice to Natural


252.1      The Chair said that the Partnership is now seeking LAF representation on the
           task groups which would be meeting every 2 months.

                                                                                       Page 4
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                                Agenda Item: 3

252.2      Barney Hill explained he is the chair of the Improvement Task Group and that
           David Robinson is the secretariat. Barney said that a strong LDLAF
           representation was required on the group. The first meeting for this group will be
           on the 9 November 2007 at 9.30 am at Murley Moss.

252.3      Volunteers were sought for the places on each of the three CCA task groups.
Agreed:        that the following nominees and appointees were selected for Local Access
               Forum representative positions on the CCA Task Groups:

              Maintenance Task Group Nominee. John Taylor.
              Improvement Task Group Appointed Ralph Henderson
              Promotions Task Group Nominee Wendy Emmett

252.4      The Chair explained that CCC and CLAF still have ongoing concerns about his
           position on this partnership whilst being employed by Capita Symonds in
           countryside access mapping work. He hoped this would be resolved before the
           first meeting of the Partnership Board on 21 November at which he would be
           representing the forum and at which he hoped to learn much more about the
           functioning, aims and authority of the Partnership Board.

253.1      Dave Robinson presented and explained a 24 page draft of the ROWIP Annual
           Action Plan 2008-2009. The forum was asked for their advice on the format and
253.2      The following comments were made:
              Colour coding good, was well presented, hard work appreciated, team
               congratulated who produced it.
              Overview required. Dave Robinson and Barney Hill confirmed that this will
               come with the delivery report in June 2009 and every June thereafter.
              There should be internal monitoring. Barney Hill explained that there would
               be a delivery report at the end of the year and anything highlighted would be
               picked up by the action plan the following year.
              There was concern that ROWIP is not producing anything new. Many old
               things are in the plans that are already happening. Finger posts for example
               are statutory. Barney Hill explained that although providing fingerposts at
               junctions with metalled roads is statutory, adding mileage to fingerposts is
               new and an improvement, He also commented that the B4 network although
               already established, needs resources to continue it, so inclusion in the
               ROWIP is necessary Geoff Wilson suggested that a general commentary on
               this should be added to the introduction.
              Best Value Performance Indicators may disappear. If this is in prospect then it
               should be flagged up for future consideration by the LAF. LDNPA asked to
               come back to the forum for advice if this happens.
              Referring to „Activities‟, can this be re-worded to „work to be undertaken‟.

                                                                                         Page 5
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                              Agenda Item: 3

              Referring to Page 8. Clarification was required on the meaning of carriage
               drivers. Barney Hill pointed out that this was blue colour coded and therefore
               was an item being taken forward by CCC, not the LDNPA. It was explained
               that carriage drivers can use BOATS, UCR‟s, and restricted byways.
              Forum needs regular updates on progress. Barney explained that the
               Improvement Task Group would be driving delivery of the ROWIP so Ralph
               Henderson could feed back progress to the Forum at every meeting.
              Could consideration be given to audio provision for people with limited
               mobility and for outreach, particularly for Eastern European Community
Agreed:        that:
              report on the progress made in preparing the RoWIP‟s 2008 – The 2009
               Annual Action Pan was received.
              The Forum‟s comments on format and content of the RoWIP Action Plan will
               be considered by the Improvement Task Group prior to publication.
              The LDNPA will ask for Forum advice on any changes regarding BVPI and
               that „Activities‟ would be changed to ‟work to be undertaken‟.
              Ralph Henderson to keep the forum updated, whilst on Improvement Task

254.1      The Chair has requested Ken Taylor to represent the forum at the initial meeting
           of the Access to Lakes, Rivers and Coast Project Group on 19 October. LDNPA
           Board approval was for the project to run for 18 months
254.2      The question was asked, how will LDNPA staff find time? Barney Hill explained
           that it was in our plan so work will be done. Not a legal requirement of LDNPA.
254.3      Forum members asked why this project was not Countywide and part of the
           Cumbria Countryside Access initiative. Barney Hill said that the Improvement
           Task Group would raise this as an issue to see if the framework could or should
           be extended to include the wider Cumbria.
Agreed: that:
              Improvement Task Group to ask question „Is it an appropriate project to be
               dealt with on a wider county basis.
              Ken Taylor was confirmed as representative on the Access to Lakes, Rivers
               and Coast Project Group.
255.1      The ROW consultations process was judged to still not to be working well

                                                                                       Page 6
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                             Agenda Item: 3

Agreed: that:
              Consultations should be e-mailed individually (not sent as multiples) and with
               titles showing the location. This to assist members and the consultation
               response coordinator to identify and file them.
              Checks needed to be carried to confirm that all members were receiving
               ROW consultations from consultation coordinator Charles Flanagan.
              Forum members should always respond to Charles (even if it is a nil
              All Forum consultation responses must make it clear that the Forum either 1.
               Supports 2. Objects 3. Makes no objection 4. Gives nil response.
              Consultation response coordinator to ensure that all responses to the NPA‟s
               RoW department are also copied to Stephanie Conway so that the response
               can be noted for reporting.

256.1      Public safety as a reason for exclusions on access land was questioned.
Agreed: that:
              The Chair will draft a letter for sending to. the Open Access Contact Centre
               asking the Forestry Commission to be more explicit about public safety as a
               reason for exclusions on access land.

257.1      Additional information received from Ken Taylor .He has just been appointed by
           Natural England to prepare an Information Pack for LAF members, this is an
           England wide project.
           Charles Flanagan (LAF Chairman at the time) had attended the launch of the
           ROWIP, near Lupton on July 2007. One issue that was raised was the lack of
           finance to implement it. The Forum felt the Minister should continue to be lobbied
           to provide extra funding.

258.1      The next meeting will take place on Monday 28 January 2008 at The Hydro
           Hotel, Bowness–on-Windermere. at 2.30 pm
           Other meeting dates for 2008 are:
           Monday 28 April at The Moot Hall, Keswick at 6.30pm
           Monday 21 July at The Hydro Hotel, Bowness–on-Windermere. at 6.30 pm
           Monday 20 October at 2.30pm Venue to be confirmed.

                                                                                       Page 7
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                         Agenda Item: 6

1        Summary
1.1      At the October 2007 meeting, Forum Members were asked to complete a form of
         evaluation of the performance of the Lake District Local Access Forum (LAF)
         against each item of good practice identified.
Proposal         Receive the attached report, debate the recommendations and
that Forum       consider meeting to discuss the issues raised through the
Members          evaluation to discuss how better to improve on areas of work.

2        Background
2.1      In order to ensure that forum members and appointing members are using their
         time wisely and that advice makes a positive contribution to decisions affecting
         the local area. All members were asked to complete a questionnaire in order to
         seek opinions on how the forum is working and find ways of improving this if
2.2      A summary of the responses is attached as Appendix 1. Of 17 members, 13
         returned a form.
3        Evaluation of results
3.1      The questionnaire was divided into 3 sections: membership; effectiveness and
         meetings and chairmanship. The overall picture of how the forum feels it is
         working is a positive one. Where there were divided opinions were in specific
         areas: continuity between meetings; how national consultations are dealt with,
         whether the LAF achieves tangible outcomes and whether advice is given to
         section 94 (4) bodies. There were also diverse opinions about whether consensus
         is reached.
3.2      There seem to be some links that can be made about answers given, particularly
         between questions relating to whether the LAF believes it is making a difference
         and outcomes being reported back to members. It is possible that some of the
         concerns could be addressed through having a more structured approach to
         asking for feedback on advice. There could also be more clarity about who should
         be seeking advice from the forum and whether all relevant bodies are aware of
         the role and assistance that the forum could offer. The recent work with Natural
         England over the proposed Mungrisdale woodlands is a good point in case, where
         a positive relationship has been developed between the forum and Natural
    3.3 The process of evaluation is a valuable one and should help in ensuring that
        members feel they have a useful role and that the National Park Authority and
        others can use the knowledge and expertise of forum members. It is suggested
        that the forum considers meeting (separate to formal business) to discuss the
        issues raised in the evaluation to look at methods of working.

 Background papers               University of Gloucestershire‟s review of LAFs 2005
                                 Local Access Forum papers for 29 October 2007, agenda item 6
 Author                          Judith Moore, Vice Chair Lake District Local Access Forum
 Date written                    8 January 2008

                                                                                       Page 1
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                            Agenda Item: 6

   ANNEX 1

   Local Access Forum Self –Evaluation Questionnaire:
   The table represents a summary of the responses made. The Comments column has been used to report a summary of additional comments received. The
   figure in brackets represents the number of members who responded to that question.

   No      Statement                                                      I        I         I                             Comments
                                                         I Disagree
                                                                      Disagree   Agree    Agree
   1       Forum members represent a diverse spread of                1          10      2          (13) Work is needed to find landowning/managing
           interests and express a broad knowledge of                                               members and to ensure that widest representation as
           issues relating to access.                                                               possible is included.
   2       Forum members attend sufficiently regularly                           12      1          (13)
           and contribute fully.
   3       Annual vacancies for members of the forum                  1          10                 (11) Some uncertainty about where vacancies are
           are widely advertised.                                                                   advertised, other than the Westmorland Gazette.
                                                                                                    Recommendation: NPA to clarify where advertise
                                                                                                    and members to offer suggestions for other locations
                                                                                                    if appropriate. This could also address the issues of Q.
   4       Forum members are made aware of targets                               10      3          (13)
           and of the annual work plan.
   5       Demands on volunteer members of the forum     1            11                            (12) Members appear to be happy with the volume of
           are too great.                                                                           work, although 1 commented they expected to do
                                                                                                    more and 1 noted that members need to support the
                                                                                                    Chair adequately.

                                                                                                                                       Annex 1: Page 1
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008              Agenda Item: 6


   6       There is sufficient „continuity‟ maintained     4      7       1     (13, also 1 neither agree/disagree) Range of opinions,
           between forum meetings, for example by                               comments included seems to be dependent on amount
           mailings, sub-groups, site visits.                                   of business to be done. Email is welcome, but seems
                                                                                to be variable and difficult where a member does not
                                                                                have access to the internet. Several comments that the
                                                                                sub groups do not seem to be working and site visits
                                                                                would be welcome. A “No Forum Response” was
                                                                                acceptable to business.
                                                                                Recommendation: Forum to look at sub groups and
                                                                                consider arranging site visits.
   7       The LDNPA requests advice from the LAF          2      9       1     (12) Comments included that NPA made efforts to
           and seeks the LAF‟s support on issues.                               involve Forum in ROWIP preparation, although
                                                                                another thought that it was not always obvious that
                                                                                the NPA seeks/values advice.
   8       National consultations (some of which have to   6      6       1     (13) Opinion divided. Comments included responses
           be dealt with between meetings) are                                  are variable but proportionate. Forum takes issues
           adequately dealt with by the forum.                                  seriously and is improving on this. Short deadlines
                                                                                can make it difficult. “No Forum Response” not
                                                                                acceptable. Recommendation: Forum to consider
                                                                                issues as part of looking into sub groups.
   9       The LAF achieves tangible and beneficial        5      5             (11, also 1 neither agree/disagree) Opinion divided.
           outcomes – advice given makes a difference                           Most comments expressed concerns about whether a
                                                                                difference is made. Mungrisdale woodland may be
                                                                                tangible. A summary of what has been achieved
                                                                                suggested. Recommendation: Requests made for a
                                                                                decision to be communicated to LAF following a
                                                                                response. This should include ROW work.

                                                                                                                  Annex 1: Page 2
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                             Agenda Item: 6


   10      The Forum gives advice to a wide range of         1         5          4                   (11, also 1 neither agree/disagree) Opinion divided.
           section 94(4) bodies.                                                                      Comments about not sure who should be asking for
                                                                                                      advice. Recommendation: NPA to provide a list of
                                                                                                      s94 (4) bodies and Forum to consider whether further
                                                                                                      contact to be made to clarify roles.
   11      Outcomes are reported back to the forum by                  6          5         1         (12) Divided opinion. Comments mainly thought only
           the LDNPA.                                                                                 sometimes. Recommendation: see Q. 9.
   12      Members of the LDLAF feel valued.                           2          8                   (11, also 1 neither agree/disagree)
   13      I am satisfied with the service and support the                        7         6         (13) Thanks should be passed to the NPA staff
           LDNPA provides to the Forum.                                                               responsible.
           Meetings and Chairmanship
   14      Meetings are well structured and agendas well               1          10        2         (13)
   15      All members are encouraged to contribute.                   1          10        1         (12) Members have opportunities to contribute, but
                                                                                                      are they encouraged if reticent.
   16      Consensus is encouraged.                                    4          6         3         (13) Sometimes insufficient time at meetings,
                                                                                                      recognised as an issue where there are diverse views.

   Conclusion: In relation to the Membership section of the questionnaire, members are content generally, apart from Q.6 about continuity between
   meetings by sub groups and site visits.

   The Effectiveness section created a diverse range of opinions and it would seem worthwhile considering how to address this. A workshop session prior to
   a formal meeting could be arranged to look at the issues raised, such as s 94 (4) bodies, reporting back on responses and the use of sub groups.

   Meetings and Chairmanship: comments around consensus reaching may be partly related to issues around receiving reports back and
   again this could be considered in a workshop session.

   Overall recommendation: The Forum considers meeting to discuss the issues raised through the evaluation to discuss how better to improve on
   areas of work.

                                                                                                                                         Annex 1: Page 3
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                       Agenda Item: 7b


Consultations on Public Path Orders for Rights of Way
1.   Introduction
     At the request of the former Chair, the Lake District Local Access Forum (LAF) is
     consulted by the Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA) on all changes
     under the public path order process to the rights of way network. It is consulted at
     the same time as a number of other consultees. (The LAF is also consulted on
     changes under the modification order process, but the issues here are separate –
     although the method of dealing with the consultations should be the same)
     Whilst the majority of these proposals are not controversial amongst forum
     members, several recently have created a wide range of opinions. For this reason,
     this paper has been written to give some background to the process of modifying
     rights of way and to establish a procedure to be adopted by the forum in responding
     to any Right of Way consultation.
2.   National Park Policy – Public Path Orders
     The LDNPA does not (currently) have to process any request to divert, create, or
     extinguish a right of way but does so when it considers it expedient: for example –
     when it is useful to record the line of the right of way where it is different „on the
     ground‟ from that recorded on the definitive map and to respond to reasonable
     requests from either users or land owners. Many such requests are withdrawn after
     discussion with officers of the LDNPA.
     The LDNPA have developed a set of principles for assessing these proposed
     changes to the network, which include:
             The concerns of those managing land, especially for agriculture and forestry,
              will be recognised where legitimate operations may affect the public’s
              enjoyment of or safety in using a public right of way
             Changes should, if possible enhance public benefit through enabling the
              better enjoyment of the cultural landscape and nature conservation interest
              and should not reduce the ability of the public to discover any of the special
              qualities/features of the park.
     A full list of these principles is set out in the Annex 1. Factors associated with
     diversion orders and with development are set out in Annexes 2 and 3.
3.   Reasons for diversions, creations and extinguishments
     Diversions and the creation of new paths (this term includes footpaths, bridleways,
     restricted byways and byways open to all traffic) result from a number of reasons.
     The most common being:
             a. The line „on the ground‟ being different from that recorded on the definitive
             b. The current route being unsafe or unsatisfactory for a number of reasons.
             c. The current RoW has been or is about to be built over as a result of
             previous development or of planning approval being given for development.
             d. As a result of requests from users.
             e. As a result of requests from landowners either farmers or owners of private

                                                                                     Page: 1
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                     Agenda Item: 7b

     Whilst the first two are unlikely to be to source of concern to Forum members, the
     other three may raise different opinions, which need to be balanced in any
     response. For example, there may be good practical reasons for moving a path to
     the side of an arable field, rather than the line being across the middle of the field.
     Whilst many farmers are concerned about paths running through their farmyards
     due to the dangers of mixing people and livestock and for security reasons, it is
     clear from recent email correspondence that members representing users welcome
     the opportunity to get close to vernacular buildings and other points of interest.
     One recurring point concerns rights of way through private property. The test in the
     view of the author is whether the request is reasonable and affects the quality of
     experience of users of the right of way. Most private owners bought their properties
     knowing the existence of a right of way.
4.   Process for dealing with all rights of way consultations
     At present the consultations are sent by the LDNPA (Nick Thorne, Claire
     Redhouse, Julia Knott or Helen Elbourne) to the Forum by email. When the issue
     was last raised by the chair, no member of the Forum was prepared to take on the
     role of co-ordinating responses for these consultations, so the former Chair agreed
     to act as the co-ordinator.
     On receipt, these are sent out to all members by email, with a deadline for
     responses. Sometimes more than one consultation is received from the NPA at the
     same time. These will be forwarded to forum members separately and with specific
     location titles to avoid any confusion. If the proposals look to be complicated or
     controversial, attempts are made to get a member local to the proposal to look at
     the situation on the ground. When any responses are received, these are collated
     and submitted to the LDNPA.
     Recently a slightly different approach has been adopted in that a draft response has
     been prepared for members‟ comments, which appears to have worked well.
     Ideally each proposal should be inspected by a member of the Forum, a brief report
     prepared and the proposal submitted to members. If a range of opinions are given,
     perhaps a subgroup should convene to prepare a response, but this would tend to
     be overly bureaucratic for the majority of proposals.
5.   Recommendation
     That the forum should advise the RoW consultation coordinator on how he should
     represent forum members‟ varied concerns over requests or proposals to divert
     public paths in the vicinity of properties.

     Background papers      None
     Author                 CharlesFlanagan
     Date written           05 January 2008

                                                                                     Page 2
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                         Agenda Item: 7b


   Extract from Lake District Management Plan

   Principles For Evaluating Proposed Changes (Diversions)

   There will be a presumption in favour of preserving the historical integrity of the

   The concerns of those managing land, especially for agriculture and forestry, will be
   recognised where legitimate operations may affect the public’s enjoyment of or safety
   in using a public right of way.

   The preservation of the landscape, wildlife conservation and archaeological interests,
   being fundamental to all the NPA's policies, will be taken into consideration.

   Changes should, if possible enhance public benefit through enabling the better
   enjoyment of the cultural landscape and nature conservation interest and should not
   reduce the ability of the public to discover any if the special qualities / features of the

   There will be a presumption against re-alignment of cross-field paths onto routes
   following field edge boundaries.

   There will be a presumption against any reduction in the amount of public access in the
   National Park.

   Where the route in use at present differs from the definitive line, there will be a
   presumption in favour of restoring the original route before considering a legal

   The future maintenance and management implications of any proposed change to the
   network will be considered.

                                                                                Annex 1:Page 1
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                       Agenda Item: 7b


Public path diversion orders : diversion of an existing footpath or bridleway

Before making a diversion order the authority must be satisfied that it is expedient to
divert the path in the interests either of the public or of the owner, lessee or occupier of
the land crossed by the path. The authority must also be satisfied that the diversion order
does not alter any point of termination of the path, other than to another point on the
same path, or another highway connected with it, and which is substantially as
convenient to the public. Nor can the termination be altered where this is not on a
highway (i.e. a cul-de-sac).

Before confirming a diversion order the authority or the Secretary of State must be
satisfied that:

      the diversion is expedient in the interests of the person(s) stated in the order;
      the path will not be substantially less convenient to the public as a consequence
       of the diversion;
      it is expedient to confirm the order having regard to the effect it will have on public
       enjoyment of the path as a whole, on other land served by the existing path and
       on land affected by any proposed new path, taking into account the provisions for

In practice the Secretary of State disregards any temporary circumstances (such as
obstructions) preventing or diminishing the use of the path by the public when
considering an opposed diversion order.

- Institute of Public Rights of Way Officers

                                                                             Annex 2: Page 1
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                      Agenda Item: 7b

      ANNEX 3

      Rights of Way and Development

      Development often affects public rights of way. It is accepted that development
      has to take place, but how it takes place and how it is planned can materially
      affect the quality of life for people who will live and work in the buildings and those
      who will use the right of way.

      There are many examples of rights of way that have been hemmed in by
      development, poorly surfaced or radically changed in character because of the
      limited weight given to them in the planning process. Failure to consider them at
      all can lead to them being built on with consequent enforcement problems.

      Sometimes the existence of a right of way under a building only comes to light
      several years after the building has been erected; this can lead to virtually
      insurmountable problems for the owners of the property and the highway

      A grant of planning permission does not entitle developers to obstruct a public
      right of way. Enforcement action may be taken against any person who obstructs
      or damages a right of way. Development, in so far as it affects a right of way,
      should not be started; and the right of way should be kept open for public use until
      the necessary order under s.247 or s.257 of the Town and Country Planning Act
      1990 for the diversion or extinguishment of the right of way has come into effect.
      Nor should it be assumed that because planning permission has been granted an
      order will invariably be made or confirmed. If you need help or advice concerning
      the diversion or extinguishment order you should contact

– Institute of Public Rights of Way Officers

                                                                             Annex 3: Page 1
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                       Agenda Item:7c


Recommendation           The Forum responds to the proposed diversion at Lowthwaite
                         as shown in Paragraph 5

1.     Over the last couple of months there have been a number of emails written about the
       above proposal to divert the footpaths at Matterdale.

2.     As well as Geoff‟s helpful description of the route on the ground, the few comments
       about the proposal itself have been largely in support of the proposal. Others have
       been related to the principles involved, especially the basis on which a landowner has
       a right to apply for a diversion to a right of way and on which the NPA should pursue
       an application. There will be an opportunity to discuss these at the next Forum
       meeting as Nick Thorne is intending to do a presentation on the subject.

3.     I am delighted that this proposal, and a couple of other recent ones, have raised so
       many comments as I was beginning to get quite discouraged by the apathy when I
       put out other similar proposals to modify ROWs. Secondly, I have always felt that
       these proposals should be looked at on site. At a previous meeting I offered to do the
       ones in the south of the Lake District but could not cover the whole area.

4.     Any comments about this proposed diversion have acknowledged that the changes
       recognise the actual situation, indeed the proposed diversion follows the route that
       has been used for many years. In the circumstances I feel the Forum should respond
       to this consultation as follows:

5.     “The Forum has carefully considered the proposed diversion which reflects the actual
       route which we expect is used by all users at present and which is signed despite it
       not being on the definitive line. A number of members had concerns about the
       general principles raised by this proposal which will be discussed at a Forum
       meeting. The Forum supports the proposal as the diverted definitive line of the route
       will be easier to use in the future.”

6.     I do not intend to pass this on to the LDNPA until after the Forum meeting.

Background papers                              None
Author                                         Charles Flanagan
Date written                                   14 January 2008

                                                                                      Page: 1
Lake District National Park Local Access Forum 28 January 2008           Agenda item: 8

BETTER ACCESS FOR ALL - To receive and consider a report on the landscape
impact of works in the upland environment aimed at improving access for people
with limited mobility.
1.     Summary
       Miles without Stiles and Fix the Fells works at Blea Tarn and Latrigg were
       featured in the September 2007 edition of the Cumbria Magazine. It was
       considered useful if Forum Members could be reminded of the history of these
       works and were able to discuss the issues raised.

Recommendation             That members of the Forum consider issues raised in
                           the September 2007 edition of Cumbria magazine and
                           reviews its advice to the NPA on the Miles Without Stiles
                           and Fix the Fells programmes.

2.     Background
       In November 2002 the LAF set up a Working Group to consider the Provision of
       Access to land for people with Limited Mobility. This resulted in a Report to the
       LAF in January 2004. This in turn led to a subsequent report to LAF in January
       2006, which set out the initial list of schemes which would be the early phases of
       the programme.
2.1    Members will see from these Reports that there has been considerable care in the
       selection and design of the sites.
2.2    During the last year 2007 there has been a number of reports in the Press and
       Magazines concerning the works being carried out under the Miles without Stiles
2.3    In particular the works at Blea Tarn and Latrigg were featured in the September
       2007 edition of the Cumbria Magazine (Annex 1) with photos of work in progress
       and quoting some well known names as condemning these works as a step too
2.4    The author of this report made a site inspection of the Blea Tarn scheme and is of
       the opinion that in a year‟s time any disturbance caused by the works will have
       been covered by natural revegetation.
2.5    In particular the new path follows the natural foot of the fell slope and as such is
       hardly visible from the road on the opposite side of the valley. On the sunny day
       of the inspection it was being well used by families, amblers, strollers, fell walkers
       and runners.
2.6    There is no doubt that when the site of any construction works are visited whilst
       works are in progress it will look a mess to the untrained eye.

      Background papers     Miles Without Stiles papers (26 Jan 2004 LAF meeting).
                            Latrigg papers (30 January 2006 LAF meeting).
      Author                Ralph Henderson
      Date written          05 January 2008

                                                                                       Page 1
Lake District National Park Local Access Forum 28 January 2008           Agenda item: 8

“CUMBRIA MAGAZINE”: September 2007
When Access for all may be a step too far
The fells belong to everyone, but how far can path-builders go before they destroy
what they are seeking to open up? Asks Tony Green
To enable the less mobile to experience the fells, mechanical diggers have been brought
in to carve virtual roads across immaculate Lake District scenery, up until now largely
free from such blemishes. Paths and tracks, yes, but those have usually blended in the
time-honoured way. In recent years many thousands of man-hours have gone into
repairing the erosion scars caused by previous generations of walkers. Thanks to the
footpath-building gangs who painstakingly place each cobble and rock in just the right
spot, they have begun to heal.
But now new scars are appearing – and this time they are caused deliberately in the
name of access. The new paths are being built with a most laudable aim, you would
think. But at what expense? The use of diggers to create these „motorway-like‟ paths to
beauty spots is as if someone had dragged a razor across a Heaton Cooper water colour
or Turner oil painting of some Lakeland scene. But what can you expect, continue the
critics, when mechanical diggers are brought into play?
Recently two more such digger-excavated paths have added fuel to the flames: a
disabled-access path from Blea Tarn Pass to the hallowed tarn back-dropped by the
Langdale Pikes; and another path for the disabled to the summit of Latrigg that is a
prelude to ascending Skiddaw from the streets of Keswick directly below.
Carole Pouton, a wheelchair user who lives in the lake District Cheshire Home at
Windermere, says she has seen photos of the Blea Tarn path under construction and
she is horrified. “Yes,” she says, “of course I would love to get right round Blea Tarn, and
there are many other places in the Lake District I wish I could have access to, but not at
the expense of their magnificent natural beauty.
“I arrived from Liverpool almost forty five years ago and instantly fell in love with the
Lakeland landscape. Since then I have seen as much as possible. In my darkest times I
have found great solace looking across the Langdale Fells, and realising they are
timeless and human troubles are fleeting. I have to come to accept that I will never stand
on any of their summits and neither do I wish to if that means disfiguring the surrounding
“As a person of limited mobility I was appalled to hear about the paths being built.
Whether disabled or not, there are limitations in everyone‟s life – that is life.”
Recently Bill Birkett breasted Blea Tarn Pass on the challenging road to Little Langdale.
“I couldn‟t believe my eyes,” he says. “There was this great tracked digger forging a
veritable motorway across the fell just a few yards from the road. Unbelievable!
“Let‟s get one thing clear;” adds this chartered civil engineer who is also an author and
photographer of books on the Lake District, “I‟m not against limited mobility access
carried out in an unobtrusive manner and in the right location. The truth is Blea Tarn
already has substantial limited mobility access with a track constructed from the car park
further along the road from the top of the pass. It blends in quite nicely through the
woods to the rocky point just above the tarn.
“This new additional track, however, is something else entirely because it is more suited
to a city park.Here, in the unspoilt beauty of one of the Lakeland‟s favourite viewpoints, it
is so alien – looking and entirely denigrates the beauty.

                                                                           Annex 1: Page    1
Lake District National Park Local Access Forum 28 January 2008            Agenda item: 8

“So what‟s going on? What we have here, it transpires, is a very new and large limited
mobility track. It‟s the baby of a consortium comprising the National Trust, the Lake
District National Park Authority, English Nature and the Lake District Tourism Partnership
funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund and the likes of you and me who fund these
agencies. I‟m sure all the people involved with this think it‟s the right thing to do. Yet
there‟s a growing body of opinion that feel paths built like this are misguided. You only
have to look at them and see.”
Blea Tarn Pass, added a villager from Chapel Stile, is thought by many to be a tougher
proposition than 1-in-3 Hardknott Pass a few miles beyond. The reason is that the road
itself is much narrower with fewer passing places. To have an increase in traffic carrying
wheelchairs is a daunting prospect on such a tight, twisting road with blind bends.
Crucially there is no car park on the summit, just a cattle grid and a passing place. It is
from the top of the pass that the full majesty of the Langdale Pikes is seen at their best.
But what next a disabled- access path of the size being excavated at the time of writing
begs to be used. If it proves popular it will surely demand a car park to be built on this
very vantage point of incomparable beauty – and with a toilet block too?
In reply to such concerns, John Atkinson, upland access advisor and project manager for
the National Trust at it‟s Boon Crag office, Coniston, explains:” The work is intended to
extend the current limited mobility path which goes around the back of the tarn out to the
cattle grid. This would give the less abled walker or chair user a chance to view the
splendour of the Langdale Pikes that we more abled souls enjoy so much.
“Once the work is complete over the next four weeks and the vegetation has recovered,
the landscape will look little different to how it did before the work started. But the path
will be usable by many more people with limited mobility and families with small children,
thus giving further opportunities to a wider range of users to enjoy the area. The work
has been carefully planned over the eighteen-month period, and all the necessary
considerations and permissions have been agreed for working on this sensitive site. A
full archaeological records check has been undertaken.
“The contractor is specialised in this type of work and has considerable experience in
sensitive locations. All the plant on site is equipped with spill kits in case of emergencies
and uses biodegradable oil. In addition we will be regularly supervising the progress of
the work and ensure all the necessary protections are in place.”
In early July work started to adapt a footpath up Latrigg, directly above Keswick, to
create a new 560 yard (520m) section giving wheelchair users the chance to reach a
viewpoint near the summit. Backed by Bassenthwaite Reflections and its Heritage
Lottery Fund – supported community landscape initiative, along with the Lake District
National Park Authority‟s Miles Without Stiles programme, it is seen as pioneering action.
Peter Greenwood, rock climbing legend and ex-housing development contractor, who
lives in a street beneath Latrigg, disagrees: “What nonsense. They‟re ruining the Lake
District. People in wheelchairs helped by friends have reached the top of Lakeland
mountains without paths being made especially for them. Besides, there are risks
involved. Lured by this city park-type path wheelchair users unused to mountains could
be in danger. It makes mountain climbing look too easy. The weather has only to
change, as only it can in the Lakes. Or the helpers might have an accident or become ill
– then watch out.”
Maureen Richardson, of Buttermere farming stock and a vice-president of the
Cockermouth Mountain Rescue Team, says:” They are laying waste to the Lake District

                                                                           Annex 1: Page        2
Lake District National Park Local Access Forum 28 January 2008           Agenda item: 8

using diggers to build these „motorways‟ on the fells. To spoil the beautiful scenery in this
way is beyond belief.
“Also, paths made by diggers break up when folk use walking poles on them. The sharp
ends of the sticks stab holes in the road, water gets underneath and the surface is

                                                                           Annex 1: Page    3
Lake District National Park Local Access Forum 28 January 2008       Agenda item: 9a

1.     Summary
1.1    Now that the role / function of the CCA Partnership Board is becoming better
       known the chair of the LD LAF seeks members‟ views on whether it is appropriate
       for Local Access Forums to be represented on the Cumbria Countryside Access
       Partnership Board.

Recommendation That the LD LAF selects one of the following options as the level
               of involvement that it considers is appropriate for Local Access
               Forums in the Cumbria Countryside Access Partnership Board.
                     (a) LAF wishes to remain involved as per the current
                         structure (CCA Partnership Board representative to be
                         forum chair).
                     (b) LAF wishes to remain involved as per the current
                         structure (CCA Partnership Board representative to be
                         forum chair) and with the option for a substitute to be
                     (c) LAF wants to be involved but with freedom to select a
                         co-opted non-voting CCA Partnership Board
                         representative who need not be the chair of the LAF.
                     (d) LAF does not consider it appropriate to appoint a
                         member of the CCA Partnership Board
                     (e) Other option as agreed.

2.     Background

2.1.   The draft Terms of Reference of the Cumbria Countryside Access Partnership
       Board state:
       The members (sic) of the Partnership Board will consist of 8 elected / appointed
       members drawn from the following organisations;
          Cumbria County Council (2)
          Lake District National Park Authority (2)
          Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority (1)
          Chairs of the 3 Local Access Forums (3)
2.2.   The draft Terms of Reference (Annex 1) include the following elements as the
       Remit of the Partnership Board.
             Agree policy, procedure and standards for the CCA Partnership.
             Consider and approve the joint annual work programme for delivering
              countryside access services across Cumbria.
             Make recommendations as appropriate to the constituent authorities.
       See Annex 2 for the place of the Cumbria Countryside Access Partnership within
       the County‟s Strategic Partnership structure.

                                                                                  Page: 1
Lake District National Park Local Access Forum 28 January 2008      Agenda item: 9a

3.     Points for Consideration
3.1    Regulations governing local access forums - the Local Access Forums (England)
       Regulations 2007 - contain no provision relating to forums working in the
       environment of the CCA Partnership Board.
3.2    Local access forums are strictly advisory and consequently should not be drawn
       into the CCA Partnership Board which, it appears, will be expected to perform an
       executive or quasi-executive duty.
3.3    By working in the Partnership Board the statutory independent functions of local
       access forums may be compromised.
3.4    Working as members of the CCA Partnership Board risks compromising local
       access forums' freedom to give advice to other section 94(4) bodies.
3.5    Local access forum members are not elected representatives of the community
       and are not officers of any of the partnership's member authorities, and
       consequently it may be inappropriate for them to be drawn into any high-level or
       executive tier of the democratic.
3.6    Guidance on Local Access Forums in England and Wales is very strong on the
       importance of LAF advice being generated by forum members in public. This may
       preclude individual forum members from being involved in the generation of
       recommendations or agreeing policy in other circumstances.
3.7     Possibly the highest level of Local Access Forum input to CCA that is sustainable
       is representation at Task Groups. Representation of the interests of the forums at
       OSG level may be sustainable... but we may also wish to question that.
3.8    Whatever advice forum members contribute to at Task Groups level (or OSG
       level) will have to be reported back comprehensively to forum meetings and

Background papers      Cumbria Countryside Access Partnership Arrangements (LAF 23
                       July 2007, Item 10b)
Author                 Geoff Wilson
Date written           05 January 2008

                                                                                  Page: 2
Lake District National Park Local Access Forum 28 January 2008        Agenda item: 9a

                                   Terms of Reference
                   Cumbria Countryside Access Partnership Board
Name and Composition of the Partnership:
     The Partnership will be known as “Cumbria Countryside Access” (subsequently
      referred to as „CCA‟)
     The members of the Partnership Board will consist of 8 elected / appointed
      members drawn from the following organisations;
           o Cumbria County Council (2)
           o Lake District National Park Authority (2)
           o Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority (1)
           o Chairs of the 3 Local Access Forums (3)
Aim of the Partnership:
      To work together across Cumbria to manage, develop and improve access to the
       countryside, to ensure that the services and facilities provided by all the partners
       are of a consistent high quality and standard, and that overall provision is
       integrated and coordinated.
CCA Partnership Board:
      The Partnership will operate through a Partnership Board which will provide
       leadership to steer the work of CCA, a strategic overview of its activities, and
       guidance on its combined work programme across Cumbria.
Remit of the Partnership Board:
      Agree policy, procedures and standards for the CCA partnership
      Consider and approve the joint annual work programme for delivering countryside
       access services across Cumbria
      Scrutinize performance monitoring reports on the joint annual work programme
       and review against agreed targets and quality standards
      Consider any relevant matters placed before it by the Operational Steering Group
      Make recommendations as appropriate to the constituent authorities
      Annually review the combined resources of the partnership for managing and
       delivering countryside access services across Cumbria, and make
       recommendations where appropriate on their efficiency and effectiveness
      Periodically review the composition of the membership and the work of the
      The CCA partnership will be required to report to the Cumbria Transport Forum
       Executive which in turn is a sub group of the Planning Transport & Housing
       Thematic                                                          Partnership.

                                                                           Annex1: Page 1
Lake District National Park Local Access Forum 28 January 2008      Agenda item: 9a

Membership of the Partnership Board:
      There will be a Chair who is independent of all 8 members of the Partnership
      The Partnership Board will have powers to co-opt non-voting Members and to
       invite the attendance of others who may submit papers and participate in
       discussions at the discretion of the Chair.
      The Partnership Board will aim to reach decisions by consensus.
      Nominated Members will have full voting rights. In the event of a tie the Chairman
       will have the casting vote.
      Business shall not be transacted at a meeting of the Partnership Board unless
       here is representation from all three access authorities.
      The Chairman will approve Agendas and Draft Minutes of Board Meetings.
      Partnership Board meetings will be held in public and advance notice given on the
       CCA website. Agenda, papers, and minutes will be made available to the public
       and submitted to the Cumbria Transport Forum Executive for information.
Frequency of Meetings:
      The Partnership Board will normally meet following every two meetings of the
       Operational Steering Group
      The Partnership Board will meet at least twice each year. Additional meetings
       may be called with due notice and at the discretion of the Chair.
Venue of Meetings:
      Meetings will be held in accessible locations both in terms of building access and
       public transport provision.
Referral of Minutes:
      The minutes of Board Meetings will be circulated to all the constituent bodies and
       referred onwards by each body as may be required.

                                                                          Annex1: Page 2
Lake District National Park Local Access Forum 28 January 2008      Agenda item: 9a


                           Cumbria Strategic Partnership
                           Executive Board

                          Planning                    Environment
                         Transport &                   & Heritage
                          Housing                     Partnership

 Cumbria                   Cumbria
  Housing                 Transport                                        Cumbria
                                                        CTF                Planning
   Group                 Forum (CTF)
 Executive                Executive                                         Group

           Cumbria Road                                              Cumbria
                                         Accessibility &
              Safety                                                Countryside
            Partnership                                               Access

                                                                        Annex 2: Page 1
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                    Agenda Item: 9b

1.        Summary
1.2       Subsequent to the decision taken at the 29 October local access forum meeting
          the Cumbria Countryside Access Partnership Board is seeking further
          appointment of forum representatives to three CCA Task Groups.

Recommendation              That one member of the Lake District Local Access
                            Forum be appointed to represent the forum on each of
                            the three Cumbria Countryside Access Partnership
                            Task Groups.
                            Maintenance Task Group
                            Improvement Task Group
                            Promotions Task Group

2.        Background
2.1       CCA Partnership initially sought representation on CCA Task Groups on the
          following basis:
         Maintenance Task Group – One member representing all three Cumbria based
         Improvement Task Group – One member from each of the three Cumbria based
         Promotion Task Group - One member representing all three Cumbria based
2.2       At the 29 October 2007 forum meeting this forum agreed that …
         Jon Taylor was nominated to the Maintenance Task Group.
         Ralph Henderson was appointed to the Improvement Task Group.
         Wendy Emmett was nominated to the Promotions Task Group.
2.3       The CCA Partnership Board has now requested each of the three Cumbria based
          LAFs to appoint one member to each of the three task groups.

2.4       See Annex 1 for copy of letter dated 20 December from the chairman of the CCA
          Operational Steering Group.

 Background papers           None
 Author                      Geoff Wilson
 Date written                7 January 2008

                                                                                  Page: 1
Lake District National Park Local Access Forum 28 January 2008   Agenda item: 9b


                                                                      Annex1: Page 1
Lake District National Park Local Access Forum 28 January 2008   Agenda item: 9b


                                                                     Annex 1: Page 2
Lake District National Park Local Access Forum 28 January 2008               Agenda item: 9c

Cumbria Countryside Access Improvement Task Group

Minutes of a meeting of the Cumbria Countryside Access Improvement Task Group held at
Murley Moss B1 at 9:30 pm on Friday 9 November 2007.

Barney Hill (LDNPA: chair)                        Ralph Henderson (LDLAF)
David Robinson (LDNPA: secretariat)               Kate Doughty (NE)
Abi Mansley (CCC)                                 Stephanie Conway (minutes)
Jean Rogers (CLAF)

None received.

Andy Ryland (YDNPA)

Yorkshire Dales LAF representative                Access for All Subgroup Chairman


2.1        Barney Hill introduced the group to the Cumbria Countryside Access Partnership,
           as set out in the partnership arrangements paper.
2.2        The key aims of the Improvement Task Group (ITG) are shown in section 3.1 (4)
           and (5). The remaining aims will be the concern of the Maintenance and
           Promotion Task Groups. However there will be overlap between the groups‟ work
           from time to time.
2.3        The ITG‟s main work will focus on 4.1 (b), (d) and (g).
2.4        The structure plan was explained, detailing members and numbers in each task
2.5        Ralph Henderson asked whether the work of the ITG will be a standing item on
           the LDLAF Forum for him to update. Barney Hill confirmed that it should be and
           commented that the work of all three task groups should ideally be rolled into one
           agenda item for the each LAF.
2.6        Time commitments were discussed using the flow chart „Structural Relationship
           and Operation of Cumbria Countryside Access Partnership‟. The CCA
           Partnership Board will meet every six months while the OSG, the three task
           groups, and the subgroups will meet every two months.

Agreed: a) Ralph Henderson, Jean Rogers the Yorkshire Dales LAF representative
        to suggest to their respective LAF Chairs that a report back from the three
        Task Groups is made at each LAF meeting.

                                                                                      Page 1
Lake District National Park Local Access Forum 28 January 2008                 Agenda item: 9c

           b) Ralph, Jean and the YDLAF rep to provide two way communication
           between the ITG and their respective LAFs.

                 The design of the Maintenance Task Group remit was followed for the
                  purposes of consistency.
                 Capitor Symonds to be removed from the members of the ITG as this was
                  an error.
                 There was no change to the aims as the Operational Steering Group
                  developed and agreed these.
                 Kate Doughty asked about links with Cumbria LAF sub-group and the
                  LDNPA 15.3 Group, both of whom are looking at access to lakes, rivers
                  and the coast. Barney said that the work of the 15.3 Group is included as
                  an action in the 2008 – 09 ROWIP Annual Action Plan. He said he would
                  raise this question at the next meeting of the 15.3 Group.
                 It was remarked that ROWIP will become part of the Local Transport Plan
                  in 2010-2011. Making this happen in the best way possible should be part
                  of the ITG remit.
                 Referring to bullet point 1 of the remit of the ITG it was suggested that this
                  in itself should include the following:
                         ROWIP
                         Annual action
                         Annual delivery
                         Future ROWIP preparation
                  Referring to bullet point 5 the wording should have, „review and
              recommend‟ added after the word align.
                    Referring to bullet point 7 the wording should include „advising OSG
              on responses to consultation'
                    Referring to the last 3 bullet points . These are operational and should
              go into „procedure‟.
                   It was asked as to whether the remit is to be reviewed. Barney Hill
              agreed to do this as and when the need arises.
                     The venue for the meetings will agreed to be at Murley Moss.
                     Referring to the Referral of Minutes bullet point 2, it was suggested
              that draft minutes should go on the web, and if changed at the next meeting,
              altered. This was agreed.

Agreed: a) Dave Robinson to make amendments to remit and circulate with minutes
        of the meeting.

                                                                                         Page 2
Lake District National Park Local Access Forum 28 January 2008                   Agenda item: 9c

           b) Stephanie to ask Simon Boyd at CCC to put draft minutes on the website
           and alter these if necessary after they are approved by the ITG at its next

4.1.       The table was designed by Simon Boyd and the OSG had inputted some
           activities. It was now open to debate by the group. The following points were
              Expenditure column cannot be filled in at this time
              2007/2008 title thought to be a mistake and should be 08/09.
            The title. „Development of the Public Rights of Way Network‟ should be
           changed to „Development of Countryside Access Network‟.
            The text referring to service plans should be deleted, since it will be up to
           individual authorities to tailor their service plabns to deliver ROWIP priorities.

            „Deliver Miles without Stiles projects across Cumbria‟.and „Deliver
           cycling/mountain biking projects across Cumbria‟ should be removed, since it‟s
           part of the ROWIP..

            The title and contents of „Policy Work‟ should be removed, since it‟s
           duplicated later.

            Under the title „Performance Management, ‟Develop joint ROWiP indicators‟.
           and „Develop a performance management framework for CCA‟. It was
           recommended that these should be merged together.

            Under the Title „Strategic Policy Development‟ it was queried why CCA not
           ITG was listed. It was also thought that the individual activities could be
           combined to a generic action that the Group will advise and influence policy
           development across Cumbria.

Agreed : a) Dave Robinson to amend the table; and
           b) Barney Hill to take comments to next OSG meeting.

5.1        Barney Hill outlined the Action Plan. The LDLAF comments on the plan were
           tabled. Comments from ITG were as follows:
              Cumbria LAF to discuss it at their full meeting on 5 December 2007. This is
               later than the planned deadline for LAF comments of 16 November.
              No apparent progress made by YDLAF to get comments back by 16

                                                                                           Page 3
Lake District National Park Local Access Forum 28 January 2008                    Agenda item: 9c

              Barney Hill wanted to sign off the AAP on 9 November but this was not
               possible because of the delay in receiving comments from two of the three
Agreed that: a).      AAP will be signed off at the January ITG meeting but in 2009 -
                      2010 the AAP planning timetable will allow for completion in
               b).    The delivery partners will then seek to include AAP activities in
                      their service plans, ready for an April start.
               c)     The delivery partners will also use the AAP to seek both internal
                      and external funding to enable the targets to be met.
               d)     The AAP will be put online as soon as it is signed off by the ITG.

5.2        Abi Mansley introduced the paper on scoring ROWIP Projects using Local
           Transport Plan criteria. It was explained that the projects chosen were not
           necessarily ROWIP top scorers and had been chosen on the basis of best fit with
           LTP funding. Barney Hill asked as to what scores were required in order to get
           funding. Abi explained that 30 + is required, and that only one project got near
           this figure (scores can range between -15 to + 50). Abi remarked that CCC
           highways staff felt the LTP scoring system should be reviewed and that she
           strongly agreed with this.
Agreed         Abi Mansley to prepare a paper on how best to secure LTP funding for
               ROWIP projects for the next ITG meeting
5.3        Detailed discussion was deferred to the next meeting. It was noted that BVPIs
           were changing and it was likely there would be no indicator for ROW.
Agreed:        Abi, Dave and Andy Ryland to identify the resources needed to capture
               data relevant to ROWIP indicators. This to provide the basis for a
               discussion of how resources might be pooled to provide this data on a
               Cumbria-wide basis.


7.1        This project is not a ROWIP priority, but it has significant partner support from
           YDNPA, North York Moors NPA, North Yorkshire CC and Yorkshire Forward.
           Barney explained that, in the light of this, the LDNPA has agreed in principle to
           the project, as long as it is a „quick win‟. In order to be satisfied that it is, he has
           asked the lead partner to fund a feasibility study that will identify the resources
           required for implementation, and the benefits that will accrue from the project.
           The study has now been commissioned. Once completed, the LDNPA and
           Cumbria County Council will then be able to make a decision as to whether to
           proceed as partners. The Group agreed that this was the right approach to take.

           Our next meeting will take place on Friday 18 January 2008 at Murley Moss at
           9.30 am.

                                                                                             Page 4
Lake District National Park Local Access Forum 28 January 2008                    Agenda item: 9c


                      2pm – 12th December 2007

Present:                                          David Gibson (Chair) Cumbria County Council
                             Simon Boyd (Secretary)      Cumbria County Council
                             Andrew Nicholson            Carlisle City Council (rural network)
                                   Nick Thorne                   Lake District National Park
                                   Andy Sims                     Capita Symonds Ltd
                             Paul Wilkinson                      Yorkshire Dales National Park
                             Kate Doughty                  Natural England

Apologies:                                          Lis Fell            representing the 3 Cumbria

1    Welcome and Apologies

     DJG welcomed everyone to the second meeting of the Cumbria
     Countryside Access Partnership Maintenance Task Group.

2    Minutes of Previous Meeting

     The minutes of the previous meeting held on 31st October 2007 were
     agreed as a true record.

3    Matters Arising

     AN asked whether his point on consistent standards had been followed up
     in regards the hierarchical system in operation within the City Council
     district. DJG had spoken to Phil Gray who will follow up directly with AN,
     DJG will chase.
     NT enquired whether the OSG minutes could be circulated in advance of
     MTG meetings so that any comments can be made from the wider group
     rather than just hearing the Chairman‟s report. SB will ensure that OSG
     minutes are circulated to the members of the task group.

4    Feedback from Partnership Board and Operational Steering Group
     DJG reported back from the last Operational Steering Group which was
     held on 21st November 2007, minutes of the first Partnership Board meeting
     held on the same date were not yet available:

                                                                                            Page 1
Lake District National Park Local Access Forum 28 January 2008                          Agenda item: 9c

            The Ramblers Association will be invited to attend all three task
             groups as members. The MTG were concerned that this would set a
             precedent for other user groups such as the British Horse Society.             DJG
            All Local Access Forums within Cumbria would equally be invited to
             have individual members on all three task groups.
            Simon Wilson had offered that the North Pennines AONB Unit could
             attend relevant meetings of the MPV sub group given their recent
             vulnerability mapping project.
            A statement referring to the ongoing „conflict of issue‟ was read out
             by Duncan Graham, Chairman of Cumbria LAF. The result is that
             currently Cumbria LAF has withdrawn from the CCA Partnership
             until a resolution has been reached
            The Ramblers Association will be invited to submit three ideas for
             indicators that can measure Countryside Access. The MTG thought
             that a shadow BVPI should be kept for compartive purposes across
             the county                                                                     DJG
            The Partnership Board agreed the following as priorities for Cumbria
             Countryside Access:
                     ROWiP implementaion and utlising other organisations to
                       help deliver projects and provide funding through the
                       lottery, sponsorship or the private sector. Due consideration
                       must also be given to the merging of the ROWiP with the
                       LTP. The Improvement and Maintenance task groups will
                       undertake much of the ROWiP work
                     Coastal access will be a priority, just not currently
                     North West Discovery Trail (NWDT) is a high priority and
                       needs to tie in with ROWiP priorities in terms of project work
                     The proposed coast to coast mountain bike route will also
                       be a priority subject to the findings of the feasibility study
                     Landscape Designation will be an important issue,
                       implications for Countryside Access will be discussed by
                       CCA. Individual access authorities will agree to submit
                       individual responses in any consultation exercise. KD will
                       find out the latest position from Natural England                     KD
                     Digital mapping in terms of asset management and service
                       delivery will be a key issue
                     Performance management including ICMAS was also a

     DJG reported that all the MTG amendments to the work programme were
     approved by the OSG.

     NT stated that the LDNPA has dedicated all its land as open access land
     and asked whether Cumbria County Council has done the same and
     whether the County Council will look to establish higher rights where there
     is demand. DJG will investigate this and report back at the next meeting.              DJG

     AN thought that dedications work on open access land to ascertain higher
     rights might be better addressed by the ITG. KD reported that Natural
     England was undertaking a project to map all rights across England.

     NT reported that under Discovering Lost Ways Natural England have taken
     papers to their Executive Board based on three workshops recently run to
                                                                                                  Page 2
Lake District National Park Local Access Forum 28 January 2008                       Agenda item: 9c

     assess the project. The Bridleways Society are doing similar work and
     perhaps the MTG could assist here.

5    Mechanically Propelled Vehicle Sub Group
     Sub Group Membership
     The MTG discussed the proposed membership list for the MPV Sub Group
     and suggested that the NFU and CLA be invited to put forward a
     representative landowner. KD will contact CLA and SB will contact the NFU          KD/SB
     and the North Pennines AONB Unit to see if they have any suggestions. SB
     will gather contact details for the proposed group and send out a letter of          SB
     invitation for membership.

     NT suggested that perhaps an area engineer should also sit on the sub
     group. DJG will investigate and report back at the next meeting.                    DJG

     Officers identified on the sub group could rotate as appropriate to ensure it
     remains user group focussed.

     Sub Group Terms of Reference
     AS asked why it was even necessary to have a MPV sub group. DJG stated
     that this group would continue the good work done previously by the Trails
     Management Advisory Group (TMAG) and the Hierarchy of Trails Group
     (HoTR) on a countywide basis.

     Tasks that need to be undertaken include finishing, compiling and
     publicisng the UCR survey, monitoring work, voluntary enforcement and
     investigating unsealed UCR‟s.

     AS suggested that the MPV sub group remit could be expanded to consider
     all rights on UCR routes. The MTG thought this could be a future task for
     the sub group.

     The MTG suggested the following as potential agenda items for the sub
     group to tackle:
         Surveying and reviewing of routes
         Voluntary restraints in the National Park
         UCR survey work
         Green Lane Advisory work in the Yorkshire Dales.

6    MTG Work Programme
     DJG suggested that the group tackle policy work for Rights of Way
     management on the February meeting agenda, looking to build uniform                  ALL
     procedures across the county.

     AN commented that water access is a priority for East Cumbria Countryside
     Access Project (ECCP). AN, if required would be happy to come along to
     the next meeting of the River Access Working Group (RAWG).

7    AOB
     A national view on the loss of the BVPI indicators will be sought at the
     County Surveyors Society in York on 13/12/07. DJG, NT and AS are all                 DJG
     attending and will report back at the next meeting.
                                                                                                Page 3
Lake District National Park Local Access Forum 28 January 2008                      Agenda item: 9c

8       Date of next Meeting
        The following meeting dates and venues have been confirmed:

        27th February 2008, 2pm, Windermere Room, Skirsgill Depot, Penrith.

        16th April 2008, 11am, Sedbergh Tourist Information Centre, Sedbergh (to
         be confirmed).

                                                                                              Page 4
Lake District National Park Local Access Forum 28 January 2008                     Agenda item: 9c


                          HELD AT CREA, PENRITH
                        10.00am – 12th November 2007

Present:              Simon Wilson (Chair)       North Pennines AONB Partnership
                            Paul Everson (Secretary)    North Pennines AONB Partnership
                            David Askew                 Arnside & Silverdale AONB
                            Andrea Bonacker             Cumbria County Council
                            Andrew Coleman              Cumbria County Council
                            John Bevan                  Cumbria Local Access Forum
                            Tony Brunskill              Cumbria Tourism
                            David Nightingale           East Cumbria Countryside Project
                            Judith Moore                Friends of the Lake District
                            David Robinson                     Lake District National Park
                             Kate Doughty                 Natural England
                             Peter Jones                  Ramblers Association
                             Rose Wolfe                   Solway Coast AONB
                             Andy Ryland                  Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority

9    Welcome, Apologies and Introductions

     SW welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the Promotion Task Group

     Apologies were received from: Nick Lloyd (LAFs); Jane Watson (National
     Trust); Joanne Moysey (Natural England); Claire Chapman (Tourism &
     Conservation Partnership).

10   Cumbria Countryside Access – Scene Setting

     AC updated the group on the structure of Cumbria Countryside Access

     AC described CCA as a broad, strategic partnership of many organisations,
     with an interest in countryside access issues within Cumbria, and provides
     an opportunity for communication and the sharing of best practice and
     resources. The Chairs of all 3 Task Groups have a seat on the Operational
     Steering Group (OSG).

     AC referred to the paper “Cumbria Countryside Access – Partnership
     Arrangements” (previously circulated) and described the overall structure
     (diagram on third page). A wider Reference Group will also be formed of all
     relevant user and interest groups. Representatives from this group will
     have an input into the work of CCA at the proposed annual CCA workshop
                                                                                             Page 1
Lake District National Park Local Access Forum 28 January 2008                       Agenda item: 9c

     (open to all interests and members of the public), and will be invited by the
     Task Groups from time to time to assist them in their work.

     AC referred to the paper “Structural Relationship and Operation of Cumbria
     Countryside Access Partnership” (previously circulated). The first round of
     Task Group meetings is now being held (this being the final one of the
     three). The OSG will meet every two months, with Task Groups meeting in
     between. Every third OSG meeting will be combined with a Partnership
     Board meeting.

     AC added that all Partnership arrangements will be reviewed after one year.

11   Draft Terms of Reference

     SW invited comments on the draft Terms of Reference (previously
     circulated), the format of which was based on those adopted by the
     Maintenance Task Group.

     Comments included:

             Aims of the Promotion Task Group:
            Incorporate the word „opportunities‟ into the first aim of the Group.
             i.e. „To ensure the Cumbria rights of way and access opportunities
             are well promoted to a consistently high standard‟
            Incorporate the word „joint‟ into the second aim of the Group.
             i.e. „To co-ordinate joint activity across the countryside access
             promotion sector‟.

             Remit of the Promotion Task Group:
            Add „where appropriate‟ to the end of the header text, as that would
             be applicable to all activities.
            Add an activity relating to „funding‟.
            Incorporate the words „develop and review‟ to the last activity.
             i.e. „align, develop and review policies and procedures‟.
            Move the 2 headers below the list of activities into the „Procedures‟

            All agreed, subject to incorporating the 2 headers from the above

             Frequency of Meetings:
            Agreed to be held every two months. Need to consider preferred
             day of week, and preferred time – i.e. am or pm.
            Consideration be given to email and teleconferencing for future

             Venue of Meetings:
            All agreed, though noted public transport difficulties.
            Agreed all to email PE with details of venue opportunities, and a
             note of where travelling from, to help identify the most convenient
             and sustainable venues for future meetings.

             Referral of Minutes:
            All agreed.
                                                                                               Page 2
Lake District National Park Local Access Forum 28 January 2008                     Agenda item: 9c

     SW will make the above changes, and present agreed ToR and present the
     document to the OSG

12   Promotion Task Group Work Programme
     SW invited comments on the draft Work Programme (previously circulated).

     JB remarked that this is very much a „mock-up‟ by the OSG and can be
     amended as necessary by the PTG.

     DR questioned whether it should, in reality, relate to 2008/09 rather than
     2007/08 as presented.

     JB suggested that the first step should be to review what is already being
     done. This will highlight any overlap or gaps. He suggested this be the
     sole task for 2007/08, and would lead to an actual Work Programme for
     2008/09. AR seconded this suggestion.

     There was some uncertainty over what should be shown in the expenditure            SW
     column. SW agreed to seek clarification on this from the OSG, in addition
     to advising them of the above proposal.

     JB queried why only long distance routes are referred to in the Work               SW
     Programme. Actions 28 and 29 of the ROWIP refer to both long and short
     distance routes in relation to the work of this group. JM echoed this
     concern. SW agreed to seek clarification.

     DN queried the activity relating to the Countryside Volunteer service and          SW
     sought assurance that this referred to volunteer services, not just Cumbria
     County Council Volunteer Service. SW assumed so, but agreed to seek
     clarification on this from the OSG.

     DR asked if all Task Groups were to be involved in Performance                     SW
     Management (or just the Improvement Task Group). SW agreed to seek
     clarification on this from the OSG.

13   Any other business
     DN commented that due to changing management structures etc., it might
     not always be possible for members of the PTG to give immediate priority to
     work from the group. This was noted.

     KD suggested thought be given to a county walking festival / promoting
     existing events and activities.

     SW suggested the need for the group to consider feedback from the
     promotion workshop attended by some members at Skirsgill depot. He will            SW
     locate this and present it at the next PTG meeting.

     JB raised the issue of how the PTG should advise the OSG to present CCA.
     He offered to provide a paper on this for discussion at the next meeting.          JB

14   Subsequent meeting arrangements

                                                                                             Page 3
Lake District National Park Local Access Forum 28 January 2008             Agenda item: 9c

     The next meeting will be held at 10am on Thursday 17th January 2008
     (venue TBC).

                                                                                     Page 4
Lake District National Park Local Access Forum 28 January 2008         Agenda item: 10

1.     Summary
       The LAF has received a request for information concerning the status of routes
       recorded on the Highways Act 1980 s36 List of Streets.

Recommendation             That a reply from the Forum as proposed below is sent
                           to the British Horse Society.

2.     Background
       According to the present terms of the CROW Act 2000, any route that on the 1
       January 2026 is shown on the s36 List of Streets but is not shown on the
       definitive map of public rights of way will have any unrecorded rights extinguished.
2.3.   On 21 November Mark Weston, Director of Access, Safety and Welfare at the
       British Horse Society wrote:
       I refer to the list of streets maintainable at public expense prepared under section
       36(6) of the Highways Act 1980. I would be grateful if you could let me know :-

       1.Whether you are taking any steps to ensure that your local highway authority
       will record those historic public rights of way, that are recorded on the List of
       Streets but not on the Definitive Map and Statement, are put onto the Definitive
       Map and Statement, as the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 does not
       provide for these to be preserved after the 2026 cut off date?

       2.Whether you have carried out an assessment of how many such routes your
       local highway authority has?

       3.If so how many routes does it have?

3.     Proposed Reply

1.     We are aware that some research has been done by the LDNPA to identify the
       extent of the network of 's36 streets' that are not vehicular and are not recorded
       on the Def. Map and Statement. We are also aware that DEFRA has drawn the
       attention of surveying authorities to the importance of doing this in advance of the
       2026 cut-off date.

2.     We understand that in association with other work the LDNPA has carried out an
       assessment of the possible number of such routes within the authority's territory.
       However, without more thorough study, it cannot be certain how accurate the
       results are.

3.     Indications are that in the LDNP territory there are approximately 65 's36 streets'
        over which the rights of the public may be in doubt, in that they are not otherwise
       presumed to be dedicated for motor vehicle use and are not on the Definitive Map
       and Statement. There are also an uncertain number of other routes, mainly
       in urban or semi-urban locations, that are currently regularly used by the public on
       foot, and / or horseback and / or with vehicles, but are not on either the LoS or the
       Def. Map and Statement.

                                                                                     Page: 1
Lake District National Park Local Access Forum 28 January 2008     Agenda item: 10

       More accurate information on this may be available from Cumbria County Council
       which has the direct responsibility for keeping the s36 List of Streets and for
       maintaining those routes.

     Background papers      None
     Author                 Geoff Wilson
     Date written           7 January 2008

                                                                                Page: 2
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                          Agenda Item: 11

1.        Summary
The AMGS is scheduled to end in March 2008. The Ramblers Association has written to
all Local Access Forums seeking support for the view that funding is needed to ensure
the continued smooth operation of the CROW Act 2000 rights, to maximise the benefits
of the legislation for the public and to meet the management needs of landowners and
nature conservation.
1.1       At the time of preparation of this paper Cumbria County Council has been asked
          to provide a summary of funding applied for / received by CCC under this scheme
          and the expenditure / purposes to which grant was put. CCC has also been
          requested to suggest what impact closure of the grant scheme in March will have
          on CCC's access management and what would be the impact if the grant scheme
          was to continue. It is hoped that this information will be supplied in advance of the
          forum meeting.
Recommendation That the LD LAF expresses its support for the continuation of
               the Access Management Grant Scheme and calls for a clear and
               immediate commitment to its extension in a letter to the
               chairman of Natural England.
2.        Background
2.1       The Access Management Grant Scheme (AMGS) was designed to support the
          implementation of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, under which the
          public were granted a right of access on foot to mapped areas of mountain, moor,
          heath, down and common land. The scheme provides both an incentive and a
          means of support for access authorities in making use of the powers that they
          have been given to manage the implementation of the new right of open access at
          a local level.
2.2       AMGS funding was available only to local authorities and not to national park
2.3       Funding priorities
          The AMGS scheme has five funding branches, covering everything from nature
          conservation to reducing the level of restrictions, and provides the ideal platform
          to think about all of these facets of access land use together. The five objectives
          of the scheme are:
         Protecting vulnerable features on nature conservation sites – research into the
          effect of increased access on sensitive species or habitats, often on designated
          areas like Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)
         Improving public safety – funding work into reducing the risk posed to the public,
          lessening the need for restrictions and investigating informal access management
         Reducing the level of land management restrictions – funding works where a
          restriction has been applied to lessen the likelihood of it being required again in
          the future
         Planning for fire prevention – providing proactive fire management and
          partnership working through the development of plans at an access authority level
         Making all other access land available for use – infrastructure and information
          provision, both on and off-site

                                                                                         Page: 1
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                            Agenda Item: 11

2.4    The funding has proved invaluable over the last three years, with some fifty
       authorities applying for over £3 million in support of their access land projects.
       Work on access land is a
2.5    statutory power rather than a duty and ongoing funding is essential to make sure
       that the access network remains open and accessible to as many people as
       possible. Without dedicated funding from the AMGS, money for this work would
       have to be found within the already stretched budgets of local authority rights of
       way departments, jeopardising future developments and threatening even the
       most basic maintenance.
2.6    Ramblers‟ Association survey results.
       The RA have been able to collect information that demonstrates the value of this
       funding. The RA sent a questionnaire to every local authority in England asking
       them about their experiences of using the scheme and how they adjusted during
       the suspension of funding in the summer of 20061. The results showed that:
                72% of the respondents who applied for AMGS funding said that their
                 ability to manage access land was compromised by its removal.
                18 Access Authorities (just under half of all the eligible respondents) had
                 projects that had to be suspended, or planned but never started, due to the
                 removal of AMGS funding.
                For many authorities, the withdrawal of AMGS funding meant that they
                 could no longer be proactive in their work on access land. This affected
                 their ability to make long-term plans and devise projects, forcing them to
                 be simple (and often selective) problem-solvers, reacting to issues as they
                 were raised and seeking the quickest and cheapest solution.
                The revelations from local authority officers were often stark. Some of the
                 comments include:
             o      “We have no budget for ongoing maintenance, therefore there is no
             o      “Posts were lost due to funding cuts”
             o      “Good opportunities to address access land issues were lost.”
             o      “The budget is only really available for statutory duties. AMGS funding
                    has allowed other projects to proceed which wouldn't have done
2.7    Local Access Forums – How can we help
       Local Access Forums (LAFs) are ideally placed to recognise the value of the
       AMGS and present a unified voice in the campaign to save and extend it. This
       funding benefits everyone with an interest in countryside access, both user
       groups and land managers, by improving the network and reducing the burden on
       local authorities. LAFs, as statutory advice-giving bodies and a resource of local

 The AMGS was suspended in the summer of 2006 during the formation of Natural England when a
wholesale reassessment of funding priorities was undertaken. This whole period was pretty chaotic
and quite widespread cuts were made. The AMGS was reinstated, in limited form, in October 2007,
but more as a means of mopping up some of the existing, unfinished projects, than appealing for new.

                                                                                             Page: 2
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                   Agenda Item: 11

expertise and knowledge, can also quiz local authorities on their own access land work
and promote project ideas that they would like to see implemented.

     Background papers      Letter and report from Ramblers Association
     Author                 Geoff Wilson
     Date written           06 January 2008

                                                                                  Page: 3
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                         Agenda Item: 12


1.     Summary
1.1    An application has been made to the Forestry Commission by Setcar Ltd. of
       Gowbarrow Hall, for grant to plant 6.42 hectares of woodland on Open Access
       land centred on GR NY414218 at Swinburns Park, Gowbarrow, Watermillock. The
       LDNPA is a consultee on such proposals and there is a process in place where
       the Local Access Forum are consulted and given the opportunity to give advice.

Recommendation That the LDLAF ratifies the advice given to the LDNPA Tree and
               Woodland Advisor in respect of application to plant woodland
               on CROW Act 2000 Open Access land at Swinburns Park,
               Gowbarrow, Watermillock.

2.     Background
2.1    The LDNPA‟s guidelines for responding to consultations received on proposals to
       establish woodland on CROW access land state that the value of the land for public
       access will be assessed by the Authority‟s Access & Recreation Manager in
       association with the Local Access Forum (LAF).
2.2    The Authority‟s Trees and Forestry Advisory Group will carry out a site visit in order to
       assist Officers in the assessment of the proposals. A LAF member will be invited to
       attend the site visit as a further opportunity to represent LAF‟s view.
2.3    On 21 November 2007 Geoff Wilson (Chair LDNP LAF), Hugh Taylor (LAF) Peter
       Jackson (LAF), and Arnold Lancaster (LAF), Marina Ramsden (Tree and Woodland
       Adviser, LDNPA), and John Hayton (Chair LDNPA Park Management Group),
       attended a site visit.
2.4    Subsequent to the site visit LAF members present at the visit collaborated over the
       form of advice to be submitted and the attached letter (Annex 1) was sent to the
       LDNPA‟s Tree and Woodland Advisor.

 Background papers           LDNPA guidelines for responding to consultations on proposals to
                             establish woodland on CROW access
 Author                      Geoff Wilson
 Date written                6 January 2008

                                                                                        Page 1
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                         Agenda Item: 12

Date 09 December 2007

Marina Ramsden
Tree and Woodland Adviser
Lake District National Park Authority

Dear Marina,
English Woodland Grant Scheme Case Reference Number 15664
This letter constitutes formal advice from the Lake District Local Access Forum. The LDNPA
is required, in accordance with section 94(5) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000,
to have regard to relevant advice from this forum in carrying out its functions.
This advice results from a site visit conducted on Wednesday 21 November 2007.
Present: John Hayton (Chair- LDNPA Park Management Group), Geoff Wilson (Chair LDNP
LAF), Hugh Taylor (LAF Member) Peter Jackson (LAF Member), and Arnold Lancaster (LAF
Member), Marina Ramsden (Tree and Woodland Adviser, LDNPA).
An application has been made to the Forestry Commission by Setcar Ltd. of Gowbarrow Hall,
for grant to plant 6.42 hectares of woodland on Open Access land centred on GR NY414218.
The LDNPA is a consultee on such proposals and there is a process in place where the
Local Access Forum are consulted and given the opportunity to give advice.
The site at Swinburns Park is on land dedicated open country with a footpath through the
centre of the site. It is bounded by conifers on one side and by heather moorland, bracken
and scattered native trees on the other.
The proposal is to plant a new native woodland on this site with a species mix of 25% Ash, 5
% field maple, 5 hazel, 20% open ground, 25% Sessile Oak, 10% Rowan, 5% Silver Birch
and 5% Wild Cherry Gean.
The Site as observed by LAF members.
The area proposed for planting can be seen as a break in conifer plantation from the main
road by the Lakefield Guest House on the shores of Ullswater. The Watermillock area is a
patchwork of plantations.
The approach to Swinburns Park from Watermillock Church passes two recently planted
parcels of ground, a black conifer plantation, views a larger open intake [not in Open Access
territory] for which planting is also being applied for, travels through a larger black conifer
plantation accessed by step stiles and a dog-bob, before arriving at the area proposed for
planting which is a narrow strip of „intake ground‟ running from the valley bottom to almost
the skyline.
The planting site is crossed by the RoW running from Watermillock Church to Aira Force.
Access to the intake is by step-stile over a post and wire fence from the conifer east side,
and by ladder stile over a strong boundary wall from the west.
The area in question is mainly covered in bracken with small parcels of Bent grass, bilberry
and Sphagnum Moss and very much undergrazed.

                                                                               Annex 1: Page 1
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                          Agenda Item: 12

Access related comments / advice from LAF representatives
LAF representatives can see no reason why consent for planting should not be granted, and
make the following comments –
1.     If and when established it will ease the sharp black line of the conifer plantation.
2.     Planting should be kept away from the wall. Tree roots and wall never did work
3.     The lightly used path / quad bike track up the fell side in the middle of the proposed
       planted area should be provided with a gate where it crosses the proposed top
       boundary fence.
4.     As it is „Open Access‟ now, open access should be maintained. Dedication of the
       proposed planted area as Open Access should be a condition of granting the
       application. This is a key concern.
5.     It is not clear from the proposal whether the ROW will be fenced on either side to
       provide a corridor through the wood. We would resist this proposal as access will be
       required from this ROW to the picnic area just to the N of the ROW, the viewing area
       50m to the S of the ROW, and the track running up the fell side
6.     It is noted that areas of open ground will be provided. Wherever else these are
       provided, we request that they are provided as follows
       (i) The slightly raised area 50m to the south of the ROW, and access to it from the
       ROW, should be left clear. The view to the S of this down the slope to the lake should
       be still available. It is suggested that low growing Juniper, or similar, may be suitable
       around this area.
       (ii) Around the stream just to the N of the ROW that is used for picnic stops
       (iii) The lightly used path/quad bike track in 3 above.
7.     Any fencing required should be removed after the fifteen year planting regeneration
       time is over. Grant of application should include clear details of who will be
       responsible for removal of any fencing and guards and for the enforcement of this
       requirement. This is a key concern. The LAF will welcome being advised of the
       specific terms of this requirement.
Other comments which may be outside of the LAF’s remit.
1.     Whilst accepting that the range of trees suggested for planting may be based on
       sound ecological reasons, the LAF suggest a broader range of trees be planted.
       These should include a few fruit and berry trees to help with the wildlife winter larder
       such as Crab-apple and Hawthorn, and the odd Beech tree.
2.     The LAF understands that it may be policy for the NPA not to allow planting on „Open
       Access land. With a bonus on Single Farm Payment for woodland management, plus
       diversification incomes into „woodland management‟ grants such as this one, it is
       expected that the farming industry will find tree planting financially beneficial in the
       future. The LAF looks forward to assessing future applications, and hope that they
       can help farmers to continue making a living from the land.
3.     The gap between the wall and the new plant will add to view availability and provide
       alternative habitat.
Geoff Wilson
Chair,           Lake             District            Local             Access                Forum

                                                                                 Annex 1: Page 2
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                          Agenda Item: 13


                 Note the following live consultations, together with the consultation responses and
 Proposal that
 Forum           written representations made since the last Forum meeting:

                 1     Live Consultations (deadline and lead Forum member)


                 2     Consultation responses (deadline has passed) (lead Forum member)
                       See website for LAF and LDNPA responses
                 a)    Defra consultation on proposals to improve Access to the English Coast
                       (Geoff Wilson)
                       Full response is on the web
                 b)    Woodland and Scrub proposals on access land
                       1 Mungrisdale Common, further response (Geoff Wilson)
                       Full Forum Response is on the web: Support in general
                       2 Proposal to establish woodland at Swinburns Park, Gowbarrow Hall,
                       Watermillock (Geoff Wilson)
                       Ratification of the Forum’s response is on the agenda
                 c)    Establishment of National Access Forum
                       No Forum response
                 d)    LAF Handbook
                       Response from the Chairman is on the web
                 e)    LDNPA‟s Rights of Way consultations(Charles Flanagan)
                       1 Modification of Bridleway at High Close, Bassenthwaite
                       Forum responded with no comment. Response is on the web
                       2 Proposed diversion of footpaths ,Broad Oak Crossthwaite and Lyth Parish
                       Forum objects. Response is on the web
                       3 Diversion of footpath at Lowthwaite Matterdale
                       Draft Forum response is on the agenda. Time extension requested.
                       4.Diversion of footpaths at High Bethacar, Colton
                       Forum supports. Response is on the web
                 3    Written representations on behalf of the Forum


                                                                                             Page: 1
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                     Agenda Item: 13

Background papers        None
Author                   Stephanie Conway Countryside Administrator
Date written             3 January 2008

                                                                                        Page: 2
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                                                              Agenda Item: 14

1      Summary
1.1    This report briefly summarises exclusions and restrictions on open access areas in the
       Lake District National Park.
2      Background
2.1    Where land is designated as open access, there are a variety of reasons why a person with

       a legal interest may wish to restrict or exclude access. Most of these reasons can be

       successfully addressed by targeted access management. But in some instances access

       management on its own may be insufficient, or relying on it alone would place an

       unreasonable burden or cost on the land manager. In these instances it is possible for

       access rights to be restricted or for exclusions to be applied.

2.2    We (The Lake District National Park Authority) are the relevant authority for dealing

       with directions to restrict access. However, the Forestry Commission is the relevant

       authority for their land, and any other woodland dedicated as access land under the

       Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000. Discretionary (up to 28 day) restrictions can be

       imposed by any landowner.

3      Applications and determinations
3.1    For where we are the relevant authority
       We have not received any applications since the last report.
3.2    For where the Forestry Commission is the relevant authority
       The Forestry Commission impose directions where felling or sporting activities are likely to cause a public safety issue (for example:
       motor rally events). There has only been one new direction since the last report (1 day closure of forests for the Grizedale Stages
       Rally). All outline directions still valid during 2007 are listed in Annexes 1A & B – with updates on whether they have been
       activated, and if so, when.

3.3    Discretionary restrictions
       Discretionary restrictions are managed by landowners and/or occupiers. There have been none applied since the last report (Annex 2).

Background papers               None
Author                          Nick Thorne, LDNPA Access & Rights of Way Officer
Date written                    8 January 2008

                                                                                                                                  Page: 1
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                                                                                      Agenda Item: 14


Outline direction:   This is a direction given to restrict access to parcels of land in advance of the restriction actually coming into effect. The dates
                     show the time within which the restriction may come into force, and the maximum length is the total number of days when the
                     restriction may be applied. So, for case 2005100011, the Forestry Commission had three years in which to close the land – but
                     could not close it for more than 181 days.

Activation period: This is time during which the direction was activated, that is: the time when the land was actually closed. So, for case 205100011,
                   the whole of the 181 days allowable were used between 6/10/05 and 4/4/06. As the total number of days have been used, the
                   direction has expired – and the date the days ran out is indicated in the final column.

                     This may not always be the case. For example; 2006020075 has a maximum of 366 days in which the land may be closed – but
                     only 40 have been used so far. Therefore, the Forestry Commission could, if necessary, close the land for a further 326 days
                     before the expiry date of 14/12/11. However, it is likely that they will not use all the days, and the direction will expire on

                     Another scenario is when the same outline direction is used at intervals. This is most likely with rally routes (for example:
                     2006010016) where the closure is only for one or two days a year.

Expired:             This is either the date at which all the allowable days have been used, or the date on which the outline direction ended.

Expires:             This will be the date at which the outline direction will end, either because all of the allowable days will have been used, or
                     because the end date of the direction will have been reached. It is included to make it easy to work out which ones have actually
                     expired at each reporting stage.

                                                                                                                                            Annex 1: Page 1
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                                                                                         Agenda Item: 14


Listed in order of date expired.

                                        Outline Direction
                                                                                                                    Activation period
                                               Dates             Max.
  Case No            Location         Start date End date       Length           Reason cited & comments          Date        Date                   Expired
                                                                (days)                                            closure     closure
                                                                                                                  started     finished
2005120070    Matterdale              01/03/06   01/09/07   50           Felling                                  16/11/06    04/01/07     50       04/01/07
2006090029    Whinlatter & Comb       16/10/06   24/01/07   40           Public safety (rally)                                                      24/01/07
2006010173    Irton Pike windblow     03/07/06   24/01/07   181          Tree felling                             24/01/07    09/02/07     9        09/02/07
2007010220    Whinlatter Forest       02/03/07   03/03/07   2            Rally car testing                        02/03/07    03/03/07     2        03/03/07
2007010221    Hobcarton               02/03/07   03/03/07   2            Rally car testing                        02/03/07    03/03/07     2        03/03/07
2007010222    Grizedale West          02/03/07   03/03/07   2            Rally car testing                        02/03/07    03/03/07     2        03/03/07
2006120097    Grizedale Forest Park   01/04/07   01/04/11   180          Tree felling                             01/04/07    31/07/07     58       27/09/07
2005090208    Blengdale               01/11/05   01/11/07   60           Felling                                  Not         Not          0        01/11/07
                                                                                                                  activated   activated
2007100009    Grizedale & Broughton   07/12/07   08/12/07   1            Public safety (Grizedale Stages Rally)   07/12/07    08/12/07     1        08/12/07
2006010175    Far Moorend             12/05/06   24/12/07   Unknown      Timber harvesting                        Not         Not          0        24/12/07
                                                                                                                  activated   activated
2006010177    Goat Gill East,         12/05/06   24/12/07   181          Timber harvesting                        Not         Not          0        24/12/07
              Ennerdale                                                                                           activated   activated
2006030124    Goat Gill West,         12/05/06   24/12/07   181          Tree felling                             Not         Not          0        24/12/07
              Ennerdale                                                                                           activated   activated

                                                                                                                                                Annex 1: Page 2
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                                                                                                Agenda Item: 14


Listed in case number order.

                                         Outline Direction
                                                                                                                             Activation period

                                                Dates          Max.

  Case No           Location           Start date End date    Length              Reason cited & comments                  Date       Date                     Expires
                                                              (days)                                                       closure    closure
                                                                                                                           started    finishes
2005090299   Browswood                 12/03/06   11/03/09   150       Timber harvesting                                                                      11/03/09
2005120067   Cropple How               01/06/06   31/05/08   Long-     Public safety (tree felling). This is a long-term   01/06/06   31/05/08      578       31/05/08
                                                             term      closure (more than 6 months) on which we and
                                                                       the LAF were consulted.
2006010016   Lorton – Thornthwaite     05/01/06   30/11/10   50        Aitken rally                                                                           30/11/10
2006010204   Lowther Park Rally        03/02/06   31/1/11    50        Rally                                               13/06/06   13/06/06      1         31/01/11
             Route                                                                                                         19/06/06   19/06/06      1
                                                                                                                           05/09/06   05/09/06      1
2006020044   Hospital Rally route      06/02/06   05/02/11   50        Fast moving rally cars                              12/06/06   12/06/06      1         05/02/11
                                                                                                                           09/11/06   10/11/06      1
2006020046   Hobcarton Rally route     06/02/06   05/02/11   50        Fast moving rally cars                              10/3/06    10/3/06       1         05/02/11
                                                                                                                           12/06/06   12/06/06      1
                                                                                                                           09/11/06   09/11/06      1
2006020048   Masmill Rally Route       06/02/06   05/02/11   50        Fast moving rally cars                              12/06/06   12/06/06      1         05/02/11
                                                                                                                           09/11/06   10/11/06      2
2006020064   Aiken plantation          13/02/06   12/02/09   366       Tree felling                                        08/03/06   05/05/06      40        12/02/09
2006020068   Spout Force               13/02/06   12/02/09   366       Tree felling and extraction                         20/04/06   24/07/06      84        12/02/09
2006020075   Beckstones Plantation –   15/02/06   14/12/11   366       Tree felling                                        08/03/06   12/04/06      40        14/12/11
             Barf Spout
2006020094   Blengdale Forest          01/03/06   31/03/08   366       Tree felling                                                                           31/03/08
2006020096   Blengdale Forest          01/03/06   31/03/08   181       Tree felling                                        14/03/07   10/09/07      181       31/03/08
2006020098   Blengdale Forest          01/03/06   01/03/08   366       Tree felling                                                                           01/03/08
2006020101   Blengdale Forest          01/03/06   01/03/08   181       Tree felling                                        09/03/07   13/03/07      181       01/03/08
2006020193   Rookin House Farm,        01/03/06   28/02/11   366       Rally cars                                          08/03/06   08/03/06      1         28/02/11
             Matterdale                                                                                                    31/08/06   31/08/06      1

                                                                                                                                                    Annex 1: Page 3
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                                                                                    Agenda Item: 14


Listed in case number order.

2006030229   Masmill Oaks,           01/04/06   31/01/08   60    Tree felling                                      15/05/06   13/07/06   31    31/01/08
2006040026   Whinlatter PR           04/04/06   03/04/11   50    PR Rally route                                    20/04/06   20/04/06   1     03/04/11
                                                                                                                   14/06/06   14/06/06   3
                                                                                                                   14/09/06   14/090/6   1
                                                                                                                   09/11/06   09/11/06   1
                                                                                                                   06/12/06   06/12/06   1
2006040032   Hobcarton Loop          04/04/06   05/04/11   50    Rally route                                       12/06/06   12/06/06   1     05/04/11
                                                                                                                   19/04/06   19/04/06   1
                                                                                                                   09/11/06   09/11/06   1
2006110018   Darling How             10/11/06   09/11/11   20    Safety Reasons (rally testing)                    11/11/06   11/11/06   1     09/11/11
                                                                                                                   10/11/07   10/11/07   2
2006120100   Grizedale Smooth Knot   01/04/06   01/04/11   180   Tree felling                                                                  01/04/11
2007010032   Broughton Moor Forest   01/04/07   31/03/12   180   Tree felling                                                                  31/03/12
2007010083   Setmurthy               01/04/07   31/03/10   181   Tree felling                                      25/05/07   17/08/07   96    31/03/10
2007010122   Whinlatter Forest       18/01/07   17/01/12   10    No reason given other than the FC are satisfied   17/02/07   17/02/07   1     17/01/12
                                                                 – presumably rally testing
2007010163   Bowness West            01/04/07   01/04/09   25    Public safety (rally?)                                                        01/04/09
2007010169   Cat Crags               01/04/07   01/04/09   30    Public safety (rally?)                                                        01/04/09
2007010171   High Beck               01/04/07   01/04/09   120   Public safety (tree felling ?)                                                01/04/09
2007010157   Smithy Beck             01/04/07   01/04/09   55    Tree felling and timber extraction                                            01/04/09
2007010174   Bowness Top             01/04/07   01/04/09   170   Tree felling                                                                  01/04/09
2007010188   Hospital Fell           29/01/07   31/12/09   50    Rally car testing                                 29/01/07   01/02/07   3     31/12/09
2007010198   Ashcrag Holme           01/04/07   01/04/09   90    Public safety (probably tree felling)             06/11/07   06/11/07   1     01/04/09
2007010200   Middle Bridge South     01/04/07   01/04/09   70    Public safety (probably tree felling)                                         01/04/09
2007010202   Middle Bridge North     01/04/07   01/04/09   45    Danger to public safety (rallying?)                                           01/04/09

                                                                                                                                         Annex 1: Page 4
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                                                                                    Agenda Item: 14


Listed in date order.

                                                                     Cumulative days on this
                                            Dates           Length
  Case No               Location                                      parcel of land in year                     Reason cited & comments
                                    Start date   End date               (maximum is 28)
2007050162    Latrigg               19/05/07     25/05/07     6                  6             Launching and flying of gliders
2007080045    Latrigg               15/09/07     15/09/07     1                  7             Launching and flying of gliders
2007080045    Latrigg               17/09/07     22/09/07     6                 13             Launching and flying of gliders

                                                                                                                                           Annex 2: Page 1
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                               Agenda Item: 15

1      Update from the Chair
1.1    Geoff Wilson will give an oral update, based on his report in Annex 1.
2      Update from Members
2.1    Ken Taylor
       Ken is:
          undertaking an assessment of the feasibility of creatingan intermediate standard
           mountain bike route between SW Cumbria and E Yorkshire
          evaluating the content and coverage of Welsh RoWIPs

       Background papers      None
       Author                 Stephanie Conway, Countryside Administrator
       Date written           11 October 2007

                                                                                        Page: 1
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                                       Agenda Item: 15

    ANNEX 1
    Chairman’s report

Access to Coast

As agreed at our last meeting I wrote on 31 October to DEFRA asking for clarification and assurance that
LAF consultation comments had been taken into account prior to the Minister making an announcement
concerning the government‟s approach to pursuing access to coast. You each were sent a copy. I received
neither acknowledgment nor reply to my letter, but an answer of sorts is included amongst a list of
frequently asked question son DEFRA‟s Access to English Coast web-pages. It says:

How was a decision made on the way forward so soon after the consultation closed?

Analysis of the responses to the consultation began before the consultation closed. From analysis the
conclusion was that the overall weight of the responses was in support of Natural England’s
recommendation that new legislation was the best way forward for improving coastal access.

Before the consultation was launched, Ministers had said that they were attracted by the option for new
legislation. Analysis of the responses did nothing to change this view.

So there you have it. You‟ll make your own judgements I expect.
A full summary of responses is now available at

Conservation, Access & Recreation on United Utilities Land
I received an invitation to attend United Utilities‟ annual Conservation, Access and Recreation conference
at Lingley Mere in Warrington on 26 November. I wasn‟t able to attend, however notes on the conference
and copies of the various presentations made at the conference can be found at It is an interest set of web-pages.

Liaison with Northern Regions Local Access Forums.

I attempt to maintain contacts with other Local Access Forums in the area; especially with the
Cumbria LAF and the Yorkshire Dales Access Forum. Natural England, in conjunction with the
Local Government Association (LGA), encourages LAFs to form loose regional groupings, with
one local highway authority (LHA) in each of eight regions acting as a co-ordinator and regional
liaison point for matters affecting LAFs. Recently Simon Boyd (Cumbria County Council's

                                                                                         Annex 1: Page 1
Lake District Local Access Forum: 28 January 2008                                       Agenda Item: 15


Countryside Access Partnership Officer) has taken on this role in a voluntary capacity to help
provide support and improve communication between LAFs within the NW region.

Cumbria Countryside Access

The Cumbria Local Access Forum has continued to pursue through the LDNPA an allegation
that there is a conflict of interest in me being a member of a local access forum, and in
representing local access forum interests at the Cumbria Countryside Access partnership, while
also being in part-time employment by what is referred to as a „main agent of the County
Council‟. The NP Authority has rejected the allegations, on the basis that they are aware of the
situation and that secure arrangements are in place for forum members to declare conflcts of
interest when necessary.

Yorkshire Dales National Park Local Access Forum.

Following a selection „interview‟ on 7 December I have been reselected as a member of the
Yorkshire Dales Local Access Forum for the next three years. Members of that forum are aware
that I will no longer be available to chair the forum.

Woodland & Scrub Proposals, Mungrisdale Common
Following from our workshop and decision at the 29 October forum meeting I delivered a letter (dated 26
November) to Natural England (Rob Vatcher – Penrith) detailing the forum‟s further comments relating to
access points to the proposed planting areas.
Natural England‟s Proposals document has now been revised, and so far as can be ascertained includes all
the points made by this forum in our first advice paper dated 29 August 2007 and in the 26 November
2007 letter. I hope to have a copy of the most recent version of the Proposals document available at the 28
January forum meeting.

Other Matters
The other matters that I have dealt with since our last meeting are evident in a number of other
items on the agenda paper for the 28 January meeting.
 Background papers              None
 Author                         Geoff Wilson
 Date written                   9 January 2008

                                                                                         Annex 1: Page 2