Charnwood Forest Regional Park : Topic Paper 3 : Governance : Stakeholder Consultation Responses

APPENDIX

CHARNWOOD FOREST REGIONAL PARK : TOPIC PAPER 3 : GOVERNANCE : STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION RESPONSES

CFRP = Charnwood Forest Regional Park LDF = Local Development Framework LCC = Leicestershire County Council

Name/organisation Comments by question number Response Max Hunt CC TP3/1

Loughborough NW Division, LCC I agree No response required.

TP3/2

None, I believe the steering group should be consultative, but decisions Noted. are best made by the parties outlined in the paper

TP3/3

None at this time No response required.

Roy Denney TP3/1

Chair Leics Local Access Forum I cannot help but fear we are just creating more tiers of bureaucracy. Previous stakeholder The Environment Hub is in effect already a steering group at the strategic events and consultations Chair Leics & Rutland Ramblers level and if we feel we need a stakeholder group we already have one have identified a need Association in the Leicestershire Local Access Forum for a group with a Charnwood Forest focus. Member National Forest Access There must be a tight operation team of officers and an Executive to The Environment Hub is 1 E:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000135\M00003125\AI00028537\$aqiv131u.doc APPENDIX

& Recreation Group oversee their day to day activities. There are pros and cons as to whether still under development. this should be one individual or a small executive committee of no more Although it will cover Member Leics Orienteering Club than 7. If we decided on a committee it would in effect be your steering “Natural and Historic Committee group. Environment” issues this will be at a strategic I note the feeling that parish councils should be involved but do not level, which will not know how many parishes there actually are within the Charnwood Forest necessarily be an area as we have defined it. There are bound to be quite a few and if appropriate level for the they are all to be represented then any steering group would be Regional Park. unwieldy In the short/medium term The LCC already has an annual evening when the parishes are all invited covered by the TP3 into County Hall and the matter of the park could just be an agenda proposals, the Executive item at that meeting affording the parishes a chance to make their views officer team structure is known not financially viable.

I think the Access Forum could be the steering group and any member The established wider of a parish council particularly wanting to get involved could join the stakeholder body, which Forum. I have always thought that each District Council should have a TP3 proposes should representative on the Access Forum so that organisation could be continue, is open to expanded to allow for this and that the Executive Committee should representatives from then be elected from within the forum with one councillor from the LCC Charnwood Forest Parish and one from each District Council within the park being put forward Councils. with between one and three other members being also elected to the executive. As above – the importance of This way the LCC and all the Districts would be part of the executive with Charnwood Forest is felt other stakeholders also represented to justify a separate group. Although access is an important issue within Charnwood Forest, there are other important issues too, which the steering 2 E:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000135\M00003125\AI00028537\$aqiv131u.doc APPENDIX

group will have to consider.

TP3/2

I have given my preferred option in the previous answer in that I think organisations should be represented on the Stakeholder Group and that people from that group should be elected to the steering group to support the officers. Noted. However if we are to go down your suggested structure then I would still wish to contain the steering group within manageable numbers. The District Councillors represent the people of the area so I think beyond the present make up the others should represent special interest groups. It is acknowledged that The sort of people we might include are those on the Access Forum there will almost certainly already. That body has user groups, environmentalists, the NFU, be some level of landowners and tenant farmers and the steering group should perhaps membership overlap. be looking at something similar. A further report on details Perhaps a member of the Country Landowners & Business Association, of the proposed one from the NFU, one from the Wildlife Trust and if the Access Forum is membership of the new not to be actually used as part of this structure then a representative of steering group will be the Forum should be included as it is a Statutory Consultee. taken to Cabinet in autumn 2011. As at present a case can certainly be made for the National Forest Company given their project overlaps ours to such an extent and Natural England and English Heritage have their direct interests to represent.

This then just leaves the user groups, which predominantly means sport and recreation. They could be deemed to be represented by the Forum as they have the chance to be members of the Forum. The steering group under this structure would already be eleven strong and I would think large enough but not too large to be effective. 3 E:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000135\M00003125\AI00028537\$aqiv131u.doc APPENDIX

If you do feel it should be further expanded then the principal sporting interests using the Forest are shooters, runners and orienteers, ramblers and horse riders. We could invite a representative of each of these but how they would select from within the various clubs would be problematical in exactly the same way it would be deciding which Parish Council should be invited if that was also felt appropriate. Perhaps the user groups should be restricted to those with a regional structure where the county organisation could nominate a representative. Alternatively it could be restricted to those which are themselves, Statutory Consultees.

Another organisation which might well justify a presence might be the Woodland Trust.

TP3/3

I would like to suggest a different name for the Park. Regional sounds Noted. overbearing and adds no value and I would just call it the Charnwood To be taken forward for Forest Park consideration by the new steering group. Tony Lockley TP3/1 LCC Agree with the proposed course of action No response required.

TP3/2

Aggregate industry Noted.

NFU A further report on details of the proposed CLAB membership of the new steering group will be STWA taken to Cabinet in

4 E:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000135\M00003125\AI00028537\$aqiv131u.doc APPENDIX

autumn 2011. EA

House builders federation – Leicestershire branch TP3/3

Well done . No response required. Tina Boddington TP3/1 FWAG No response required. It would seem that the do nothing course of action may mean Charnwood misses out on future opportunities therefore the proposal is supported. TP3/2

FWAG would like to be involved – we hope we would be able to meet Noted. the 2 meetings per year commitment. A further report on details of the proposed membership of the new steering group will be taken to Cabinet in autumn 2011. TP3/3

Climate change does not seem to be mentioned specifically in the Noted. paper. This will be an area of growing importance as the UK’s legally The objectives set out binding target of 80% reductions in Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, within the Vision comes closer. There are more immediate carbon budget figures and Statement refer to the renewable targets to be met. need for sustainable One area to consider could be how landowners adopt initiatives that leisure and tourism within help combat climate change whilst still encouraging the biodiversity and the Forest. habitat priorities of Charnwood Forest Regional Park. Climate change could be considered in more detail as individual

5 E:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000135\M00003125\AI00028537\$aqiv131u.doc APPENDIX

initiatives are taken forward. Peter H Gamble TP3/1 Loughborough Naturalists’ Club Yes No response required. TP3/2

Leicestershire & Rutland Trust for Nature Conservation – owns and Noted. manages large areas of the Charnwood Forest eg Charnwood Lodge A further report on details National Nature Reserve and Ulverscroft and Lea Meadows Nature of the proposed Reserves etc. membership of the new Loughborough Naturalists’ Club – has carried out surveys of the ecology steering group will be of many of the most important wildlife sites on the Charnwood Forest, taken to Cabinet in including field by field surveys, over the past 50 years. autumn 2011. TP3/2

The NFU feels that landowners and farmers need to be represented on Noted. the proposed steering group. We believe that this group is so important A further report on details to the success of the proposed regional park that the NFU and CLA of the proposed should have one place each on the steering group. As far as the NFU is membership of the new concerned we would try to ensure a local farmer from within the steering group will be

6 E:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000135\M00003125\AI00028537\$aqiv131u.doc APPENDIX

proposed park boundaries is put forward. taken to Cabinet in autumn 2011. TP3/3

No response given No response required. R A Howard TP3/1 Chairman Friends of Charnwood Forest Yes No response required. TP3/2 Noted. Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust A further report on details of the proposed membership of the new steering group will be taken to Cabinet in autumn 2011. TP3/3

No No response required. Kate Moore and Cathy Schou TP3/1 Parish Heritage Wardens Woodhouse Parish Council We think that the original proposed course of action is sound despite the Noted. current economic conditions. We strongly believe that the work so far should not be lost. It seems foolish to break up this strong working group which would make the core Management Committee for any future initiatives. The short to medium term plan sounds realistic and gives the working group the opportunity to bid for more substantial funding, such as the potential Ecological Restoration Zones.

We would recommend that it should continue in some form without any significant pause. TP3/2 Noted.

7 E:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000135\M00003125\AI00028537\$aqiv131u.doc APPENDIX

We agree with the idea of a structure that includes a small management board with a wider partnership adding strength to different specialist A further report on details areas but also extend this to a broad stakeholder group which would of the proposed encourage wider community participation. To this end it would be membership of the new advisable if a dedicated officer could be supported to carry out the steering group will be work. taken to Cabinet in autumn 2011.

Other organisations that could be represented include local universities It is likely that wider who could have a role to play within the steering group and also may community participation open up new opportunities for funding within a partnership. Second, could only be achieved if Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust should also be invited to provide funding was available for stronger links to the Living Landscapes scheme. a dedicated project officer. However, the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) bid for the Charnwood Roots Project, being co- ordinated by the Victoria County History group. There may be an opportunity to apply for support for works in the Charnwood Forest Regional Park through the “Landscape Partnership” HLF route too. If such a bid were successful it would provide funding for a member of staff.

8 E:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000135\M00003125\AI00028537\$aqiv131u.doc APPENDIX

TP3/3

We think it advantageous to maintain grass roots interest and No response required. involvement. For instance, drawing media attention to the notion of a Charnwood Forest Regional Park could in itself establish an identity and generate support for this project. No response required. Establishment of Charnwood as a Regional Park would help to protect the natural and historical heritage of the area whilst also encouraging suitable and sustainable economic growth.

Chris Peat TP3/1 Open Spaces Society Yes. No response required. Other courses of action not necessary. TP3/2

Initial suggestions were: Noted. Leicestershire & Rutland Wildlife Trust A landowners’ organisation; possibly the NFU or CLA A further report on details A public access organisation, possibly the Ramblers of the proposed A representative of the aggregates industry. membership of the new steering group will be However, it could be argued that additional representatives are not taken to Cabinet in necessary at this stage, as (i) the above groups are already involved in autumn 2011. partnership projects of one kind or another; (ii) the CFRP is likely to remain a strategic planning device for the next few years, and (iii) through their See above response existing functions, existing members of the steering group have access to the information, expertise and resources necessary to take the project forward.

9 E:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000135\M00003125\AI00028537\$aqiv131u.doc APPENDIX

TP3/3 No response needed

The Open Spaces Society strongly supports the creation of the CFRP. No response needed

The OSS recognises the achievement of the steering group in bringing the project forward to this stage, and ensuring that the CFRP is recognised in adopted and emerging local planning policies. Noted

The OSS does not support the suggestion that the steering group might be disbanded, and the project abandoned. The OSS believes that proceeding with this project at this time will demonstrate the commitment of the partner organisations and the importance attached A further report on details to the CFRP concept by local organisations and stakeholders. of the proposed membership of the new The OSS considers that elected members already have direct steering group will be involvement in the Steering Group through their appointed Officers, and taken to Cabinet in the normal conduct of Council business and consideration of reports. autumn 2011. Many elected members are already involved in user groups and potential partner organisations. No response needed

The OSS agrees with the proposals set out in Topic Paper 3. No response needed

The OSS supports the name Charnwood Forest Park. A further report on details of the proposed The OSS would be happy to be represented on the stakeholder group, membership of the new and is prepared to send a representative to two meetings a year. steering group will be taken to Cabinet in autumn 2011.

Michael Jeeves TP3/1 10 E:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000135\M00003125\AI00028537\$aqiv131u.doc APPENDIX

Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust Yes, but still investigate the possibility of obtaining Geopark status. This Noted would more appropriately recognise Charnwood Forest’s international To be taken forward for importance. consideration by the new steering group.

TP3/2

Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust Noted.

Friends of Charnwood Forest A further report on details British Geological Survey of the proposed membership of the new Bradgate Park Trust steering group will be taken to Cabinet in Local quarry companies autumn 2011.

NfU

CLA TP3/3 No response required. No CPRE TP3/1 No response required. No response TP3/2 No response required. No response TP3/3

The Regional Park presents an interesting problem in that there’s no

11 E:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000135\M00003125\AI00028537\$aqiv131u.doc APPENDIX

specific template – and Charnwood Forest is a unique area.

It is desirable that each local authority should agree to incorporate an These are local planning LDF document, enforcing strict protective measures for the Forest. Also, issues for which each that a ring or buffer zone is incorporated into this and thus avoid District Council is development pressures right up to the boundary, as at Coalville and responsible. Shepshed, plus emerging threats on the western side of Loughborough (The Outwoods) and at the southern end of the Forest (Ratby/Groby/Markfield).

The Forest has seen some very grandiose developments where modest These are local planning houses have had their footprints considerably enlarged. These and very issues for which each large and opulent new dwellings in the Forest ‘shout out’ and do nothing District Council is to enhance the landscape character. Unless precautions are taken, the responsible. Forest will become like a gated community for the very well-off. Natural England TP3/1 No response required. No response TP3/2

The Wildlife Trust’s Charnwood Forest Living Landscape project. This has a Noted. part time project officer and a grant fund for up to 40 years (the life of A further report on details the quarry basically). We should be aiming to get them actively of the proposed involved. membership of the new steering group will be taken to Cabinet in autumn 2011. TP3/3

No response No response required.

12 E:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000135\M00003125\AI00028537\$aqiv131u.doc