Suffolk Local Access Forum
Title: Agenda
Meeting Date: 14 July 2011
Author/Contact: Jill Christley Venue: Aspall Room, Kerrison Conference Centre, Stoke Road, Thorndon, nr eye, Suffolk, IP23 7JG
Paper Number 1. 3.00 Welcome, apologies and housekeeping
2. Minutes of previous meeting LAF11/12
3. Declaration of interest
4. 3.10 Natural England • Lynda Foster Presentation Lead Advisor, People and Partnerships (Norfolk and Suffolk) • Natural Environment White Paper LAF 11/13 • Local Nature Partnerships LAF 11/14 • Coastal Access Verbal
5. 3.45 Independent Panel on Forestry • Minutes of meetings LAF11/15, 11/16, 11/17 • SLAF letter LAF11/18 • Correspondence with The Ramblers Verbal – AW • Norfolk LAF LAF11/19
6. 4.00 Divestment • Countryside Sites LAF11/20 • Rights of Way Verbal – AW
7. 4.15 SLAF Annual Report to Cabinet LAF10/25
8. 4.25 A11 Verbal – AW
9. 4.35 Correspondence / Update • Ipswich Chord o SCC Response LAF11/21 o Network Rail Reply LAF11/22 • LTP3 Verbal – DF • Coastal Verbal – AW • LAF coordinator Verbal – DF
10. 4.50 Any Other Business
11. 4.55 Public question time
12. 5.00 Dates & Venues of Future Meetings
END LAF 11/12
Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Minutes of meeting held in Westleton Village Hall, on 7 April 2011
Meeting Date: 14 July 2011
Author/Contact: Jill Christley Venue: Aspall Room, Kerrison Conference Centre, Stoke Road, Thorndon, nr Eye, Suffolk, IP23 7JG
Minutes of meeting held in Westleton Village Hall on 7 April 2011.
1. Welcome, apologies and housekeeping. Present: Melinda Appleby (MA), David Barker (DB), Bryan Collen (Chairman), (BC), Barry Hall (BH), Ann Langley (AL), Sandy Martin (SM), Gordon Merfield (GM), Alan Moore (AM), Mary Norden (MN), Norman Southgate (NS), John Wayman (JW), Anthony Wright (AWr).
Apologies: Jenny Antill, Margaret Hancock, Monica Pipe, Jane Storey, Mike Taylor,
SCC Officers Present: Jill Christley (minutes) (JC), David Falk (DF), Andrew Woodin (AW).
The Chairman welcomed Simon Leatherdale (Forestry Commission) (SL), Bill Parker (Alde and Ore Futures Manager) (BP) and Nikki Rowbottom (Natural England) (NR).
2. Minutes of previous meeting. The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record.
Matters arising: Item 9. DB told the Forum that he and a group of Suffolk farmers had met with Richard Benyon MP to make him aware of proposed changes to the Higher Level Stewardship scheme.
They had explained the implications of some of the changes; the loss of permissive access; contradictory rules between Higher and Entry Level schemes on the use of field margins; the impact of reducing education access; the value of routes to users eg. joggers and equestrians.
DB felt it had been a good meeting, and at the suggestion of Dan Poulter MP would be taking the issue to the local MEP.
ACTION DB will seek an official response to his meeting with Dan Poulter MP.
Page 1 of 5 LAF 11/12
3. Declaration of interest. There were no declarations of interest.
4. Future of the Public Forest Estate. SLAF welcomed Simon Leatherdale from the Forestry Commission to the meeting.
SL outlined the current position of the Forestry Commission following the recently halted government consultation into the future ownership and management of the public forest estate in England (LAF 11/02 refers).
SL described the work of the Forestry Commission, and told the Forum that he believed that the Forestry Commission represent good value for money to the taxpayer, with forestry management costs of £60/ha when managed by the Forestry Commission compared to £136/ha when managed by private organisations.
In anticipation of divesting 15% of the public forest budgets for 2011/12 had already been set with a 25% reduction. Following the government’s decision to shelve plans to divest the forest the Forestry Commission were left with a reduction in budget, but no reduction in costs.
The Forestry Commission are now awaiting the outcome of the independent panel that the government has put together to consider future forestry policy. An interim report is expected in autumn 2011, with a further report in spring 2012. SL noted that whilst there was a representative on the panel for walking, there was nothing for cyclists or equestrians.
The forum discussed the Forestry Advisory Panel and its membership. It was felt that countryside access user groups were poorly represented, especially cyclists and equestrians. SLAF have an opportunity to put forward a representative to the panel who would represent all users of Rights of Way in the public forest. MA agreed to represent SLAF, the other members pledged to support her in the interest of all user groups.
ACTION SLAF will write to DEFRA with MA’s name, invite the forest panel to Suffolk to see how forests are used for public access, and express concern about the lack of representation of user groups on the panel.
5. Divesting Countryside Sites. LAF 11/03 refers. A decision on the future of Countryside sites originally had a deadline of 17/2/11, this had been extended for 6 months.
AW briefed the forum on ongoing work to prepare for the possible dedication of public access on SCC countryside sites. This had included considering legal implications and maintenance liabilities. AW outlined the sites and routes and described the various considerations for each site. Future maintenance costs, accommodation rights, footpaths, cycle tracks and open access land are all factors being taken into account. Each site is being looked at with a view to maintaining current access for the public whilst considering future costs.
Page 2 of 5 LAF 11/12
The forum discussed dedication of rights. AWr felt that routes should be dedicated to meet current needs, rather than try to upgrade later. The forum generally agreed with this. AW sympathised with SLAF’s view, but explained that no decisions had yet been made and SCC need to consider their future budget commitments.
ACTION SLAF requested further information on which groups were expressing an interest in the SCC countryside sites, and to be kept informed of further developments.
6. Divestment of public rights of way. AW described the effect of reduced funding on public rights of way in Suffolk. Of the £100,000 budget reduction £60,000 will come from maintenance works, and £40,000 from discontinuing the Access Suffolk project.
Now that the Access Suffolk project has ceased other ways of engaging local communities will be considered. By working with local people, and in partnership with other organisations DF is producing leaflets and promoting new walks in various parts of Suffolk, for example a series of routes at Stanton.
The £60,000 maintenance budget reduction is to be achieved by, for example, installing less waymarking, and reducing the amount of heavy clearance and surfacing being carried out. SCC will work with local community groups such as parishes, ramblers and land managers to assist in some of these areas. AW asked SLAF members whether their interest groups would be interested in taking on this type of work. The forum discussed this, and felt that people had been discouraged in the past, eg. by health and safety concerns, and it would be difficult to build up volunteer groups. AWr noted that organising volunteers is a job in itself. Volunteers continue to be concerned about health and safety regulations, and insurance liabilities. The forum felt SCC still needed to allocate budget to basic ROW maintenance.
7. Alde and Ore Futures. BC welcomed Bill Parker (Suffolk Coast ICZM Initiative Officer) to the meeting.
BP returned to SLAF to outline current progress in the Alde and Ore Estuary since his last visit. The Alde and Ore Futures Project is continuing its work in bringing together organisations and individuals to work towards promoting and developing a long-term sustainable approach to issues affecting the area such as transport, housing and development.
The project has identified a number of issues affecting access to the countryside: • Cycling. There is concern about the safety of people cycling in the area. The project is looking for ways of encouraging cycling on quiet lanes similar to the ‘Quiet Lanes’ project in Norfolk. • Walking on the coast. The project is working with SCC to build up the network of routes in the area, and is looking at providing public transport and ferry crossings to create circular routes and link up towns and villages in the area.
Page 3 of 5 LAF 11/12
• Orford Ness. Access from Orford to Orford Ness is poor. Damage is being caused when landing boats, so the project is looking into improving access. The National Trust has some funding for this.
With six organisations and funding coming from different sources a holistic approach is needed. By bringing together landowners, businesses, individuals and other organisations and pooling knowledge and resources the team hope to achieve improvements to benefit the whole community.
AW noted SCC are interested in working with land managers to fill gaps in the access network and. DF noted they may also be able to work with the A&O group through the Balance Project.
8. A11. LAF 11/04 Refers. The inspector’s report and decision has been published. SLAF would like to monitor work to make sure it is carried out to the specification.
9. Ipswich Docks PI – update. LAF 11/05 and LAF 11/05 Appendix 1 refer. Changes to the rights of way in the Docks area present some new challenges for SCC to address the impact on businesses and residents in the area. SM expressed the view that he would welcome a judicial review of the island site decision if the outcome was likely to be positive.
SM left the meeting.
10. Future of England Access Forum. LAF 06/11, 07/11 and 08/11 refer. The Forum discussed possible future liaison with Norfolk LAF and the Broads LAF.
ACTION DF discuss with Norfolk LAF.
11. Correspondence • Defra’s request for LAF Champion This was discussed under item 4, above. • British Horse Society – Equestrian Access LAF 11/09 refers. • Registering Common Land LAF 11/10 refers. • LTP3 Local Transport Plan 3 is being developed. SLAF’s comments pressing for access to be integral to the plan have been fed into the process. • Coastal Access – update LAF 11/11 refers.
Page 4 of 5 LAF 11/12
12. Any Other Business AWr – The ferry between Shotley, Felixstowe and Harwich may be closing or operating a reduced service. Under an s.106 agreement the cycle track to Languard point was upgraded, the ferry provides a useful link to this route.
ACTION BH (who represents SLAF on the Stour and Orwell Estuary Access Group) will keep SLAF informed on this.
13. Public Question Time No members of the public attended the meeting.
14. Dates and Venues of Future Meetings. 3:00pm on Thursday 14 July 2011, Kerrison Conference Centre, Stoke Road, Thorndon, nr Eye, Suffolk, IP23 7JG.
3.00pm on Thursday 20 October 2011, Assington Village Hall.
3.00pm on Thursday 12 January 2011, SALC meeting room, Unit 11a, Hill View Business Park, Old Ipswich Road, Claydon, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP6 0AJ.
END.
Page 5 of 5 LAF 11/13
Suffolk Local Access Forum
Title: Natural Environment White Paper
Meeting Date: 14 July 2011
Author/Contact: David Falk Venue: Aspall Room, Kerrison Conference Centre, Stoke Road, Thorndon, nr Eye, Suffolk, IP23 7JG
The following details the content of the Natural Environment White Paper, published on 7th June 2011.
Natural Environment White Paper
The White Paper sets out a detailed programme of action to repair damage done to the environment in the past, and urges everyone to get involved in helping nature to flourish at all levels – from neighbourhoods to national parks.
‘The Natural Choice’, the first White Paper on the natural environment in 20 years is directly linked to groundbreaking research in the National Ecosystem Assessment (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/natural/) showing strong economic arguments for safeguarding and enhancing the natural environment.
The White Paper also acts on the recommendations of ‘Making Space for Nature’, (http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/documents/201009space-for- nature.pdf) a report into the state of England’s wildlife sites, which showed that England’s wildlife sites are fragmented and not able to respond to the pressures of climate change and other pressures we put on our land.
Key measures in the White Paper, which also takes forward recommendations contained in ‘Making Space for Nature’, include:
Reconnecting nature New Nature Improvement Areas (NIAs), transforming rural and urban areas and providing bigger, connected sites for wildlife to live in and adapt to climate change. With a £7.5 million fund for 12 initial NIAs to demonstrate just what can be done. Professor Sir John Lawton has agreed to chair the panel to allocate funding. Biodiversity offsetting – new way for developers to ensure we don’t lose wildlife sites and make them better by making and improving other sites. New Local Nature Partnerships to strengthen joined-up action across local agencies and organisations, with a £1 million available this year. Phasing out peat – working with the horticulture industry to phase out peat use, which will help to protect and restore our peat lands, which are valuable carbon sinks, habitats and part of our ecological network. A task force to consider all options to phase out use of peat in the supply chain will be chaired by Dr Alan Knight OBE.
Connecting people and nature for better quality of life Green Areas Designation allowing local communities to give protection to areas that are important to them for recreation, the view or their importance for wildlife.
Page 1 of 2 LAF 11/13
Better urban green spaces for the benefit of cities and towns. Support for parks, gardens, and tree planting which benefit people and nature alike More children experiencing nature by learning outdoors, through practical support to schools and reducing red-tape for outdoor learning. Strengthening local public health activities which connect people with nature for better health New environmental volunteering initiative “Muck in 4 Life” to improve places in towns and countryside for people and nature to enjoy.
Capturing and improving the value of nature Natural Capital Committee – an independent body to report to the Government’s economic affairs committee chaired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This body will put the value of nature at the heart of the Government’s economic thinking, and advise Government about the best way of securing our natural assets for the future. An annual statement of green accounts for UK Plc – showing where our economy has withdrawn from the value of nature’s bank balance, and where we have invested in it. This will help measure green growth alongside GDP. A business-led Task Force chaired by Kingfisher Group Chief Executive Officer Ian Cheshire, to expand the UK business opportunities from new products and services which are good for the economy and nature alike.
The White Paper aims to improve the quality of the natural environment across England, halt the decline in habitats and species, and strengthen the connection between people and nature. The new way of looking at nature will help the growth of a green economy which treats natural capital in a responsible and fair way, encouraging businesses to use that capital sustainably. The actions contained in the Natural Environment White Paper will create a radical shift on how we view our natural assets by incorporating the natural environment into economic planning and ensuring there are opportunities for businesses that are good for nature and good for a strong green economy.
The Natural Environment White Paper, ‘The Natural Choice’ can be found at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/natural/whitepaper/
END
Page 2 of 2 LAF 11/14
Suffolk Local Access Forum
Title: Local Nature Partnerships
Meeting Date: 14 July 2011
Author/Contact: David Falk Venue: Aspall Room, Kerrison Conference Centre, Stoke Road, Thorndon, nr Eye, Suffolk, IP23 7JG
The following details the development of Local Nature Partnerships, as set out in the Natural Environment White Paper
Local Nature Partnerships
Background In the Natural Environment White Paper, published on 7 June 2011, Defra invited new and existing partnerships to come together to establish Local Nature Partnerships. These partnerships will work at a strategic scale to improve the range of benefits and services we get from a healthy natural environment. Where necessary, they may join up on cross- boundary issues, such as landscape scale action for biodiversity, water management, green infrastructure, air quality and ecosystem services more widely. They will aim to improve the multiple benefits we receive from good management of the land. Partnerships are invited to come forward and submit funding applications for development of LNPs. £1million is available for this and the government envisage around 50 LNPs being set up, resulting in an average of £20,000 available per partnership to support the development phase.
The vision for Local Nature Partnerships is that they will: • demonstrate local leadership, raise awareness about the vital services and benefits which a healthy natural environment brings for people, communities and the local economy; • use their knowledge and expertise to develop a shared environmental vision and set of priorities for their area (this could highlight how protection and enhancement of the natural environment can bring economic and social benefits or could include measures to establish and improve local ecological networks at a landscape scale); • add value to a local area’s development through contributing to local authority plans that affect the environment, as well as local plans and local development frameworks; • help contribute to the Green Economy by, for example, providing relevant information for Local Enterprise Partnerships in development of their plans; • bring together a range of local stakeholders, which may include people from local authorities, businesses, statutory authorities, civil society organisations, land managers, local record centres, local enterprise partnerships and people from communities themselves who can align efforts and make best use of available resources; • co-operate with other partnerships where this results in more efficient use of resources and better outcomes. Co-operation can also be with partnerships that share common interests; • work at a landscape scale to improve the range of benefits and services we get from a healthy natural environment. They will aim to improve the multiple benefits we
Page 1 of 4 LAF 11/14
receive from good management of the land through, for example, constituent members supporting Nature Improvement Areas, biodiversity offsets pilots or similar schemes; and • form at a level that can take a strategic-enough approach to deliver integrated outcomes with a wide range of benefits. Defra anticipate around 50 Partnerships across England, however it will not prescribe that Partnerships should cover a particular spatial area or administrative boundary, and want to encourage them to form around the places, areas and natural systems that work best locally.
LNP Establishment It is acknowledged that highly effective partnerships already exist, and may have some of the elements above already in place. However Defra want them to become even better, bringing in more stakeholders, aligning to the vision and spirit of the Natural Environment White Paper and working to deliver more integrated, cross-cutting outcomes. Partnerships which fulfill these visions will be invited to submit applications this winter to be recognised by Government and its environmental agencies, and establish their boards. The LNP fund that is on offer will help new and existing partnerships to build capacity and put in better applications. Partnerships who either do not apply for the funding on offer or whose bids are unsuccessful will still be eligible to apply to become a Local Nature Partnership. In spring next year, Defra will host a Ministerial event (to be repeated annually) at which the first recognised partnerships can come together to share best practice, highlight delivery issues and celebrate success. A partnership database will be maintained on the internet.
Suggested membership from among: • Local Authorities (county and district) • Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty • Parish Councils • Community Forums • National Parks • Arms Length Bodies (Environment Agency, Natural England, Forestry Commission, Marine Management Organisation, English Heritage, British Waterways etc) • Civil society organisations and Environmental Charities (e.g. Wildlife Trusts, RSPB, National Trust, Butterfly Conservation etc) • Existing Partnerships (e.g. Coastal Partnerships, Local Biodiversity Action Plan Partnerships, Local Access Forums, LEADER Local Action Groups, Rural and Farming Networks, Green Infrastructure Partnerships • Land Owners • Local Businesses • Local Enterprise Partnerships • Health and Wellbeing Reps • Education/Learning organisations • Community Organisers • Local Environmental Record Centres • Local Universities
Relationship with Existing Partnerships Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and Local Nature Partnerships have complementary roles both of which will help grow a green economy. They are expected to work in a co- operative and constructive fashion to drive forward green growth locally. LEPs and Local Nature Partnerships are encouraged to work together to forge strong links that capture the value of nature. Existing coverage of LEPs is given in the map at the end of this document. Reflecting the fact that the natural environment is a significant determinant of health, they have the potential to make a valuable contribution to the role of the new local Health and Wellbeing Boards in assessing local health needs. Local Nature Partnerships and the Health
Page 2 of 4 LAF 11/14 and Wellbeing Boards should therefore actively seek to engage each other in their work. Forthcoming guidance will make clear that the wider determinants of health, including the natural environment, will be a crucial consideration in developing joint strategic needs assessments and joint health and wellbeing strategies. Local Nature Partnerships will have a very important contribution to make in developing these documents. Although Local Nature Partnerships will not automatically be members of the Health and Wellbeing Boards, the two partnerships could have reciprocal representation, with this being determined locally. A network of 50 Natural Value Ambassadors will be inaugurated to engage key decision- makers and opinion-formers using the latest evidence and materials available. Local Nature Partnerships will be invited to nominate candidates, as will professional bodies from other sectors such as business, health and education.
Timeline • 31 July 2011: Deadline for application submission to Transition Fund. • September 2011: Notification of funding allocation. • Winter 2011: Defra will invite expressions of interest from local partnerships aspiring to be recognised as Local Nature Partnerships. • Spring 2012: Ministerial event for first tranche of Local Nature Partnerships.
There will be further opportunities to apply to be recognised as a Local Nature Partnership in future. Once established, Local Nature Partnerships will be expected to fund their own day-to-day running costs.
Potential Structure Existing partnerships with affinities with LNPs in Bucks: • Green Infrastructure Consortium (GIC) • Bucks and MK Biodiversity Partnership (BMKBP) • Bucks Strategic Partnership (BSP)
GIC LNP BSP
LEP
BMKBP
Provisionally the logical way forward appears to be an expansion of the BMKBP in terms of membership and for this grouping to evolve into a Local Nature Partnership with representation from the GIC, BSP and other partnerships where appropriate.
As part of this exercise the purpose and roles of the GIC and an emerging LNP should be examined as there is potential for overlap. It must be ensured these groups compliment each other rather than duplicate - the same is true of elements of the Bucks Strategic Partnership. Equally, a rationalisation of partnerships or reallocation of responsibilities should be investigated.
Page 3 of 4 LAF 11/14
END
Page 4 of 4 LAF 11/15
Suffolk Local Access Forum
Title: Independent Panel on Forestry – minutes of 1st meeting
Meeting Date: 14 July 2011
Author/Contact: David Falk Venue: Aspall Room, Kerrison Conference Centre, Stoke Road, Thorndon, nr Eye, Suffolk, IP23 7JG
The following are the minutes of the 1st meeting of the Independent Panel on Forestry.
Independent Panel on Forestry Final Notes of Meeting
1st Meeting: Thursday 31st March 2011, London
Item 1: Introductions – round table on priorities
The Chair welcomed Panel members to the first meeting and the large but exciting task ahead which calls for creativity and debate, both within the Panel and with others. Members introduced themselves and summarised their personal take on issues before the Panel. A wide range of points were made, including aspirations to set out a vision for forestry including the public forest estate; to broaden and deepen understanding about forests and their multiple benefits; to include professional forestry in the debate; to enable increased connectivity between landscapes and habitats of which forests and woods are part; to harness people’s interest and involvement in woods and forests and access to them; to consider how it is possible to expand England’s commercial forests and woods; and to look at the financial underpinning of forestry in England.
Item 2: Terms of reference
Members had a discussion to seek shared clarity about their terms of reference, set by the Secretary of State. Clarity of the relationships with the Forestry Regulation Task Force and the Carbon Task Force, along with awareness of issues of forestry biosecurity, emerging forestry pests and diseases and the work of Forest Research were all considered important. The Panel also wished to more fully understand the relationships and responsibilities of the Forestry Commission across Great Britain.
The issue of land sales from the public forest estate was discussed and the Panel welcomed the confirmation from the Secretary of State that future sales would not be initiated before their advice had been received. The Panel agreed to issue a short statement about land sales, and also wished to understand more fully any implications of the suspension of sales on the Defra / FC budget.
The Panel agreed to seek to produce a first report in the autumn and to provide final advice in spring 2012.
Page 1 of 2 LAF 11/15
Item 3: Engaging stakeholder groups and the wider public
Reaction to-date to the announcement of the Panel was shared. It was noted that a number of organisations were disappointed not to have been invited to sit on the Panel but that this difficult decision was properly one for the Secretary of State. The high importance of engaging with those outside of the Panel to draw in wider views and experience was recognised and it was agreed to utilise contacts of members and also explore web based options. A call for evidence would be made in due course and it was agreed to place onto the Panel web page a summary of matters discussed when the Panel meets in closed session.
Item 4: Future panel meetings and possible sub-groups
The Chair invited views from members about how the Panel worked going forward. Panel members expressed the wish to initially work as a whole group to map the way ahead and create a narrative that could help to frame wider discussion. Establishment of sub-groups was not considered appropriate at this stage. Various options to enable wide engagement with other organisations and individuals were discussed, including the possibility of holding meetings in different locations across England to which people could be invited to bring evidence. Opportunities to seek input on specific topics from organisations or individuals and to visit locations relevant to discussions were also talked about. It was agreed that the Secretariat would draw up proposals about future Panel meetings, including locations and forest visits.
Panel Secretariat
April 2011 (Final)
END
Page 2 of 2 LAF 11/16
Suffolk Local Access Forum
Title: Independent Panel on Forestry – minutes of 2nd meeting
Meeting Date: 14 July 2011
Author/Contact: David Falk Venue: Aspall Room, Kerrison Conference Centre, Stoke Road, Thorndon, nr Eye, Suffolk, IP23 7JG
Independent Panel on Forestry Notes from Meeting 2nd Meeting: Thursday 12th May 2011, London Item 1: Welcome & Actions since last meeting The Chair welcomed the Panel members to the second meeting and the aim to shape the Panel’s initial steps to engage externally. The Chair mentioned the helpful letter received from the Secretary of State extending to April 2012 the date for the final report and also clarifying matters concerning asset sales. The Panel welcomed the letter and the clear statement that all new sales are suspended until the Government has considered the Panel’s recommendations. Members were also updated on meetings that had taken place including with Minister of State for Agriculture and Food, Jim Paice MP, and the meeting and photocall with some access groups earlier in the week, all of which were very constructive and useful. Item 2: Presentations from Forestry Commission and Defra Arising from discussions at the first meeting of the Panel, papers had been prepared by Defra and the Forestry Commission providing information about the forthcoming Natural Environment White Paper and new Biodiversity Strategy for England (Paper 2/1); the Forestry Commission and Public Forest Estate (Paper 2/2); and the Forestry Commission Devolution Settlement and Governance (Paper 2/3). Tim Rollinson, Director General of the Forestry Commission introduced the Forestry Commission papers and described the background to the Forestry Commission and its evolution over time. Tanya Arkle Deputy Director for Landscape and Outdoor Recreation Programme and Holly Yates Head of Natural Environment White Paper Team for Defra introduced the Defra paper and advised the Panel on the ongoing development of the Natural Environment White Paper and the likely interrelationships with the work of the Panel. Following both presentations, the Panel asked questions of the speakers covering a wide range of issues related to forestry and the natural environment. These included the role of forestry today; the comparisons that can be drawn internationally and the reasoning for state forest services in other countries; issues of finance and financial sustainability for the public forest estate; what the Forestry Commission is required to do by statute; the strength of public feeling about forests and woods; the wider vision for the natural environment, the importance of forestry and woodlands and the Government’s aspirations in this area. Having discussed what they had heard the Panel asked the Secretariat to draw up a work programme for evidence to support the Panel’s work. Item 3: Call for views The Panel discussed and agreed a way forward in setting up a call for views which would be open to all. It was agreed that this call for views should be the start of an ongoing dialogue, the form of which would develop as the work of the Panel LAF 11/16 progresses. It was important for this dialogue to include consideration of previous consultations and research but not to be constrained to that. The Panel discussed the content of the call for views and agreed it should cover the broad areas of: what forests and woods deliver for people, communities, nature and the economy; what it is about forests and woods that people value so much and why; and what works in practice and can be repeated in other locations.
It was agreed that the call for views be issued in the week following this meeting of the Panel. The Panel also considered the issue of visits to forest and woods across England, welcoming the significant number of invitations received, but recognising that there were more than could feasibly be accepted. The Panel wished the visits to encompass the multipurpose nature and benefits of forests and woods; be illustrative of good practice and opportunities yet to be, or not fully addressed; to include a broad range of ownerships and management approaches; and be reflective of a broad range of current policy issues. Following discussion it was agreed that the Panel would initially visit the following locations: the Forest of Dean; woodlands in Kent; and Northumberland including Kielder Forest and the wood processing industry.
The Panel would consider the need for further visits on an ongoing basis and in light of its developing thinking, noting it would not be possible to cover every aspect within the Panel’s remit within the visits. The Panel agreed for the Secretariat to make arrangements for the initial visits and to publicise these, and the call for views, via the Panel’s web pages and a news release. Panel Secretariat May 2011
END LAF 11/17
Suffolk Local Access Forum
Title: Independent Panel on Forestry – minutes of 3rdt meeting
Meeting Date: 14 July 2011
Author/Contact: David Falk Venue: Aspall Room, Kerrison Conference Centre, Stoke Road, Thorndon, nr Eye, Suffolk, IP23 7JG
Independent Panel on Forestry Final Notes of Meeting
3rd Meeting: Monday 20th June 2011, London
Item 1: Welcome & Actions since last meeting
The Chair welcomed Panel members to the third meeting. He updated the Panel on the meetings he had had since they last met: with Mary Creagh (Defra’ s Shadow Secretary of State), Oliver Letwin (the Minister in the Cabinet Office responsible for coordinating government policy) and Steve Hilton (the director of strategy in No. 10).
The Secretariat are compiling a register of members interests for publication on the web pages and the Forest Research analysis of responses to the Government withdrawn consultation about the public forest estate is expected to be published imminently.
Item 2: Presentations from Professors Watson, Bateman and Read
Professor Bob Watson, Defra’s Chief Scientific Advisor presented an overview of the National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA). He gave an introduction of the range of services provided by ecosystems and their current state. The study found that compared to other ecosystems, the condition of the services flowing from woodlands have either improved or remained unchanged since 1945. Professor Ian Bateman who led the economic analysis in the NEA, presented some conclusions from the study. He gave a brief overview of how non-market benefits are valued and the range of benefits from woodland ecosystems (concluding that non- market values of woodland outweigh market values). Professor David Read gave a presentation on the role of afforestation in climate change mitigation concluding that there are additional benefits from the planting of more trees (including direct financial returns (reducing imports and increasing exports) and improved environmental quality.
Following the presentations, the Panel asked questions of the speakers (two papers 3/1 and 3/2 provided background information for this item). Several Panel members acknowledged the value of the analysis in the NEA asked how its results could be applied in England and where else such approaches had been applied; there were questions on the methodology (e.g. the scenarios used in the NEA, uncertainties in the models, which species were used in the analysis); members were also interested in how a balance in ecosystem services could be reached (i.e. how can agricultural production be intensified while maintaining services); the role of markets in achieving the balance in ecosystem services; what the correct scale to make decisions was LAF 11/17 and in particular how to reconcile a national plan with local decisions/actions; and the role incentives and regulation to achieve goals (e.g. afforestation).
Item 3: Building a consensus on the big issues and themes
The Panel had a discussion about how they wished to frame their work and what the big issues and themes for this should be, using a Secretariat paper (3/3) as background. The Panel were keen that the multi-purposeness of forests and woodlands be fully reflected and recognised that afforestation was a second key issue that ran through a number of themes. The Panel agreed on five main themes to frame their work and the progress report. The working titles for the five issues are
(a) climate change (b) landscape and biodiversity (c) access to woodland and other public benefits and community engagement (d) competitiveness of the forestry and timber use sectors (e) levers and interventions
Panel members reflected on what sub-topics could be included under the five broad themes. In addition to discussing the scope of the themes members also debated on the scope of their work – concluding to vary the depth to which some subjects were addressed in order to consider the widest range of interests related to forestry.
The Panel agreed for the Secretariat to use the five themes in preparing a draft framework for the Progress Report for review when the Panel meets in Northumberland.
Working Lunch
The Panel reflected on its visit to the Forest of Dean and what could be drawn from what had been seen and heard. The depth of cultural connection between community and forest was notable and there was a discussion about how to it may be possible to reflect local needs within a national framework. The Panel were keen for future visits to build on their emerging thinking and create a dialogue that helps to shape the advice they may give.
The Panel agreed for their web pages to be refreshed and developed to enable more information about their work to be published. LAF 11/17
Item 4: Action planning
Following from the discussion on defining the big issues and themes of the Panel’s report, members discussed how future visits and meetings could be structured to meet their objectives by considering papers and questions prepared by the Secretariat (Papers 3/4 and 3/5).
The Panel agreed to maintain an ongoing dialogue on their work in future meetings and visits and not restrict themselves too narrowly, too early, to the themes already identified above. With some comments, the Panel also endorsed the research that will be commissioned by the Secretariat.
Including confirmed visits to Northumberland (including Kielder forest) on July 26 and woods in Kent on 16 September, the Panel confirmed a fourth visit by the whole Panel to the Nottinghamshire coalfield area to particularly consider the issue of community forestry.
The Panel also agreed to make shorter visits in sub-groups later in the year to the places below - the dates and final issues to be considered at each location will be worked up by the Secretariat.
East Anglia – topics may include woodfuel and woodland access Yorkshire – topics may include woodland related tourism and ecosystem restoration Devon – topics may include farm woodlands, forestry pests and diseases Lake District – topics may include forestry and rural development Wyre - to look at forest biodiversity, partnerships and woodfuel The New Forest - to look at the historic forest landscape and community engagement
The Panel also agreed that it was important to further engage national groups, such as those representing people using forests for different leisure activities or people working in the forest industry after the Progress Report is published. This would enable additional dialogue and creative thinking around the emerging themes of the Panel’s work. Panel Secretariat
June 2011 (Final)
END LAF 11/18
Suffolk Local Access Forum
Title: Letter to Independent Panel on Forestry
Meeting Date: 14 July 2011
Author/Contact: David Falk Venue: Aspall Room, Kerrison Conference Centre, Stoke Road, Thorndon, Nr Eye, Suffolk, IP23 7JG
SLAF SLAF Suffolk Local Access Forum PO Box 872 Ipswich Suffolk IP1 9JW To the Right Reverend James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool, Tel: 01473 264759 chairman of the independent panel Fax: 01473 216877 on forestry. Email: [email protected]
Web: By email. http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/Environment/Public
RightsOfWay/SuffolkLocalAccessForum
Your Ref: Our Ref: Date: 16 June 2011
Dear Chairman
From the chairman of the Suffolk Local Access Forum.
I am writing on behalf of the Suffolk Local Access Forum (SLAF). Local access forums are statutorily prescribed bodies, introduced by s94 and s95 of the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000. Their main function is to advise their appointing authority as to the improvement of public access to land in that area for the purposes of open-air recreation and the enjoyment of the area. Local access forums comprise appointed members who represent both users of local rights of way or access land and owners and occupiers of access land or land encompassing local rights of way.
SLAF understand that the Panel has recently opened its doors for views on forests and woods and announced forest visits. The forum further understands that following your second meeting, you have announced initial visits to the Forest of Dean, Northumberland and Kent.
The Suffolk Local Access Forum wishes to convey its views to the panel on the future of the public forest estate (PFE) in Suffolk, in particular on the future of public access for all those groups currently enjoying access in the county’s woodland and forest, whether by right, permission or de facto.
Providing independent advice on access to the countryside in Suffolk LAF 11/18 Suffolk has extensive tracts of forest in the west of the county around Thetford, and in the east of the county within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB.
Perhaps I could start by giving you a flavour of the PFE in those areas, and the access enjoyed therein.
Thetford Forest
In putting its successful case together in 2008/09 to object to the dualling of the A11 near Elveden on the grounds of lack of access for non motorised users, SLAF sought background information from the county council for the surrounding area. This confirmed the area around Elveden enjoys a very high quality of public access for walkers, cyclists and horse-riders (non motorised users) – on public rights of way, Forestry Commission tracks and land designated as open access. The network is actively promoted by both the Forestry Commission and the county council at Santon Downham and Brandon Country Park. The area serves the local towns of Thetford, Brandon, Lakenheath, Mildenhall, and Bury St Edmunds. The Center Parcs at Elveden also attracts many visitors to the area. The total population of the parishes within 10 miles of the scheme in 2005 was 91,870.
As well as being a sustainable source of recreation for the local population, this resource contributes to the health, well being and economy of the area – all national and local government priorities.
Levels of use of local visitor attractions were noted as follows:
Brandon Country Park: Visitor centre numbers – 06/07 - 104,198 07/08 - 163,087
Total vehicle visits - 06/07 – 51,398 07/08 – 63,603
Total people visits - 06/07 – 114,078 07/08 – 137,431
West Stow Country Park: Numbers through Park Gate 2007 = 170,289
Visitors to Anglo Saxon Village 2007 = 33,207
The Forestry Commission reported a minimum of 500,000 day visits per year in the Brandon Park and High Lodge forest blocks. Roughly a third of the more than 300,000 visitors at High Lodge in 2010 came for a cycling activity and both of the car parks at Kings Forest host at least 10,000 cars each year.
The Forestry Commission has also held 19 equestrian events at Santon Downham and Kings Forest in 2008.
There are a number of riding schools in the area, the closest being at Elveden, Santon Downham, Brandon, Lakenheath and Riddleworth. In addition there is a cycling club at Mildenhall and an active rambling fraternity.
The Forest Heath District Council’s Access and Tourism Strategy has the following to say about the forest:
“Thetford Forest currently covers 14,320 ha of accessible land and accommodates 1.5 million visitors annually, the number of visitors to Thetford is set to grow with the populations in Thetford,
Providing independent advice on access to the countryside in Suffolk LAF 11/18 Bury St Edmunds, Cambridge, Norwich and the Haven Gateway growth points. There is a legal requirement to protect the nature conservation interest whilst at the same providing a regional green infrastructure resource for the growing population.
“As a key green infrastructure resource, the forest contributes to Local Development Framework and Local Area Agreement targets for health, the economy, wildlife and biodiversity, renewable energy, air quality, public access and sustainable transport routes.”
Forest in the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB
The PFE in the AONB totals 3,107 hectares and is primarily made up of Rendlesham, Tunstall and Dunwich Forests. All are predominantly coniferous forests, originally planted in the 1920s on what was once Sandlings heathland. All contain significant elements of broadleaf woodland, having been planted or, in many cases, regenerating naturally. At over 3000ha, the estate is by far the largest area of land, under one owner, within the AONB. Given its size, single public ownership and that the forests lie on former Sandlings heath, they present the most significant opportunity within the AONB for major enhancements of landscape quality, wildlife conservation and public access.
All are important for public access, Rendlesham & Tunstall particularly so, with c.950,000 person- visits per year. They provide a wide range of public access opportunities including walking, cycling, horse-riding, carriage driving and husky racing.
Rendlesham Forest and the forest centre at Tangham is one of the focal points for tourism and recreation in the Sandlings, as well as being designated for its wildlife value. In addition to a campsite, there are numerous walking and cycling routes around the forest, with a special UFO trail, as a legacy of the world-renowned “close-encounter” in 1980. In recent years the Red Rose Chain theatre company have successfully run an open air-theatre at Tangham throughout the month of August.
Tunstall Forest consists of coniferous plantations, broadleaved belts and heathland areas which link up with both Tunstall and Blaxhall Common. Tunstall is very popular with walkers, cyclists and horse riders alike.
Rendlesham and Tunstall Forests are currently subject to restoration programmes where conifer plantation is being restored to heathland and open forest and this is supported by funding from the Lottery and also from the SITA Trust Landfill Communities Fund.
Development of the access and recreation facilities in the forests are likely to help reduce the people pressure on other more sensitive areas of the AONB, less able to withstand large numbers of visitors, such as some coastal and estuary locations. This view is also supported by the Haven Gateway Green Infrastructure strategy.
In short, the PFE in Suffolk enjoys a very high level of public use of all types, from walking to cycling and horse riding, with clear benefits both socially, economically and in general health and well being. All these outcomes meet both local and national policies and priorities.
What SLAF Would Like To See
SLAF believes strongly that the PFE in its entirety should be publically accessible to walkers, cyclists and equestrians (and other forms of access where these are enjoyed currently). This applies to both the 70% of the estate which is freehold and the remainder in leasehold. Protecting and improving public access will have many benefits, including on physical and mental health, enhancing the appreciation of the natural world, strengthening social bonds and providing a low cost source of recreation.
Providing independent advice on access to the countryside in Suffolk LAF 11/18 Protecting public access can be simply achieved through dedication under Section 16 of the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000 Act, which gives landowners and long leaseholders the opportunity to voluntarily dedicate land for public access. A dedication lasts in perpetuity or, where relevant, for the duration of a long lease.
Making a dedication under the Act can:
• give a legal public right of access to land that would not otherwise be covered by the CROW Act, such as woodland; or • ensure that land mapped as open country or registered common land will continue to be access land in the future, even if it ceases to be open country or registered common land.
Dedication can be used to create higher rights of access, for example for cycling and horse riding.
The advantage of dedication as open access is that once dedicated the land becomes access land under Part 1 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and subject to the same management and use. Access to dedicated land can be restricted or excluded in the same way as with other access land (e.g. for up to 28 days per year, or where necessary for land management, safety or fire prevention reasons). To make sure access routes remain physically available, the Government should ensure funding is in place to continue their maintenance (in the same way the Forestry Commission maintains the routes now).
SLAF notes that a policy of open access already exists in Thetford Forest for horse riders.
In conclusion, the Suffolk Local Access Forum would urge the independent panel to give access the highest priority in its deliberations and give very serious consideration to dedicating higher access rights under Section 16 of the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act on the whole of the public forest estate, including land in long leasehold.
SLAF would welcome a visit from the panel, or individual members, to Suffolk to see at first hand what the local PFE has to offer visitors and perhaps hear from users themselves how much they value their freedom to use the estate.
Yours sincerely,
Bryan Collen
Chair of the Suffolk Local Access Forum
END
Providing independent advice on access to the countryside in Suffolk LAF 11/19
Suffolk Local Access Forum
Title: Norfolk LAF
Meeting Date: 14 July 2011
Author/Contact: David Falk Venue: Aspall Room, Kerrison Conference Centre, Stoke Road, Thorndon, nr Eye, Suffolk, IP23 7JG
Norfolk Local Access Forum was contacted to share views on the future of the Forest Estate. The SLAF Chair has been invited to the next NLAF meeting on 20th July at Santon Downham.
The Norfolk LAF is concerned about the Forestry Commission proposals - and recently looked at three issues:
1. The Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) - which plans to sell off 15% of the Forestry Commission landholding each year for three years independently of the consultation on the Future of the Public Forest Estate. This is on hold at the moment whilst they look into ways of ensuring that biodiversity and access are protected but it will not go away. Caroline Spelman recently confirmed that plans to go ahead are being put in place. 2. The consultation on the Future of the Public Forest Estate which has been withdrawn following the uproar. The panel, chaired by the Right Reverend James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool, brings together a wide range of interests and expertise covering the environmental, social and economic aspects of forestry and the LAF is keen to develop contact. 3. Message from the LAF co-ordinator Nicky Rowbotham who has been asked by DEFRA (Ruth Sanders - Outdoor Recreation and Access - Rights of Way policy team) to suggest a few names of people from the region's LAFs who might be willing and able to be what we might call LAF champions in relation to the govt's deliberations about the future management of the Public Forest Estate
END
Page 1 of 1 LAF 11/20
Suffolk Local Access Forum
Title: Divestment of Countryside Sites
Meeting Date: 14 July 2011
Author/Contact: David Falk Venue: Aspall Room, Kerrison Conference Centre, Stoke Road, Thorndon, nr Eye, Suffolk, IP23 7JG
Message from Cllr Judy Terry
Full details can be located at http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/30A1B1F7-E6DC- 476E-9D16-78720F40511B/0/ProposalsOverviewwebversion3.pdf
I would like to update you on the future of country parks and recreation sites within Suffolk.
As you are aware, having reviewed all the proposals received regarding our portfolio of country parks and recreation sites, I agreed a list of next steps with the Director of Economy, Skills and Environment, Lucy Robinson. In the few cases where no proposals had been received, I advised you that officers from the county council would be working closely with the local county councillor to encourage interest.
I would now like to update you on progress on each of our sites. For ease of reference, the portfolio of sites has been divided into district/borough council areas. Please note that this briefing reflects the discussions which are taking place rather than final decisions.
Babergh District Council area
Belstead Meadows
Unfortunately no proposals have been received for Belstead Meadows; however, the parish council has expressed an interest in organising a meeting between officers from the county council, the district council and Greenways. The county council currently pays Greenways to manage the site.
Cattawade Picnic Site
The River Stour Boating Community Interest Company is looking to take on the maintenance of the site and own the land through a leasehold arrangement. The company proposes to extend the parking area to meet peak demands during the boating season and retain a riverside picnic area with benches. The Community Interest Company (CIC) has concerns over the costs of public liability and the county council has arranged to meet with the CIC to discuss further. The county council is in discussion with Suffolk ACRE about the provision of good value public liability insurance which we hope will help the River Stour Boating Community Interest Company.
Page 1 of 5 LAF 11/20
Lavenham Walk
Unfortunately no proposals have yet been received for Lavenham Walk. The county council is in discussions with the parish council. The main concern raised by the parish council is that the walk extends into a neighbouring parish and includes a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which requires a lot of management and can be costly to maintain.
Melford Walk and Rodbridge Picnic Site
The county council is currently working with the Long Melford Residents Group who has submitted a proposal to take on the Melford Walk and Rodbridge Picnic Site. The LM Residents Group has requested continuing financial assistance from the county council to take on these two sites which will obviously require further discussion as this is not in line with our policy. The county council is in the process of organising a meeting with the LM Residents Group to discuss their proposal further.
Valley Walk
In partnership with Sudbury Common Lands, Sudbury Town Council wishes to take on the management of this site with the Common Lands carrying out the maintenance. The town council wishes the county council to continue to maintain and insure the bridges along Valley Walk and any other major structures (such as steps required for access). Sudbury Town Council proposes to raise the precept to cover the general annual maintenance costs (except for bridges). The county council is keen for the town council to work in association with Sustrans – who also submitted a proposal to take on this site and the county council has commenced discussions on this basis. The bridges issue will require further discussion and negotiation.
Forest Heath District Council area
Brandon Country Park
The county council wants those who have expressed an interest in the country park to become involved in the creation of a cluster involving the three major assets in Brandon being treated as one (old school site, the country park and the library) and it is suggested that a Trust should be established to own the sites (including the country park). This Trust could include Keystone, the town council and other local groups and the delivery arm for the country park could be one of a number of bodies, such as Anglia Leisure Trust, the borough/district council or Keystone. A separate project team will be set up to deliver this overall project. A meeting has been arranged for the end of June to consider this idea.
Ramparts Field Picnic Site
Unfortunately, we have not received any proposals for this site. This site is leased to the county council by two separate owners; three acres are leased from Icklingham Parish Council and 13.6 acres are leased from a local individual. A meeting is being arranged with Cllr Colin Noble to discuss the future of this site.
Page 2 of 5 LAF 11/20
Mid Suffolk District Council area
Barham Picnic Site
Barham Parish Council is looking to support Claydon Football Club in turning the site into football pitches. The parish council is looking to own the freehold title of the land and grant a long lease to Claydon Football Club. The parish council is looking to put in a formal application for planning permission.
The county council has received an outline proposal for change of use of the site to a sports facility from the parish council and a site meeting was recently held to look at the workshop. The county council is working closely with the parish council to identify opportunities for grant funding and is encouraging the parish council to submit a planning application at the earliest opportunity.
Bramford Picnic Site and Local Nature Reserve
In partnership with Suffolk Wildlife Trust, Mid Suffolk District Council, River Gipping Trust and potentially Foundation East Ltd, Bramford Parish Council is looking to conserve the existing two meadows whilst continuing to improve the habitat in terms of bio-diversity and eco-study opportunities. The parish council is looking to seek to develop a dedicated revenue stream for the site and guarantee to cover the cost of annual maintenance. The parish council is hopeful for grant funding for capital outlay on fencing and ditching to enhance the site and to improve opportunities for public use. The parish council wishes to negotiate with the county council about whether or not the county council takes on some remedial work where the parish council believes there is a need for such work and the county council is in the process of organising a meeting with the parish council to discuss this further.
Fen Alder Carr
In association with Creeting St Peter Parish Council, Mid Suffolk District Council proposes to take on the freehold title of Fen Alder Carr and continue to run the site as a Local Nature Reserve with public access. The district council is looking for the woodland to be managed for its nature conservation value – retaining the Alder Carr and positively managing the areas of willow and reed to encourage the range of typical species associated with these habitats. The district council is looking to ensure the woodland remains publicly accessible and aims to encourage the local community to use and support them and the local parish council in maintaining the site.
The site will be managed by the countryside section of Mid Suffolk District Council at no additional cost. The MSDC countryside team is looking to undertake routine annual management of the site assisted by volunteers. Funding will be derived from the existing countryside management budget and MSDC are looking for financial support from local parish councils to assist with conservation management.
MSDC has requested a small one-off financial contribution from Suffolk County Council to enable repairs to the boardwalk and rebranding of signage on site and the county council is in the process of organising a meeting with all interested organisations to discuss this proposal further.
Page 3 of 5 LAF 11/20
Haughley Picnic Site
Mid Suffolk District Council is looking to take on the freehold title of Haughley Picnic Site with the district council’s countryside team managing the site for informal recreation. The district council intends to establish a management steering group, consisting of representatives from Haughley Parish Council, Harleston Parish Meeting, 1st Wetherden and Haughley Scouts Group, Suffolk Nature Awareness Partnership and O’Bee Community Interest Company to discuss and resolve any issues which arise on the site. The district council is also proposing for these organisations to contribute towards the cost of management of the site through licence and hire fees. Haughley Parish Council has indicated that they will support the routine management of the site either directly or through in-kind contributions. Income from the mobile phone mast is seen as an important funding stream.
In their proposal, Mid Suffolk District Council has indicated that they wish to negotiate with the county council regarding a one-off contribution to cover costs including replacement signage, replacement of damaged picnic furniture, the provision of bins and the installation of barriers and fencing. The county council is in the process of organising a meeting with the district council to discuss.
Suffolk Coastal District Council area
Bawdsey/Felixstowe Jetties and Bawdsey Quay Huts
Bawdsey Manor Estate would like the lease relating to Bawdsey Quay Huts terminated so that the huts return to their ownership and this proposal has been approved by Suffolk Coasts and Heaths.
The county council is currently in discussions with Felixstowe Ferry Boatyard Ltd over the future of the ferry service and the use of the smaller hut and the jetty. The county council has paid the rates and license fee to allow the ferry to operate for the remainder of this year to allow time for local proposals to be generated.
Greyfriars, Dunwich
With the support of the Dunwich Parish Meeting, Dunwich Town Trust, Dunwich Museum and Reading Room Charity, English Heritage and the National Trust, the Dunwich Greyfriars Trust proposes that a new Trust is created to own and manage the site for the benefit of the village and the public. The Trust is looking to generate sufficient income to finance ongoing revenue costs of the Trust and to apply for grant funding to finance capital works and large scale repairs and maintenance. The Trust is also looking to improve signage, interpretative materials and produce a programme of historical and environment events. County council officers have arranged to meet with the Dunwich Greyfriars Trust to discuss this in more detail. This proposal has received some good publicity as a result of the proposed Time Team dig in the site.
East Lane Car Park
Unfortunately the county council has not received any proposals in relation to this site to date. However, the chairman of the Deben Estuary Partnership is in the process of approaching the landowner to see there is a possibility in this site transferring to the Deben Estuary Partnership.
Page 4 of 5 LAF 11/20
Toby’s Walks Picnic Site
The county council has received a couple of commercial interests to take on the site and these proposals will be discussed with local county councillor Rae Leighton and Blythburgh Parish Council shortly.
St Edmundsbury Borough Council area
Knettishall Heath Country Park
The Suffolk Wildlife Trust wishes to take on the freehold title of the site and manage the site in perpetuity for its wildlife interest whilst continuing to provide public access. The Trust is looking to secure Heritage Lottery Funding to purchase the freehold title from the land owners to include the adjoining woodland areas. The Trust is also looking to secure grant funding for any transitional works required to cover short term revenue costs.
A meeting has recently been held between County Councillor Joanna Spicer, the agents for the land owners and the Suffolk Wildlife Trust; the purpose of which was for the land agent to provide an update on the position and for the county council to make clear its commitment to end its interest in the site and support the Suffolk Wildlife Trust’s proposal.
Clare Castle Country Park
The county council is looking to transfer the ownership and running of Clare Castle Country Park to a community or local organisation and the county council is committed to ensuring that the best outcome for the community and the park is achieved.
A group has been set up with representatives from the county council, Clare Parish Council, St Edmundsbury District Council, the National Trust, English Heritage, Clare Business Society and the Railway Society all of whom are interested in the future of the country park.
This group of representatives are looking to develop a proposal that allows the park to remain of benefit to both the people of Clare and the wider community, is financially feasible and will support the long term aspirations of the park.
Should you have any questions on the future of country parks and recreation sites or wish to comment on any of these proposals, please contact Jerry Hindle on 01473 264786 or email [email protected].
Cllr Judy Terry Portfolio Holder for the Greenest County
END
Page 5 of 5 LAF 11/21
Suffolk Local Access Forum
Title: Ipswich Chord SCC final response
Meeting Date: 14 July 2011
Author/Contact: David Falk Venue: Aspall Room, Kerrison Conference Centre, Stoke Road, Thorndon, nr Eye, Suffolk, IP23 7JG
Economy, Skills and Environment Economy, Skills and Environment Endeavour House 8 Russell Road Ms Penny Carter, IPSWICH Network Rail, Suffolk IP1 2BX 3rd Floor: Square One, 4 Travis Street, Piccadilly, Enquiries to: Anita Seymour Manchester, Tel: 01473 264747 M1 2NY E.mail:anita/[email protected] Web:http://www.suffolk.gov.uk
Your Ref: CCMS No. 61087490
11 April 2011
Dear Ms Carter
Ipswich Chord: Formal consultation for the purposes of section 42(b) 2008 Planning Act
Thank you for consulting with Suffolk County Council. While this stage is a statutory obligation, Network Rail has been open to observations and suggestions during its pre- application discussions with the County Council and other organisations. The “front- loading” of detailed matters during the pre-application period involves careful consideration from all parties, not least the local authorities. While every endeavour has been taken to consider the potential impact of the chord, new matters may arise or the significance of those already known may change. This response does not preclude this authority from amending its view at a later stage once an application has been submitted.
Need for Development
Over the last decade, Suffolk County Council has supported improvements to the rail network along the Felixstowe to Nuneaton route. This proposal is a critical part of the overall improvements to enable more freight trains to travel from Felixstowe to the West LAF 11/21 Coast Main Line via Peterborough and Nuneaton. Routing freight trains along this route, instead of through London, should also create some additional capacity for freight movements from Tilbury and the London Gateway Ports and/or for more passenger movements into the capital. Not only is the Ipswich Chord a nationally significant infrastructure project in statutory terms, it is significant to the movement of goods and people and to the growth of the economy.
Highways
By its very nature, the chord will not add road traffic movements directly. In fact, as part of an improved rail-freight network, it would help to remove the need for lorries to use the road network. This benefit is noted in the transport section of the Environmental Statement (ES); the accompanying Sustainability Appraisal does make a comparison of the CO2 impact but not for other aspects such as particles, road accidents or road maintenance. Whilst a detailed measurement of such aspects of this benefit would be disproportionate to the overall assessment, they should be described in further detail to enable someone reviewing the ES to better understand this benefit.
Most of the traffic-related impact occurs during the construction period (of some 90 weeks); the closure of Sproughton Road, deliveries and staff movements are some of the most significant. The closure of Sproughton Road was a matter that the County Council raised during an early stage in the process. The commitment to only close the road at night is welcome, the precise dates and times will need to be considered further such as to account for any events that are planned when these closures could occur.
The suggested travel plan could mitigate the impact of staff travelling by car to and from the site. It sets out the types of measures that might be applied as well as a commitment to a 20 per cent reduction in single occupancy car use during the construction phase. However, the appointment of the co-ordinator needs to occur before construction is commenced rather than the completion of the development as stated in section 8.1 of the travel plan. The travel plan should place greater emphasis on how Network Rail will promote the travel plan through its contractual agreements.
Traffic Management
Whilst most of the responsibility for traffic management rests with our agents, Ipswich Borough Council, the County Council does have duty to maintain certain structures and agree the passage of abnormal loads. The haulage route identified passes along Hadleigh Road from the east over a bridge that crosses the East Suffolk railway line. Suffolk County Council would not authorise any abnormal load movements over this bridge without further investigations being undertaken to certify the structural capacity of the bridge. An alternative route for these loads could be along Hadleigh Road from the west, although further assessment of this route would be needed.
Sproughton Road Bridge
One other responsibility of the County Council is to ensure that bridges with restricted height are adequately identified to avoid traffic striking the bridge. The construction of the new bridge presents an opportunity to co-ordinate the signage on both sides of the bridge and the County Council would be happy to discuss this further with Network Rail.
The height of the existing bridge over Sproughton Road is below the national standard of 5.03m (16ft 6in). Most bridge strikes occur because the driver is unaware of the height of the vehicle (including load). For vehicles over 3m in height, a notice must be displayed in the cab showing the height but this requirement and signage does not prevent the LAF 11/21 Sproughton Road bridge from being hit. Any improvement to the clearance would reduce the incidents of bridge strikes. National guidance as laid down in “Prevention of Strikes on bridges over Highways – A protocol for Highway Managers and Bridge Owners” states that highway authorities and Network Rail should work together reduce the risk of bridge strikes.1 As the owner of the current and proposed bridges, Network Rail should consider how the new bridge could be designed to increase the available clearance such as reducing the thickness of the deck. While County Council accepts that the clearance of the new bridge will not be in accordance the national standard (TD 27), we would expect such a departure to be noted in Network Rail’s ‘Form A’ approval.
One possible way of reducing the thickness of the deck (improving the clearance) is to reduce the span of the proposed bridge. In principle, the County Council still considers that the advantage to be gained from widening the pathways along Sproughton Road to be a greater priority than improving the height clearance. However, both improvements require the replacement of the existing bridge which is not scheduled and unknown. The ES should describe the options for replacing the existing bridge and how this has affected the design of the proposed bridge taking clearance and footway matters into account.
Sproughton Sugar Beet Factory Site
Has consideration been given to the potential to provide a rail connection to the former Sproughton Sugar Beet factory site. This site is allocated in the Babergh Local Plan for employment use, and in the Suffolk Waste Core Strategy as a potential site for a Strategic Residual Waste Facility. The County Council urges Network Rail to consider the implications of a potential connection.
Public Rights of Way
The impact of the proposal on the right of way along the river has been an important matter for this authority. The river path is an important route for the movement of pedestrians and cyclists into and out of the town and the authority is keen to protect and enhance this route in accordance with its policies to promote the sustainable transport systems. Whilst the dimensions needed for cyclists and pedestrians have been taken into account, the design of the new structures will present a more intimidating and potentially less safe environment for users of the river path.
The replacement bridge (Bridge 404) includes the formation of a tunnel which would create a more threatening environment. The new bridge over the Gipping would introduce another large and (currently) concrete structure and pose similar disincentives to pedestrians and cyclists using the river path, in an area with little natural surveillance.
The design of the physical environment can affect the behaviour of people and the fear of crime. Consideration must be made to how best to reduce crime and the fear of crime.2 Currently, the ES does not sufficiently address crime and the fear of crime, even though local, regional (at present) and local policies require this to be taken into account. Section eight of the ES does not include this as an issue and no mitigation is proposed. The Sustainability Appraisal highlights crime as a national and local issue but no assessment is made.
1 Also in DfT (2007) Prevention of Strikes on Bridges over Highways, para. 9.0 2 DCLG (2011) Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport, para. 6 LAF 11/21 A key principle should be to “avoid creating narrow corridors which could be perceived as threatening”,3 therefore mitigation is required, including the use of open lattice designs on the river side of the path design on both bridges. In relation to the underpass created by the replacement of bridge 404, the ES states:
“Although it would be quite large at 7.3m wide with 3.3m headroom, the new subway would feel more constricted than the large back-span opening under the existing bridge. No lighting is proposed for the subway and this could increase feelings of insecurity for people walking or cycling on the Gipping Way in darkness or half-light compared to their experience of the higher and wider opening under the existing bridge.”4
Leaving the appearance of the new bridge as one of “steel beams with concrete abutments”5 would not contribute to an attractive environment nor design out crime. In its scoping opinion, the Infrastructure Planning Commission clearly stated:
“The proposal includes provision for a bridge over the River Gipping. The Commission requests that careful consideration should be given to the form, siting and use of materials and colours in terms of minimising the adverse visual impact of this structure”.6
The County Council urges Network Rail to more carefully consider the design and appearance of the project in relation to the right of way and the mitigation needed to reduce the opportunity for crimes to occur and the fear of crime. Suffolk Constabulary’s Architectural Liaison Officer should be contacted to discuss how these matters could be addressed. Contact: Keith Bartlett on 01473 613748 or by e.mailing [email protected].
Network Rail has responded positively to the potential for a new pedestrian and cycle crossing over the Gipping, which is an aspiration shared by all local authorities. Suffolk County Council welcomes the allocation of land and the associated engineering works to leave a ramp should a pedestrian and cyclist bridge over the Gipping be possible. At this stage, no funding package is available and the County Council has not committed resources to such a project. However, should the surrounding area come forward for development, or if a comprehensive masterplan for the area were to be developed, the County Council would consider supporting such a proposal.
The County Council also urges Network Rail to come forward with proposals to demonstrate how its works can be tied in to reduce the obstruction to users of the river path posed by the steps around the Environment Agency’s sluice.
Landscape and Visual Impact
A visual assessment needs to be prepared along with detailed landscape proposals so that the visual impact of the scheme can be fully considered and appropriate mitigation measures agreed. The use of appropriate planting could also assist to reduce the opportunity of crime as well as mitigate the visual impact of the chord, bridges and any perimeter fencing. Such proposals should include the area of land between the new chord and the River Gipping (see below). Whilst Network Rail has stated that ongoing maintenance would follow its standard document - Management of lineside vegetation -
3 Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) (2004) Secured by Design Principles, page 11 4 ES, Section 8, para. 1.5.16 5 ES, Section 8, para. 1.5.14 6 IPC (2010) Scoping Opinion, para. 3.39 LAF 11/21 no details are provided on how the mitigation could be secured through this management regime. The management of vegetation for the operation of the railway (for example, keeping areas clear of tress, shrubs and brambles) is a different role from managing vegetation to address the visual impact of the scheme. The maintenance and replacement period of three years is insufficient,7 standard conditions and best practise identify a five- year period for maintenance as a minimum.
Green Infrastructure.
The County Council considers that the land severed by the new railway embankment between the new track and the River Gipping could provide an important contribution to the accessible greenspace along the Gipping corridor and help to offset the adverse visual impact of the new development upon the river valley corridor. This area should be included in the scheme as part of the environmental compensation package and would be accessed in future from the river path by means of the proposed new pedestrian bridge mentioned above
Ecology
Network Rail’s consultant ecologists have carried out initial surveys to identify and mitigate the risks in relation to protected species in particular reptiles, otter, water vole and bats. Any further surveys & assessments for the Environmental Statement should also include Biodiversity Action Plan species and notable plants and invertebrates. These surveys must be carried out by a suitably qualified ecologist at the appropriate time of year. The assessment should include both direct and indirect effects as well as in combination and cumulative impacts of other development proposed in the area.
Existing detailed species and other ecological information should be obtained from Suffolk Biological Records Centre and all new survey records provided back to the centre to update the local dataset.
Given the nature of the site, mitigation measures are unlikely to avoid all ecological impacts, compensatory measures are likely to be required for this development. The preparation of a reptile mitigation strategy will need to be agreed and any compensatory habitat should be provided in advance of the development commencing. In addition the opportunity to add biodiversity enhancements to improve the quality of the River Gipping as a wildlife corridor in the urban landscape is recommended. (see also Green Infrastructure comments above)
The impacts on sites downstream designated for their ecology - Orwell Estuary and the two County Wildlife Sites (River Gipping and Alderman Canal) – will also be need to be assessed. Indeed sufficient information needs to be obtained to the Commission to enable it as the relevant authority to scope for a Habitats Regulations Assessment. This will include the likely impacts on the Conservation Objectives of the Stour and Orwell Estuary SPA e.g. changes to water quality and water flow and disturbance to migratory birds listed for this European site. This applies equally to the Stour & Orwell Estuary Ramsar site in line with the IPC’s Regulations.
7 ES, Section 8, para. 1.6.18. LAF 11/21 Archaeology
Network Rail has co-operated with Suffolk County Council in assessing the impact of the proposal on archaeological matters. Sufficient supporting information has been provided in the ES to enable the impacts to be fully assessed. The ES has identified one heritage asset within the footprint of the proposed scheme, within the former course of the River Gipping. An evaluation undertaken in 2004 and geotechnical investigations carried out in 2010 have shown that the site contains a small part of the former course that was not truncated. Some archaeological deposits might have survived in this area. The geotechnical test pits also identified a buried peat horizon within the scheme footprint that will be adversely impacted by the piling for the bridge.8
There are no grounds to withhold the Order to preserve buried artefacts in situ. Therefore, an appropriate obligation is required to record and advance the understanding of the significance of any heritage assets before they are destroyed. The model condition from Circular 11/95 (DCLG 2006) would be appropriate:
“No development shall take place within the area affected by the current development until the applicant or their agents or successors in title has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority.”
The Conservation Team of Suffolk County Council’s Archaeological Service will, on request of the applicant, provide a specification for the archaeological mitigation.
Conclusion
Network Rail has positively engaged with this authority during this consultation process. The input into the ecological mitigation is an example. However there are still some quite fundamental outstanding matters concerning public access as mentioned above that this Authority, together with Ipswich Borough Council, will seek to resolve with Network Rail before an application is submitted to the IPC.
Yours sincerely,
Anita Seymour Senior Planner
8 ES, Seciton 13, para. 1.9.3.
END LAF11/22 Suffolk Local Access Forum
Title: Ipswich Chord – Network Rail reply
Meeting Date: 14 July 2011
Author/Contact: David Falk Venue: Aspall Room, Kerrison Conference Centre, Stoke Road, Thorndon, nr Eye, Suffolk, IP23 7JG
LAF11/22 LAF11/22 LAF11/22
LAF11/22
END