External Affairs / Policy / Consultations Consultations
Access review consultation paper reply
Institute
for Outdoor Learning
Plumpton Old Hall, Plumpton
Penrith Cumbria CA11 9NP
25 September 2002
Mrs. Lesley Taylor
Countryside Stewardship Branch
Conservation Management Division
DEFRA, Area 4C, Ergon House
17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR
Our Reference: BEL
Dear Madam
ERDP AGRI-ENVIRONMENT SCHEMES - ACCESS REVIEW CONSULTATION PAPER
Thank you for giving the Institute for Outdoor Learning the opportunity to
consult on the above paper. You may not be aware that the Institute has existed
for 18 months and is the result of the convergence of six outdoor organisations.
We have almost 1,000 members including outdoor and environmental centres, local
authority outdoor education advisors together with employees and volunteers
who work in the Outdoors.
Our views on the ten questions are as follows:
Q1 Access objectives
We suggest an additional objective.
To provide access routes to water whether a river, canal, lake or other which
has recreational and educational potential. You may be aware of the discussions
between your Department and the British Canoe Union (acting on behalf of all
outdoor water users) on the question of canoeing and other sports having the
use of waters which are at present closed. However, in many places there is
an ongoing problem of physical access to waters that at present can be used,
where the access is over private land. It would appear that this is an opportunity
to redress this problem by including such access in your objectives, in order
that landowners can receive suitable payments in respect of such access for
people, equipment and/or vehicles, depending upon the particular circumstances
of a site.
Q2 Targeting
By Counties working through the Parish Councils and the regional branches of
National Outdoor organisations, including the CCPR' s regional structures
and the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme.
Q3 Site Selection and Agreement Appraisal
As stated above we would look for public access routes to launching sites on
rivers, canals, lakes and other waters where they do not, at present, exist.
The routes would also need adequate arrangements for vehicle parking either
at the waterside (where routes are lengthy) or adjacent to public highway.
Q4 Is the scoring system about right or does
it need to change to reflect objectives and site selection criteria
more closely?
Seems about right.
Q5 Have we got the balance right between access-only
and multi-objective agreements?
We believe that you may have to consider extending the scope of the access-only
agreements if you are to achieve new access as outlined in your para 21.
Q6 Can you suggest local and national access
publicity channels that DEFRA might link up with to secure better
publicity for its sites?
With the wide range of sites to which the public have access under various
government department schemes, together with County, District and even Parish
sites there is now a need for a 'one stop shop'. The Government should consider
funding parish councils to produce a booklet for their areas.
Again, a 'one step shop' web site would be most advantageous, perhaps sponsored
by a suitable company.
Q7 How could we improve the effectiveness of
Countryside Stewardship educational access to better reflect local
and national needs?
You must first of all define the need which will probably be primary school
forms general visits and small numbers of Sixth Formers involved in a specialised
study. The visits will be organised by schools and colleges or field study
centres. Therefore communications on need and publicity should be through these
channels and you may find that Local Education Authority Advisors are the best
conduits together with the National Outdoor Organisations like the Institute
and NAFSO (National Association of Field Study Officers).
However, it must be understood that offering a site per se is not enough to
attract customers. The visit will have an educational purpose and for primary
children, site descriptions, work sheets and other preparations are essential.
Teachers will take their groups to sites which they know and where this preparatory
work is available to them. There also needs to be a risk assessment of the
pupils' health and safety whilst on the site with a clear list of dangers etc.
This needs to comply with the new Educational Visits procedures as published
by DfES.
Q8 What other incentives might be offered to
support educational access?
It is most unlikely that farmers will be able to produce suitable site descriptions,
work sheets and risk assessments. Therefore resources need to be available
to employ specialists who can produce this documentation. An advertisement
in the Times Educational Supplement and the magazines of the National Outdoor
Organisations should produce suitable specialists.
Q9 Could the payment structure be improved to
help deliver the different types of access more effectively?
We don't really have the competence to comment upon such specialised
matters except that structures will only be erected if the landowner
is not out of
pocket. Some of your grants seem very low - for example, a bench usually costs
a lot more than £30!
Some of our members have a small amount of experience of the Countryside Stewardship
Scheme and the process appears to be long and tortuous - a 56 page booklet
and five other documents for the simplest of schemes. To apply next May and
then wait a considerable period before decisions are reached would suggest
that the reality is much slower than your paper suggests. This may explain
the low uptakes.
Q10 In the light of what is proposed for Countryside
Stewardship, is there scope for enhancing the access provisions
within the ESA Scheme?
There probably is and specialist groups from Field Study Centres, Sixth Forms
and Higher Education may well welcome such enhancement.
We thank you for the opportunity to participate.
Yours sincerely
Allan Myatt
Chairman, Institute for Outdoor Learning