Agenda item

Andy Farmer, Ranger Team Manager, outlined the Landscape and Engagement Team structure and work priorities.  The teams within this structure are Farming in Protected Landscapes (FiPL), Ranger, Land & Nature and Engagement.  The Access and Rights of Way work sits within the Ranger Team.  Mike Rhodes, Richard Pett and Jess Coatesworth are team leaders in the Ranger team and manage the Area Rangers.  Sue Smith is Access & Rights of Way Officer and works on the Authority’s statutory responsibilities in regard to Access Land and the making of Public Path Orders, as well as accessibility projects such as Miles without Stiles.

Sue Fletcher, the recently appointed Head of Landscape & Engagement introduced herself to the LAF members.  Sue has been with PDNPA for some time and has had several roles within the organisation, starting with the Property Team.  Sue’s role with the bringing together of the Landscape and Engagement Team was to take things forward strategically in challenging times.  She was attending today’s meeting to listen and learn and understand the priorities with Access and Rights of Way work and what the statutory role of the team is. 

Andy Farmer then went through the Ranger Team priorities and the wide remit of its work, plus the involvement of volunteers and the line management. There are priorities within the Access and ROW work.  Andy advised the group that there was a planned lunchtime demo of the Access App, which the Rangers use to log, monitor and evaluate work around Access points within the National Park.  Recreation Hubs have been set up to create an area management approach to priority areas of the National Park.  The authority no longer deals with general Rights of Way enquiries, so resources can then be focussed on priority routes, such as trails and CRoW Act work.  There is work to highlight accessible routes and the Walk Around booklets, as well as on going Green Lane work.  This work is incorporated into the management of the Recreation Hubs.  This is a challenge as each area is different and it won’t be possible to carry out all the work set out in the list of priorities. Green Lanes form part of the work mentioned around priority routes, as set out in the Green Lane Strategy.  Work on sites such as Limer and Swan Rakes has to be done in partnership as the PDNPA doesn’t have the resources to do this work alone. 

Charlotte thanked Sue and Andy for clarifying the new structure and can see a role for the LAF representing major user groups in how work is prioritised.  It was good to have the emphasis on putting responsibility back on the relevant authorities for issues which have previously been shouldered by the National Park Authority.  Louise hopes the LAF can play a part in that new structure.  Andy Farmer responded by saying that he wanted to get across the reality of the Authority’s current position.  Work needs to be value added.  LAF voices should be heard and LAF members views are welcomed to advise the Authority on Access and Rights of Way, especially when making difficult decisions.  There have been reduced resources for some time now. 

Nick Doran thanked volunteers for their work, especially in the Longdendale Valley around Hadfield and the tunnel, where he feels United Utilities (UU) has been a bit absent lately.  He wondered how maintenance works are organised within the Authority.  For example, bushes and drainage issues that cause problems on the Longdendale Trail.  Andy advised that UU is aware of the problems.  Jess Coatesworth, along with the Area Ranger, have looked at the trail there to prioritise and establish?? works.  The National Park Authority ensures that voices are heard and fed back to the relevant organisation, in this case that is UU.  Partnership working with the various utility companies is good.  The work is organised around team priorities and the Ranger Team leaders steer the rangers with the work.  Jess mentioned that UU has had a bit of a reorganisation and there is focus back on the Trans Pennine Trail.  They are aware of some horse rider issues and are looking at who will do that work.  UU has been directed to FiPL to seek other funding they can tap into.  They are also looking to get more user groups involved.

Clare Griffin could see there were difficult choices to be made and that the Authority has to look at how it prioritises work, but she wondered what happens if someone is off sick, for example.  She asked if the new structure is now set. Andy stated that the PDNPA Chief Executive, Phil Mulligan, has said the new structure is a 5 year plan.  There were more rangers going back in time, but they needed to make the best of the current situation.  Team members try and cover where they can if needed.  Mike Rhodes felt that the new structure had created a bigger, stronger team overall that can work together more easily.

Martin Bennett mentioned the work of The Ramblers footpath committee, and that there was no Footpath Secretary for the High Peak at the moment.  He asked how the PDNPA ensures that the constituent highway authorities are keeping the footpath network up to standard.  Andy responded that it doesn’t do that checking.  Other local authorities have had budget cuts - the National Park Authority will add value to their work and through the use of its user surveys can influence via the recreation hubs to bring partners together.  The National Park Authority cannot lead all the recreation hubs, other partners will have to step in.  This is what stakeholders signed up to with the National Park Management Plan. Richard Pett added that different authorities had different approaches to manage their work. 

Sue Smith also advised that with something like the Miles without Stiles work, landowners, highway authorities and key stakeholders all needed to have input.  Louise asked if the Miles without Stiles was just co-ordinated by PDNPA or did authorities such as Derbyshire and Staffordshire also have their own programmes. Sue Smith responded that Miles without Stiles was a National Park brand and initiative across the UK, and that specifications are being rolled out to other areas and locations to develop accessible routes.

John Towe told the Forum that he had volunteered with the National Park for 20 years and seen a lot of change.  There is a big pool of volunteers, and the structure of the training and the use of volunteers has changed.  There is a wider skills base now and John could take up opportunities to volunteer every day if he wanted – whereas previously the shifts were at weekends only.  There are volunteers going out 7 days a week.  This change has benefitted the rangers where volunteers are advised of what work needs doing and they can meet that requirement.  John feels this is a real help to the Authority.  Andy backed this up to say that volunteers are organised over the week so there is more widespread use of this resource, with a wider range of opportunities.  There is a different approach to training, which is more modular, so that the volunteers can dip in and out of activities and training in a more flexible way.  John added that there was a mix of working and retired people in the pool of volunteers, so this flexible approach is better for everyone.

Geoff Nickolds asked how much resource has been lost.  Andy advised Geoff that in 2004 with the introduction of the CRoW Act, there was additional resource put into the National Park from government.  At one time there were 22 area rangers, now there are 10.  The Engagement team also does education work, as well as the area ranger work.  Geoff felt that the new structure is clearer and makes sense.  The forming of recreation hubs was moving back to when there were area management plans in place.  Andy agreed that the concept is the same as previous area plans, but the delivery will be different.  Partners need to work together, as the PDNPA can’t do this work on its own.  As an example, there is a Draft Recreation Plan for the Hope Valley, where the priority is with sustainable transport.  The consideration is what the envelope is for this area and what goes into the mix to form the plan.  Mike advised that previous management plans involved working with large landowners and authorities, but the plans being formed now would be much more in partnership with smaller, local groups such as charities and parish groups.

Geoff mentioned that previously he had been involved in this way of working in the Upper Derwent Valley, where they achieved a lot, and if the proposed areas plans are an update on how things were managed there, that would be a good thing.

Louise wondered if the recreation hubs included input from other PDNPA teams, such as FiPL, Property and Transport.  She wondered if there was cross team working.  Andy used priority routes in the Hope Valley as an example where it could be questioned whether FiPL or Transport can contribute to that work where some of this is out of the PDNPA’s control.  The recreation hubs are being set out by 2028.  At the Upper Derwent Valley, Severn Trent Water may need to be the lead on that, so different hubs will have different priorities, with different delivery mechanisms.

Sue Fletcher added that after the organisational changes the Authority will have to rethink this work, and it would be a mixed model approach.  Louise asked that as more clarity emerges with the forming of area plans, can this be fed back to the LAF group. Andy agreed there was more thinking and more development work to do.

Louise said that DCC has identified some priorities.  Green lanes are being looked at from a park wide perspective.  Some work is completed, some isn’t and new issues are being identified.  It is important for individual LAF members to flag up the priorities as they see them and then monitor.  Annual meetings with DCC should be maintained, sub-groups should carry out site visits and the priority list for Rights of Way and Access work kept up to date.

Martin asked Jack how the local highway authorities and Peak District LAF compared with those in other areas across England and Wales.  Jack advised that it was difficult to measure the performance of highway authorities in relation to rights of way as there was no longer a best value performance indicator on this. There are issues with some highway authorities, but not in this area. The PDLAF is functioning and effective and stands out in comparison.  Louise said that it could be useful to look at where the LAF previously carried out a monitoring role on this and how that work could be picked up.