Meeting minutes
Meeting: Dorset Local Access Forum (DLAF) Time: 10am – 1pm Date: Thursday 31st March 2022 Venue: Hybrid meeting (Committee Room 1 and Microsoft Teams)
Present:
DLAF members:
Philip Hackett (PH) (chair)
Janet Davis (JD) (vice chair)
Fiona Bowles (FB)
Nathan McCormick (NM)
Chris Slade (CS)
Paul Tomlinson (PT)
Christopher Tucker (CT)
Dawn Rayment (DR)
Jim de Bertrand (JdB)
Nicola Harper (NH)
Phil Poulton (PP)
Amanda Wallwork (AW)
Mandy Willis (MW)
Local Authority Officers:
Tara Hansford DC (TH) (DLAF coordinator)
Philip Elias BCP (PE) (PRoW officer)
Jemma Reddaway DC (JR) (support officer)
Apologies:
Richard Deakin (RD)
Maddy Pfaff (MP)
Gesella Tidy (GT)
1. Welcome & apologies
1.1 TH welcomed everyone to the meeting, thanked PT for his years as chairman, and Jan Wardell the previous vice chair who has since retired. PH and JD welcomed as chair and vice chair respectively. TH explained that the DLAF is waiting for councillor representation from Dorset Council (DC) and Bournemouth, Christchurch and Pool (BCP).
1.2 Apologies received from RD, MP, and GT.
2. Declaration of interests (DOIs)
2.1 PH asked all to please indicate at time of each agenda item declarations of interest.
3. Minutes of the last meeting and matters arising (22.07.21)
3.1 PH asked members to indicate matters on inaccuracy via pages on the minutes from the last meeting.
3.2 Page 1, Portland Port England Coast Path (ECP): PT highlighted this issue as a matters arising and recounted previous communications between forum members AW and JD, as well as with Natural England (NE) on the matter, querying where the DLAF had got to on this subject. PH asked for matters arising to be taken up after points of accuracy and agreed that the Portland Port ECP should be discussed later on in the meeting.
3.3 JD proposed the previous minutes were a true record. Seconded by CS. No objections.
4. DLAF standing orders, recruitment, and councillors
4.1 TH report. TH addressed a couple of points raised by a DLAF member (now retired) - to reduce the overall total of DLAF members and to remove elected councillors from the DLAF. TH advised that a larger DLAF allows for a wider range of interests and expertise to be represented and lowers risks of the DLAF not meeting their quorum attendance. Regarding elected councillors TH explained their role and reason for attendance. This is to: listen and contribute to the meeting; highlight relevant DC links e.g., initiatives, people, plans relating to the forums work and remit; clarify DC constraints and opportunities e.g., resource issues; and raise the DLAF profile through their fellow councillors, committees, and wider networks. These were approved.
4.2 TH and PH made some minor amendments to the standing orders: the time for papers to be sent out prior to a meeting has changed to up to 10 working days, but no less than 5; and DLAF recruitment has been deferred a year to avoid disruption and enable all the new members to settle into their work programme over a full DLAF year.
4.3 Unanimous vote in favour to adopt the standing order changes and agreement of all above recommendations/amendments.
Action A4.2:
Adopt the standing order changes described above and written in the report for this agenda item
5. DLAF webpages
5.1 TH and JR been working to update the DLAF webpages. JR ran through key changes, including member profiles and an area for minutes and agendas, as well as highlighting an issue the web designer found with altering the main landing page. TH added that these pages can now be built on and TH and JR explained we would like to add a couple of photos, particularly one of the members if a group photo could be arranged.
5.2 PH asked the DLAF if they would be happy to have a group photograph. No objections.
Actions:
A5.1 DLAF members to email TH and JR with any additional comments and suggestions for the webpages
A5.2 Group photograph to be arranged for July meeting – PH and TH
6. Dorset Right of Way Improvement Plan (RoWIP)
6.1 TH report responding to DLAF information in support of the Dorset RoWIP review.
6.2 TH recounted that the public consultation on the Dorset RoWIP has ended, and an unprecedented number of detailed responses (over 1000) were received, with questions on a range of topics including education, maintenance, UCRs, access land, and trunk road crossings.
6.3 JD and NH respectively enquired on the rough timetable of how the Dorset RoWIP will now proceed, and for TH to summarise the public interest. TH responded that preparation of the Dorset RoWIP will be ongoing throughout 2022 confirming that legislation doesn’t specify a time limit, but the aim is to complete this year. TH explained that these responses along with various other data are now being analysed and will take some time although the DLAF will be updated with key headliners as this progresses.
6.4 FB added that the amount of interest is good news, and a detailed plan is needed, also asking how the RoWIP will be used and embedded in other plans so it can be delivered. TH explained there is no statutory duty to implement the RoWIP and no specific budget; however, DC take this work seriously and it will inform, and direct, service delivery. Guidance advises employing “innovative and creative methods” to implement the strategy. As with the previous RoWIP, implementation will be through:
- projects of varying scales
- joint work involving various partners
- identifying, and hopefully securing funding
TH added that this version will include 1-3-year delivery work programmes, allowing flexibility in delivering specific actions relating to identified strategic issues, as well as to monitor and adapt accordingly regarding implementation. TH also feeds into key related plans and strategies and sits on the Local Plan and Transport Local Plan working groups.
6.5 PH, PT, PP, FB and TH held a discussion about the particular issue of roads in Dorset getting busier and severance of PRoWs. PH particularly highlighted the need to see where bridleway severance can be stopped (DOI – PH is a member of the British Horse Society (BHS)). Members discussed that previously cases of bridleway severance were raised by the forum. TH answered that this was a key issue in Dorset ROWIP 1 and that these concerns are being fed into the RoWIP review. TH previously met with Highways England concerning a very small pot of money they hold that could be applied for to obtain a crossing if a list of top 5 priority locations were put together with evidence of need. TH answered when asked by FB about duties to regard PRoWs in planning applications, that the ranger service and TH respond to planning consultations.
6.6 PH noted that the implementation of cycleways (Active Travel Fund (ATF) & Transforming Cities Fund (TCF)) could help improve fragmentation and get full value with them if they included equestrians alongside cyclists and pedestrians. PH has been working with the TCF on a case in Poole but noted this will be picked up on in agenda item 13.
7. BCP RoWIP – DLAF response
7.1 PT noted this area of work was predominantly completed by JD and a previous DLAF member. PT summarised that this work exposed the DLAF’s local knowledge on Dorset’s Eastern side is not as good as it should be and that the DLAF received an email thanking them for their response and that it will be incorporated in the final issue.
7.2 PH checked with PE that the requisite 12-week consultation period on the BCP RoWIP was carried out. PE answered there had been a shorter 6-week public consultation period over the winter that has now concluded. It is currently in the editing process and believed it would be finalised soon and adopted by the summer.
8. BCP RoWIP
8.1 PH questioned PE which parts of the TCF project are multiuse as PH did not receive a satisfactory reply from Chris Peck (CP) clarifying which part of the route would be multiuse. PH’s understanding was that it was for commuters, but that cycle-routes should be multiuse and include horses (DOI: PH is a member of the BHS). PH added that Section 6 of the ATF policy includes horse riding and from that position riders would expect to use those routes for safety. PH also added that making the route multiuse would be best value for money but that the council had yet to respond.
8.2 PE answered that some TCF multiuse routes incorporate horse riders by legal necessity as they hold bridleway designation. Others currently are designated footpaths, where designation or creation of cycle tracks will need to be a consideration to accommodate both walkers and cyclists. PE expressed sympathy and agreed bridleway traffic should be incorporated where possible as there is high demand for equestrian routes and there are areas that require joining up. PE continued that they thought horse riding connectivity was not a main consideration for TCF as commuting was a focus. PE gave Richard Pincroft as a contact who may be able to give a more detailed answer of what can and cannot be achieved under TCF and hoped that what cannot be achieved by TCF can be via the RoWIP.
8.3 PH added there have been numerous meetings discussing multiuse issues and the assurance that there was an implicit understanding to “join the dots” with TCF routes but this had not happened. For example, when trying to establish if equestrians are allowed to use the Queen Anne’s Drive and the Castleman Trailway in East Dorset, PH had received an ambiguous answer from the council so was still seeking clarification. These routes are important vehicular free links, not only for walkers and cyclists but also equestrians in the access network.
8.4 Agenda item 13 incorporated into this item
8.5 In response to the comment that equestrian needs were not a priority as TCF routes have a commuting focus NH questioned if leisure cyclists therefore cannot use these routes, making the point that many cyclists using TCF or ATF routes are doing so for leisure journeys. NH also raised the issues of motorbike barriers creating barriers to equestrians and disabled users. FB responded that all such routes should be multi-use.
8.6 MW added that a local bridleway has been transformed into a cycleway (Long Lakes), questioning if creation of cycleways were resulting in bridleway routes being lost. They questioned where the expertise within TCF is to ensure this doesn’t happen, stating that the DLAF needed to be able to have a voice in this huge project.
8.7 PH added that the ATF and TCF have some crossover and not only are these routes about commuting but also increasing exercise. PH was assured all concerns over these routes were taken on board in person but that the resulting routes exclude equestrians. PH has struggled to obtain written responses over this matter and did not believe councils have a defined policy re horse riding on cycleways and suggested a working group. TH recommended the DLAF pool together key issues and evidence to put forward their concerns and proposed policy to relevant officers with the aim to follow it up with a meeting.
8.8 MW, PP, FB, PH CS offered to be part of a multiuse working group with NH to be kept in the loop. TH added if other members wish to put themselves forward after the meeting they can.
Action A8.8:
Multiuse route working group: MW, PP, FB, PH CS and NH/TH to be kept in the loop
9. Open Access – Map Review
9.1 Note: TH Access Land Maps Review report. Key point review postponed to 2024/25 post ECP implementation 2023/24. Members to incorporate this into their work programme. This process could potentially add and remove access land.
9.2 TH highlighted to new DLAF members the Access Land working group is led by JdB and its work to identify island sites with no PRoWs to get to them.
9.3 TH explained that they secured funding from NE for improvements at Access Land Parley Common this year. TH also informed the DLAF that they are involved in access land restriction reviews and that NE are due to issue some shortly.
9.4 NH enquired about the nature of the potential grants for access land. TH explained this was a one off and that there is nothing set in stone until more details are received. Currently, implementation of the ECP is NE priority.
9.5 Concerning access land, CS asked if landowners are made aware they have access land, referring to some instances of private signs. TH answered that they should be informed in land sales/exchange and issues can be reported to NE and Defra as providing access will be linked to farming payments. JD added that the DC PRoW system does not allow members of the public to report on access land and asked if a capacity for this was possible. CS added would this be part of the ranger service remit. TH replied this was an issue raised in the RoWIP, in the short term this should be channelled through DLAF and TH, but TH will speak to Natural Environment Team Leader Oliver Rendle (OR) on a long-term measure.
9.6 PT queried whether the working group on this matter was approaching a point where the work is passed on, and if the DLAF were going to investigate whether NE have the power to create access routes to open access islands. TH answered JdB’s work will be fed into the RoWIP and that NE do have those powers. TH reminded members that if the access islands are removed those PRoWs created to access them will then be dead ends. PT agreed that in most cases a permissive path would be more appropriate. JdB responded that they were keen to get to a point that they can draw a line under the work however further refinement is needed to a list of sites that can be put forward by the DLAF working group. PH agreed to come to a consensus on a shorter list of sites. PP and CS were keen to be involved. TH or JdB to circulate to absent members.
9.7 PP brought up that there are discussions concerning extending the CRoW Act to include rivers, woodlands and greenbelt land for mental, physical and health benefits, and asked if the DLAF would support this motion by possibly contacting local MPs. PT questioned whether doing so would be in the DLAF remit. NH added they had not heard about this but that woods were originally considered in the CRoW Act and decided against. FB added that there is quite a big movement to allow rivers space to move which may be a limitation to extending the CRoW Act. TH advised that this proposal has been put to government and that the DLAF can contact MPs highlighting and advising on access enhancement matters. TH advised members to compile a report to fully debrief other members, enabling an informed discussion and consensus for DLAF advice and action. This could be done for a range of the DLAFs work i.e., policy or position statements that could be added to reflecting a case by case basis. PH agreed for PP to circulate some information amongst the DLAF to ratify at the next meeting.
Actions:
A9.3 TH to circulate access land restriction reviews to members when received
A9.5 TH to investigate a long-term solution for members of the public to report access land issues
A9.6 Access Land Working Group: JdB to refine and finalise the list of DLAF priority sites with PP and CS.
A9.6 TH or JdB to invite absent members to join this working group.
A9.7 PP to circulate information to DLAF members on the potential extension of the CRoW Act seeking DLAFs position or action and complete a report to ratify at the next DLAF meeting.
10.England Coast Path (ECP)
10.1 Note: TH ECP report. TH confirmed that this report was largely an update of the current position for information so that the DLAF can continue to monitor progress of the ECP. TH confirmed that it is likely a section of the Dorset ECP will be implemented in 2024, after the official 2023 opening and celebrations. TH had recently spoke with NE concerning the Kimmeridge-Highcliffe section and informed the DLAF that she hoped to hear another update on this section in a few weeks’ time.
10.2 PT commented that they had not seen anything on specific proposals concerning an inland diversion route around the back of the Lulworth ranges as the DLAF should be looking at them. TH added the route is yet to be finalised although a nudge to NE that the DLAF would like to see the proposals may help. PH agreed.
Action A10.2:
PH to inform NE that the DLAF would like to see proposals on an inland diversion of the ECP around the back of the Lulworth ranges when they are ready.
11.Definitive Map Team update including 2026 repeal
11.1 Note: Definitive Map Team Update report prepared by Vanessa Perry (VP) and TH concerning Definitive Map Modification Orders (DMMOs), Public Path Orders (PPOs), and 2026 repeal. Report opened to questions.
11.2 CS noted that in the community governments review parish boundaries may be changing and that may also be interesting for the definitive map in terms of path re-numbering.
11.3 JD added that the ramblers don’t intend to cut down on their discovering lost ways project considering the repeal cut-off date (DOI: JD is a member of the Ramblers’ Association) and asked if the Definitive Map Team will be replacing a retiring member of staff. TH deferred this question to VP.
11.4 PT explained they had previously written to VP’s line manager, Director of Place John Sellgren and two Councillors expressing concern and suggesting it should be worked out what resources are required to process DMMOs in two years. PT added VP’s report shows no improvement and suggested PH send off the letter again. PH agreed to follow up PT’s previous letter.
11.5 MW commented that the DMMO process is very complicated and that the process needs questioning. MW raised particular points such as not being able to take images of waymarks and fingerposts; 6- page witness statements; the requirement for witnesses to live in the area for at least 20 years; and in one case houses have been built in the time it takes for a DMMO to be granted, resulting in the loss of a footpath. PT agreed but explained that, whilst onerous, DC are doing what legislation states is necessary and for now DC resourcing should be the focus area. PH agreed with the concerns adding that cases can take so long witnesses die before they are resolved so both issues should be raised and DLAF to advise legislation needs to change.
11.6 Regarding the 2026 repeal, PH explained that the government intend to renounce it but until the Act is repealed it is live so recording of routes should continue.
11.7 NH commented that as part of the 2026 repeal there will also be a change so that landowner applications will be prioritised within a certain length of time and asked how that may affect workload and other applications. TH to ask VP.
11.8 CS asked whether DLAF members can be notified what public enquiries are coming up so they can contribute. TH to enquire.
11.9 JD added that to make the 2026 repeal cut-off date effective a commencement order still needs to be made. Also, Defra have said that they will search for an opportunity for some primary legislation to introduce the 2026 repeal. JD clarified the landowner right to apply for a diversion was in the CRoW Act in 2000 but never commenced. It has now been brought forward to compensate i.e., if the local authority refuses a landowner application the landowner can apply to a Secretary of State.
Actions:
A11.2 CS to ask VP if the changes of Dorset Parish boundaries will have implications for path numbers and the definitive map
A11.3 TH to ask VP if they will be replacing the retiring staff member
A11.4 PH to follow up PT’s previous letter concerning resources to process DMMOs
A11.7 TH to ask VP how landowner prioritising will impact on workload and applications
A11.8 TH to enquire if DLAF members can be notified of upcoming public enquiries
12.Agriculture Act – ELMs
12.1 Note: DLAF Working Group Report. NH summarised that the old systems had provided permissive access, but this could be hit and miss as permissive access is not noted on maps, and that in 2010 the government withdrew funding from permissive and open access areas. In the proposed new funding scheme “public goods” was to include “public access” but it appears to have now been omitted. The DLAF have written three times highlighting this matter to the Secretary of State. Two responses have been received but with no clear answer with NH concluding the situation is a muddle.
12.2 PT added the most recent letter from Defra contains factual errors, including a reference to Countryside Stewardship, and that the DLAF should complain about those and write one more time and explicitly ask if Defra are committing to achieve improved access to the countryside and when.
12.3 NH added on a different point that the latest modification of the Countryside Stewardship scheme includes payments to woodlands for access, but other Countryside Stewardship has no monies for access. PT added this may be something to follow up with the Forestry Commission (FC), as it is a FC managed scheme, and suggested it be a good idea to invite a local FC officer to the next meeting to speak about the scheme. DR added that she would contact a FC woodland creation officer in Wareham and invite them (DOI: DR works in Forestry England).
12.4 FB commented that ELMS funding comes in three layers, with a 10% spend on some Farming in Protected Landscapes (FIPL) projects, and some money has been given to access within that, although this is a very small contribution.
12.5 PH drew members back to the recommendations in the paper attached to this agenda item and asked how the DLAF members wished to proceed. NH proposed recommendation 2, seconded by PP and unanimously voted for by the DLAF members. PH agreed to write and send letter.
12.6 DLAF members discussed recommendations 5 and 6 as FB suggested it may also be good for the DLAF to join in discussions at partner level, involving talks with other nature lobbies. PT supported this idea but felt they should be decoupled from the Agriculture Act debate. NH added that regarding NE many staff have been re-deployed to the Rural Development Areas, and don’t really have a budget so play an advisory role. NE are unaware of what role, if any they will play under the new ELMS scheme (DOI: NH represents NE). NH continued that NE have to apply to Defra for any budget and the DLAF are already writing to Defra, although this may be a different team. PH suggested writing to both Defra teams. TH reminded the DLAF that as they are requesting information the DLAF can write to Defra and NE and copy in the Secretary of State. TH recommend the DLAF write a letter to everyone concerned and see responses. NH was happy to give a NE contact. PH concluded they were happy to receive the name and any draft the DLAF wish to go forward with.
Actions:
A12.3 DR to liaise with TH organising a FC woodland creation officer for the next DLAF meeting as a guest speaker
A12.5 PH to implement recommendation 2 write a letter to Defra highlighting the previous responses were inadequate and the DLAF would like an informed response clarifying if they are committed to achieving improved access in the countryside, as well as how and by when do they intend to achieve this
A12.6 PH to implement recommendations 5&6. NH to provide PH with NE contact. PH to write to Defra, NE and the Secretary of State to establish if there will be commitment and funding in ELMs for improving access to the countryside, and to engage with other Dorset related organisations to share dialogue, thinking and action.
13. Cycling – DC
13.1 Please refer to agenda item 8.
14. Consultations/Ratifications
14.1 TH introduced this agenda item as relating to work that is carried out between meetings including leading on consultations and working groups. The member that has coordinated the work collates this into a report, which is sent out and actioned between meetings, and the report is brought to the meeting to ratify the work. TH asked that the whole forum responds to emails from forum members, even if abstaining or making no comment as full numbers are needed for all pieces of work.
14.2 DfT Bus Back Better Programme: led by JD, unanimously ratified.
14.3 BCP local plan: led by NH, NH noted an acknowledgement wasn’t received when this report was sent off. Unanimously ratified.
14.4 Government response to landscape review: TH raised that the DLAF must decide if they wish to respond, and if so they will need a working group. JD offered to do this when the consultation went live and will proceed to coordinate a response from the DLAF. JD highlighted that the DLAF should respond to the change of remit in AONBs to increase responsibility for access issues. NM (DOI – NM is a member of the Green Lane Association) wished to contribute regarding supporting continued vehicular use of unmaintained roads.
14.5 PT suggested that the reply sent to the planning team concerning Longham footpath 33 ought to also be ratified. PH and TH agreed.
Actions:
A14.4 JD to liaise with NM to draft a response for the DLAF to review. NM to pass Green Lane Association information on to JD.
A14.5 PH to include Longham footpath 33 DLAF response to planning team ratification in the next DLAF meeting.
15.DLAF work programme
15.1 TH explained there is a lot to address as there are lots of issues that have and are being worked on. Top 3 priorities have also been collated for each member. Running through the work programme TH noted that standing orders and the DLAF website have been addressed, and a logo and identity would be worth thinking about when writing advice. ROWIP review, access land, and definitive map update have also been covered.
15.2 TH noted that PRoW maintenance was to be raised here and that a question was put to the Dorset Council ranger service about MNT reports and the current situation however a response had only just been received and this will be circulated.
15.3 DLAF members discussed the PRoW maintenance service provided by the rangers. PH notes issues remain on the Cside system where some MNT reports say they have been resolved but have not, particularly with bridleways in the central area (DOI: PH is a member of the BHS). PH stated that there were multiple complaints that were not addressed, and a meaningful response is needed, querying how can we have a PRoW network fit for purpose with so many outstanding MNT reports. CS added that offline paths are often not corrected, but that may be due to DMMO backlog. FB noted the online system makes it hard to follow progress on MNTs and added issues may be resource based. PP and PH agreed it would be good for the ranger teams to take a photo when issues are resolved.TH added that there is the facility to do this, and some do but this point will be relayed.
15.4 TH answered a query from FB on issues where action is needed by landowners to resolve a MNT. TH highlighted that landowners do have maintenance responsibilities and that rangers inspect the issue and remind landowners of these or work with them to resolve the issue.
15.5 NH asked if maintenance specifications take into account DDA Equalities Act etc., as well as if bridges are now correct. TH answered yes although this will be raised again through the RoWIP, and that as far as TH is aware yes, however on the ground the rangers have to work with what is available. If there are issues, they should however be flagged up.
15.6 PT added a report used to come out of Cside which was useful to have visibility of scale of works and asked why this was changed. TH responded it may be due to management of system change but this related to information TH has asked for on behalf of DLAF.
15.7 On PRoW maintenance PH suggested an offline deep dive or review in preparation for the next meeting and pose questions to Giles Nicholson, manager of the ranger service. TH will circulate the information received from Giles on this subject and invite Giles to the next meeting.
15.8 PT noted that years ago a percentage of routes were checked that they were open and easy to use as part of a local government monitoring system; volunteers including the Ramblers surveyed a random sample of PRoWs evaluating if they met the criteria, but this stopped some time ago. PT added a system of that nature would be helpful. TH explained the Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) 178 process, adding that it was a 5% random selection of the PRoW network that was surveyed. However, this BVPI was dropped, and Dorset discontinued with the survey as whilst helpful, a random selection did not reflect where limited resources had been targeted to enhance PRoW, or differentiate between those PRoW most used and where limited resources would be best directed.
15.9 TH returned to summarising the work programme, concluding that the 2026 repeal, DMMOs, woodland creation grants, trunk roads, ECP, active travel and multi-user working groups, road severance had been covered in this meeting. TH added that a potential planning application working group was proposed and JD had shown interest; UCRs were being fed into the RoWIP; PT had written on PRoW and public transport connectivity; JD had written on the AONB in Dorset. On the planning working group JD commented that they felt overcommitted currently but offered to prepare a paper for the next DLAF meeting with suggestions.TH concluded that a lot had been picked up on today and members may wish to go away and think on the work programme, picking up one or two big items and a few small ones.
15.10 PH suggested that the work programme is kept as a standing item on the agenda as there is a lot going on currently.
15.11 NH added that more information could be provided on partner groups members could sit on maintaining strategic links, relations, and two-way dialogue. PH and TH agreed and will circulate.
Actions:
A15.1 Access Land working group – JdB, CS, PP
A15.2 TH to circulate PRoW maintenance update to DLAF members
A15.7 TH to invite Giles Nicholson to next DLAF meeting A15.9 JD to prepare paper for next DLAF meeting with suggestion for a planning working group
A15.11 TH and PH to circulate information to DLAF members on partner strategic groups
16. Members feedback from associated groups/meetings
16.1 Local Nature Partnership (LNP), FB: The LNP was introduced as an organisation set up by government to deliver nature improvements, with a focus on agriculture, who meet regularly and hold an annual forum. FB attended the annual LNP forum last week and recounted key points. In terms of access there was little outcome except some landowners are engaging well with the public to introduce them onto land in order to educate them about the food they’re producing, although FB noted they are a minority in the farming population. NE were asked if access was included in any of the levels but weren’t sure. Rewilding and less food driven land use was also looked at and there seemed to be engagement on access in those areas although there may be a mild access issue around more stock on land. FB recounted another meeting attended that mentioned a large funding gap to deliver nature and access for public benefit over the next 10years and that innovative ways of funding are required. FB suggested that access will need to find out how to jump in and when and that through the Health and Wellbeing Through Nature (HAND) project the DLAF may be able to push the LNP to see access as requiring funding as well as nature. PH offered for FB to bring back something to the DLAF for support if needed.
16.2 Dorset AONB, JD: Recounted a point of interest from the last AONB board meeting about FIPL and the access grants given under that scheme so far in the Dorset AONB. JD queried the lead AONB officer about how the public find out about access granted under FIPL and didn’t receive a satisfactory answer although they will now tell TH. JD continued that there is something there for how the public find out about new access granted under FIPL access grants. PH will write to Dorset AONB for clarification.
16.3 Portland Path, AW: AW recounted some history on the Portland Path matter: the DLAF agreed to write a letter which did not happen; Portland Port originally offered to open an access route through their land but didn’t want to pay to remove a fence; other routes were suggested but after research those wouldn’t be accessible. The issue became complicated, and Portland Port made the route offer a condition of planning permission for the Portland incinerator. AW concluded the demand for a route is still valid but shouldn’t be as a condition as offered before. AW unsure how to word a new letter but happy to draft one. PH asked why the condition was there and AW answered it was part of the mitigation/compensation package as there was lots of opposition for the application. TH asked in the desired path route was an official PRoW and if legal PRoW access was desired. AW answered it was extinguished when the MOD took over the land and access of any sort is desired. It was later discussed that this route also was not on the ECP although NH and AW noted it would create a round route. TH advised an update is required, in light of planning, and the DLAF need a current state of play to decide if the DLAF can advise and what advice they wish to give. PT added that this route was discussed by NE before and recalled a document to send to PH for reference and go alongside AW’s information on this topic. PH happy to pool those together and receive items from AW and PT.
Actions:
A16.2 PH to write to Dorset AONB asking for how members of the public can find out about new access granted via FIPL access grants
A16.3 PT and AW to send latest correspondence on Portland Path. All to pool together up-to-date briefing report for DLAF to consider further action.
17. Date of next meeting
17.1 Thursday 28th July 2022 and Thursday 24th November 2022