Items
No. |
Item |
1. |
Apologies for Absence
Minutes:
Apologies were received from
Cllr Graham Cockarill (Hart District
Council), Cllr Jonathan Glen (Hampshire County Council), Cllr James
Radley (Hart District Council), Cllr Karen Randolph (Elmbridge
Borough Council) and Councillor Martin Tennant (Rushmoor Borough Council) plus Richard Ford
(Runnymede Borough Council).
|
2. |
Minutes of the Previous Meeting and Matters Arising PDF 82 KB
Verbal update from Simon Thompson on Crown
Estates.
Minutes:
The minutes of the previous
meeting, held on 3 March 2017, were agreed as a correct record
after the following typographical adjustment:
|
|
|
“Attendance – A
correction was noted in the attendance list and subparagraph 2.1 to
correctly spell Gayle Wooton’s
name.”
|
|
3. |
SAMM Update PDF 216 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
SAMM Project Manager – Ann
Conquest presented a SAMM update. She reminded Members that Simon
Thompson had moved to project manage Natural England’s input
into the expansion of Heathrow Airport and that she had taken over
as SAMM Project Manager in May 2017.
|
|
Staffing – 6 full time
wardens were supported by seasonal wardens each year. Seasonal
wardens had been recruited in March, though a further recruitment
had been necessary to fill a post which had become
vacant.
|
|
Wardening
– The project provided for a warden service on
the SPA 7 days a week, from 7.30 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. (daylight hours
permitting) and a breakdown of wardening activity had been provided for the period
January to June 2017.
|
|
The data focussed on the total hours, broken down
into number of interactions, number of those spoken to who had
already had an interaction, leaflets handed out, number of dogs,
plus dog walkers with multiple dogs (5+) and the average percentage
spoken to.
|
|
It was noted that the Autumn and Winter numbers were
always lower than in Spring/Summer. Wardening time increases in March each year, with
the recruitment of the seasonal staff.
|
|
The increase in commercial dog walkers, with 5 or
more dogs, was a matter of growing concern, given the difficulties
in controlling multiple dogs and the potential for faecal matter to
be left on site.
|
|
SANGs Visitor Surveys – As
part of the monitoring role agreed in May 2016, SANGs surveys had
been used at 16 sites during Autumn and Winter 2016/17. The results
should have been available for this meeting, but the handover
period for the Project Manager had led to a delay and the outcomes
would be presented at the next meeting.
|
|
Access to Ministry of Defence/Crown Lands
– It was reported that the project was still
accessing MOD land on an accompanied basis, but that it was likely
that access would be agreed to the publically accessible MOD sites.
In terms of access to Crown Estate land, a further meeting was
scheduled with the Deputy Ranger of the Windsor Estate to try to
progress the SAMM project’s access to Crown Estate land, but
it was still anticipated that access would not be achieved before
2019, when the arrangements between Natural England and Crown
Estates are due to be renewed.
|
Communications, Promotions and Events
– Ann Conquest outlined some of the current
and proposed projects, highlighting the success of the
‘Greenspace on your doorstep’ booklet, the Heathland
Hounds project and guided walks on the SPA.
|
|
There was a slight pause in May and June to the
popular SPA Car Park Pit Stops, to cover Purdah requirements in the
run-up to County and General Elections, but very successful visits
to SPA heathland had been run for children from Pine Ridge and
Lorraine Primary Schools.
|
Action: Report to next meeting on SANGs Visitors’ Survey
analysis.
|
4. |
SPA Car Park Update PDF 636 KB
Minutes:
The Board considered an analysis of vehicle counts
around the Thames Basin Heaths SPA in 2016. The data was collected
by the SAMM project and analysed by Footprint Ecology in April
2017.
|
|
Counts were carried out on 11 different dates, 6
transects, starting in different locations and done simultaneously,
counting vehicles over a 2 hour period. The start time and day was
varied over the year to collect data across mornings, afternoons
and evenings, as well as weekdays and weekends. Types of vehicles
and weather conditions were also recorded.
|
|
The evidence supported the Wardens’ view that
the various sites were more heavily used in the morning. There was
a high correlation between the data collected in 2014 and 2016, but
direct comparisons were difficult because of the use of different
methodologies and resources allocated to the study carried out in
2016.
|
|
5,211 vehicles were counted over the period, with an
average of 474 per transect, but there were significant differences
in usage, in terms of numbers and type thereof, with the highest
vehicle numbers being recorded on Broadmoor to Bagshot Woods and Heaths SSSI, whilst the highest
recoding of commercial dog walkers was on Colony Bog and
Bagshot Heath SSSI.
|
|
Compared to previous years, there had been
relative decreases in use around Bourley/Long Valley, towards the east end of
Yateley and at Caesar’s Camp.
There appeared to have been a relative increase at Lightwater, Ockham & Wisley Common and towards the southern end of Ash
to Brookwood Heaths SSSI.
|
|
Members noted that car parking was high at the
Lookout because of the number of activities participated in from
that location. Usage had remained consistent, despite a parking
levy being introduced in 2012.
|
|
Footprint Ecology had made recommendations, as part
of their 2016 report, on possible changes to the temporal spread
and number of transects across the year, to improve the data and
analysis thereof, as well as recommending that car park changes
should also be recorded and reflected in the transect data. These
would be incorporated into the next survey.
|
|
Agreed, that the report be noted.
|
|
5. |
Financial Report PDF 246 KB
Minutes:
Jenny Wadham, Principal
Accountant from Hampshire County Council, presented an update on
the financial position of the Thames Basin Heaths SAMM and seeking
Board guidance on whether independent advisors should be appointed
to invest some or all of the funds held within the Endowment
account.
|
|
As at 31 March 2017, there was £4.387 million
in the Endowment Fund, with £797,868 in the Maintenance Fund.
It was projected that a further £1.133 million would be added
to the Endowment Fund in 2017/18 and that the fund could rise to
£7.673 million by 31 March 2020.
|
|
Jenny Wadham noted that,
should the board be minded to invest monies generated in the
2017/18 financial year, a total of £5.520 million could be
available.
|
|
Members noted that consideration of investments
would be the subject of the subsequent report and agreed to focus
on the financial statements only at this stage.
|
|
It was reported that the majority of the expenditure
incurred to date (£1.188 million) was to cover project costs,
with £10,160 allocated to Natural England for administrative
support and £20,000 to Hampshire County Council for financial
administration.
|
|
Total expenditure in 1016/17 had been
£450,918, which was £21,214 less than forecast due to
staffing vacancies and delays to planned works.
|
|
The SAMM business planned had envisaged an
approximate requirement of £1.6 million annually to meet
ongoing costs. The projected tariff incomes for the next 3
financial years would be £1.619m, £1.674m and
£1.403m respectively. In the business plan, expenditure per
annum, on an ongoing basis, would be £500,000. Actual
expenditure would be in the region of £447,000 per
annum.
|
|
Members noted that, despite earlier concerns over
projected income and costs, these had been proved correct over
time. The SANGS payments resulting from conversion of offices to
residential accommodation was welcomed, but viewed as a windfall
rather than an ongoing income stream.
|
|
Resolved, that
|
|
(i)
The current
financial position and projected financial position for the 3 years
to 31 March 2020 be noted; and
|
(ii)
The
provision to transfer any unused Maintenance Fund balances to the
Endowment Fund be noted, but the balance be retained within the
Maintenance Fund in the short term to meet staffing
commitments.
|
|
6. |
Potential Investment for the Endowment Fund PDF 1 MB
Minutes:
The
Board were reminded that, at the previous meeting, it had agreed to
establish a small steering group, including Councillors Moira
Gibson, Mike Goodman and David Hilton, be tasked with considering
investment options in relation to the Endowment Fund
balance.
|
|
It
was recognised that Hampshire County Council (HCC), as the
Board’s Administrative Body, would be able to invest on the
Board’s behalf and instruction, but would not be able to
advise the Board or take on any risk on its behalf.
|
|
It
had been proposed that financial advice be sought from CCL, which
also provided financial advice to HCC. However, CCL would note
engage independently with individual members of the JSPB, without
HCC involvement.
|
|
The
Board agreed to seek advice from CCL as a matter of urgency.
Councillor Mike Goodman agreed to arrange possible dates for the
Steering Group, supported by Jenny Wadham, to meet with CCL, to consider how to
invest, how much, how to monitor/manage investments and due
diligence requirements.
|
|
Following consideration of investment options and implications,
it was agreed that the Steering Group recommendations should be
circulated electronically to Board Members for an urgent decision,
to avoid any further delay and maximise income.
|
|
Resolved,
that
|
|
(i)
The Board
notes that the Administrative Body cannot provide financial advice
on the investments of the Partnership;
|
(ii)
The Board
agrees to takes independent financial advice before making any
investment decisions, in accordance with the Partnership
Agreement;
|
(iii)
The Board
agrees to provide clear written instructions to the Administrative
Body in relation to any investments to be made, that are in
accordance with the independent financial advice
obtained;
|
(iv)
The Board
notes that the Administrative Body will ensure that the investment
instructions have been fully taken account of, and are in
accordance with, the independent financial advice provided to the
Board, before making the investment;
|
(v)
The Board
acknowledges that the investment risk rests with the JSPB, and not
with the Administrative Body;
|
(vi)
A Steering
Group, consisting of Councillors Moira Gibson, Mike Goodman and
David Hilton, supported by Jenny Wadham, be tasked with meeting CCL Financial
Advisers, as a matter of urgency, to consider how to invest, how
much, how to monitor/manage investments and due diligence
requirements; and
|
(vii)
The Steering
Groups findings and proposals be circulated electronically to Board
Members, with an electronic response sought, to allow actions to be
progressed urgently.
|
|
7. |
SAMM Payments received by Authorities outside of the 11 Thames Basin Heaths Authorities
Verbal update from Marc Turner – Natural
England.
Minutes:
Marc Turner reported that, when the JSPB was established, a
number of rural authorities fell into the SPA area but, at that
point, it would not have been anticipated that there was any
likelihood of their having and significant housing developments.
However, at least 3 Authorities (Mole Valley, West Berkshire and
Basingstoke and Dean) were potentially looking at housing within
the SPA.
|
|
Any
housing development in the SPA should generate SAMM contributions.
However, any Authority contributing to the process would almost
certainly look to have a presence on the JSPB. However, questions
existed about a mechanism for those Authorities to make SAMM
contributions, could the current agreement have an addendum to
incorporate new arrangements or would a completely new agreement be
needed and would the new participants have access to all existing
funds?
|
|
It
was noted that HCC could only spend funds because participating
authorities had signed written agreements authorising that
expenditure. Any arrangements with new authorities would require a
similar sign-up.
|
|
Marc Turner clarified the Natural England position, which would
involve JSPB support and instruction before projects could move
forward or be rolled out to other Authorities. The tipping point
for the JSPB would be an allocation in an Authority’s Local
Plan. He agreed to write to the Authorities concerned suggesting
incorporation in Local Plans.
|
|
Resolved,
that
|
|
(i)
Options be
explored around further authorities within the SPA collecting SAMM
contributions; and
|
(ii)
Consideration
be given to the inclusion of new
authorities in the JSPB and the form of written agreement which
would be necessary for the inclusion of new authorities on the
JSPB.
|
|
8. |
Wealdon Heath Judgement on Cumulative Impact of Development
Verbal update by Marc
Turner – Natural England.
Minutes:
Marc Turner provided an update on a recent judgement which could
impact on SPAs.
|
|
Wealdon District Council had challenged the Lewes Joint Core Strategy in
the High Court, on the basis of the cumulative air quality impact
on Ashdown Forest, within the South Downs National Park.
|
|
The
judge quashed part of the Lewes Joint Core Strategy, the effect of
which was the deletion of 1,177 allocated homes within the relevant
boundaries of the South Downs National Park, on the basis that
Lewes had failed to consider the cumulative ecological impact on
Ashdown forest.
|
|
As well as eroding the Lewes 5
year housing Land Supply in the short and medium term, the
judgement appeared to indicate that any future planning application
in the area, including sites geographically remote from Ashdown
Forest, would require a consideration of the potentially cumulative
ecological impacts of development on this protected
forest.
|
|
Although the judgement was considered to be somewhat vague in
terms of useful practical detail, it was thought that
the potential implications could
include:
|
|
(i)
The need to contribute to or provide a Suitable
Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) or Strategic Access
Management and Monitoring (SAMM) as part of your application;
and/or
(ii)
To wait indefinitely for submission or a decision, as
complicated regional habitat assessments are carried out or
compensation/ mitigation measures are put in place.
|
|
Marc Turner confirmed that Natural England and the Air Quality
Technical Action Group were reviewing this and other related
judgements and a more definitive response would be released in due
course.
|
|
Given the levels of new housing in Surrey each year for the
foreseeable future, Air quality management was an issue for all
Authorities in the SPA and any Local Plans or plans for major
developments would clearly need an air pollution section. However,
the impact on Thames Basin Heaths was not so clear.
|
|
Members also highlighted the ongoing impact of the
motorway/highways networks and the M25, M3 and A3 in particular, as
well as increased aircraft numbers, on air quality and the limited
influence Councils had on these.
|
Councillor Moira Gibson noted that both Guildford and Surrey
Heath Borough Councils had been identified by the Government as
needing to achieve air quality improvements, but the main issue,
the M3, was outwith their
control.
|
|
Councillor Brian Adams reported that the Inspector considering
the Waverley Local Plan recently, had indicated a strong priority
on housing over traffic infrastructure and delayed
journeys.
|
|
It
was reported that Rushmoor Borough
Council, in its Local Plan, had taken a precautionary approach by
considering any development generating 100 car movements a day
rather than the more generally used level of 1,000.
|
|
Councillor Chris Turrell reported
improved air quality in Crowthorne when
traffic calming measures had been removed. Otherwise, air quality
management in Bracknell Forest had been consistent.
|
|
It
was agreed that, whilst each Authority would have to address the
issue separately in their Local Plans, there was a need for a
concerted approach by the 11 Authorities on how the cumulative
impact of air ...
view the full minutes text for item 8.
|
|
9. |
Any Other Business
Minutes:
(i)
Nightjars – It had been
suggested at the previous meeting that a comparator data/trends in
Dorset be considered. On further investigation, it was established
that the Dorset nightjar numbers were very low. There was no
apparent decline but data gathering there had been much less
comprehensive than in this area.
|
|
(ii)
JSPB – By the next
meeting, the JSPB and its forerunner will have operated for 10
years. It was agreed that consideration should be given to a press
release/publicity and a Board photograph at the next
meeting.
|
|
(iii)
Habitat Management Payments – A decision had been taken, some years previously on
legal advice, that habitat development should be excluded from
attracting developer contributions. At the previous meeting, it had
been considered that this position should be reviewed and that more
up to date legal advice should be sought.
|
Whilst
noting that habitat management should have been a comment rather
than an action and recognising that land owners could only receive
one payment for work on their land, it was agreed that this could
be an area to be re-visited in the future.
|
|
(iv)
Natural England – Brexit Readiness
Team- Noting that Natural England had established a Brexit Readiness Team, Members
agreed to seek a presentation from that Team to a future
meeting.
|
|
10. |
Date of Next Meeting
Minutes:
It was agreed that proposals on
a date/time for the next meeting be circulated by
e-mail.
|