National Access Forum - 20 March 2024 NAF/LAF

NAF/LAF Meeting - 20 March 2024

Joint Meeting of National Access Forum and Local Access Forums Virtual meeting via MS Teams

Main themes: Communication, Forestry and Training for LAFs

09:50 – Join the virtual meeting

10.00 – Welcome and introductions - Don Milton, NAF Convenor

10:10 – Update on recent & current NAF work – Ali Tait, NAF Secretary

10:20 – Session 1: Communicating with LAFs

• Introduction - Previous feedback from LAFs has highlighted that many LAFs struggle with issues around communication - members of the public don’t know how to get in touch with LAFs, LAF visibility is low and therefore the LAF goes relatively unknown, communication between LAFs can also be tricky. Are there examples of LAFs that have managed to establish good lines of communication with members of the public, with their local authority, with other LAFs in their area? Discussion around what formats, platforms could be helpful going forward to increase communications between LAFs/members of the public/local authorities and how these could operate.
   
• Facilitated breakout groups discussion 

11:00 – Comfort break
    
11:10 – Session 2: Hugh McNish - Update on UKFS 

11:30 – Session 3: Training for LAFs

• Introduction - What kind of training opportunities would be helpful for LAF members? What training have LAF members had that was useful? Can LAFs, NAF members, local authority staff identify any training opportunities that would potentially be beneficial to LAF members?
   
• Facilitated breakout groups discussion 

12:00 – Q&A/discussion session 

12:20 – Closing remarks - Don Milton, NAF Convenor

12:30 – Close

Introduction

The joint virtual NAF/LAF meeting was held with 41 attendees. 17 local access forums were represented by LAF members and/or local authority reps. 11 NAF member bodies were represented. Compared to the NAF/LAF 2023 meeting, the ratio of LAF members to LA reps and NAF members was higher. 

The meeting had three topics to focus on: communication, forestry and training. The aim of the meeting was to provide an opportunity for LAFs to share their local experiences, highlight opportunities and share potential solutions.

Welcome and highlights from the National Access Forum

Don Milton (NAF Convenor) welcomed everyone to the virtual meeting, highlighting that feedback from the previous two NAF/LAF meetings indicates strongly that LAF members wanted more time for discussion, especially in breakout rooms. Accordingly, he highlighted that there were to be no plenary feedback sessions after breakout rooms, but that any topics raised in breakout rooms could be raised during the final Q and A session if so wished.

Ali Tait (NAF Secretary) provided a summary of the key elements of the NAF’s work since the 2023 meeting, which included:

• A paper brought by the NAF Upland Deer Management and Access sub-group to guide national level public facing communications, which identified key periods as the main theme for messaging. Members were pleased overall with the guidance and happy to endorse it for use beginning with the 2023 stag season. The guidance was updated in November 2023, following the removal of the closed season on male deer in Scotland.
   
• Graeme McLean gave an update in June 2023 on the progress of the research carried out on e-MTBs, by Edinburgh Napier University and available on the British Cycling website. DMBinS (Developing Mountain Biking in Scotland) has been developing specific messaging for their website.
   
• A paper was presented to the NAF to seek feedback from NAF members as to whether there is a growing issue surrounding permissions, administrative requirements and charging for access to sites for educational activities, and whether this is impacting on outdoor practitioners. This was initially raised with the NAF by the Chief Operating Officer of Learning through Landscapes and co-lead of the National Network for Outdoor Learning (NNOL). No feedback was received from NAF members. There had been a gap in SAPOE (Scottish Advisory Panel for Outdoor Education) representation on the NAF. The new rep, Willie White, is looking into how to gather any examples of this issue from SAPOE.
   
• NatureScot CEO, Francesca Osowska, attended the Feb 2024 NAF meeting to update members on NatureScot’s current priorities and involvement in access. Going forward, NatureScot will continue to convene, influence and deliver through others. NatureScot will continue with its statutory functions relating to access with the further development of SOAC campaigns and promotion; as well as facilitating the NAF. It will also continue with other access related activity such as long distance route forum, refreshing of access related guidance, providing advice and supporting strategic approaches to visitor management.
   
• At the Feb 2023 meeting of the NAF, the updated guidance, “Managing Access in Areas of Wildlife Sensitivity in Scotland” was approved and a commitment was made by the NAF to review the guidance following the summer season. Thus, at the Feb 2024 NAF meeting, Caroline Fyfe (NatureScot) led a review of the updated guidance and would be interested to know of any examples of use/promotion. The NAF approved the updates to the guidance.
   
• A new, updated fires messaging framework for visitor management was presented at the Feb 2024 NAF meeting. This has been developed through the Visitor Management Strategy groups for use by the VMS Education & Marketing group, operational managers and others, to deliver a consistent approach to fires related communications in a visitor management and SOAC context. The NAF also approved the creation of a sub-group (combined with visitor management group members) to update the existing guidance, "Lighting fires and access rights under the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003".  

Session 1: Communication

In opening the session, Helen Todd presented information available in the existing LAF guidance about LAF communication. Helen suggested four topics for discussion in the breakout rooms:

• Communications within the forum
• Communications with the contact group
• Communications with the access authority
• Communications with the media and the public

Summary of points made in the breakout groups:

• Recognition that the resources available to LAFs and access officers/authorities is much reduced compared to 2006.  Access Officer (AO) budgets get used for other things - could they be ring-fenced? PKC is an example where a LAF is doing well, partly due to continued support from the wider LA greenspace team, not solely reliant on access officers. However, it is worth noting that the support above is under review, this LAF and LA are collaborating trying to source funding that could be used to provide secretariat service and support the LAF. 
   
• There have been occasions where access officers have left the post resulting in a prolonged period where the LAF was getting no support. On several occasions this unfortunately led to the LAF folding.
   
• Could NatureScot have a list of LAFs online, like the AO contacts page? Who would co-ordinate all this? NatureScot as part of their secretariat role? There is already lots of training out there that would be beneficial to LAF’s, but it is difficult for LAF members to find these. Some of these may not be specific to access, some may be around minute taking, running consultations events, mediation and facilitating workshops. A resource library of documents and links available to LAFs and indeed councils e.g. good practice guidelines, list of acronyms, etc.

Action Point: NAFSec to investigate possibility of webpage on SOAC website, containing links to useful documents, webpages, information that could be beneficial to (but not limited to) new LAF members.

• The Paths for All/NatureScot guidance - Local Access Forums: A Guide to Good Practice - could be updated. As part of the update, suggest a change in emphasis toward building capacity within LAF’s so they are self-sufficient and would require less input from Access Officers.
   
• Communication is mainly between LAF and LA. Publicity and announcements made through LA. The public visibility of some forums has faded away over time, despite still being a busy, active forum, largely due to diminished support from the LA.
   
• Lack of information addressed to disabled recreational users - see Further Information.
   
• It was generally felt that forum members are well connected and it’s inspiring to talk to other members, keeps them all motivated. But the public is unaware of the LAF’s work, needs a more positive message getting out about what their role is. On the other hand, some LAFs reported issues with LAFs comms and AOs. LAF members may not communicate between LAF meetings. 
   
• Councillors also need to be kept informed and engaged. Difficult to keep up recognition of the LAF amongst council officers and councillors when there is a changeover of staff.
   
• One LAF member expressed concern that in their LAF they had a volunteer providing secretariat services. Unfortunately, they left and no one else took on that role which has made it harder for the LAF to function. Could Local Authorities provide secretariat services to LAFs?
   
• LAFs with long-standing members seem to work better than new forums.
   
• Membership issues/gaps: hard to keep a full forum quorum. Land Managers interest is generally lacking, and hence difficulty in recruiting them. If people apply to the LAF but don’t get on (e.g., already a rep for that interest) they could be kept in touch with, useful for substitutes and wider dissemination (at the 2023 NAF/LAF meeting, an attendee highlighted that LAFs could potentially have full and corresponding members). Tendency to blur the distinction between member categories in order to make up numbers.
   
• Aspiration to make at least some meetings public but struggling with logistics. In person requires suitable venue – no funds to hire space. Virtual requires sufficient IT competence and good bandwidth. Meetings online makes it easier to reach out to potential members as there’s no need to travel, whereas in person meetings during the day only really work for access professionals and retirees.
   
• There’s an assumption that LAF members talk to their constituency, but no formal mechanisms for this to happen.
   
• Regional meetings would help, including inter-LAF networking options would be helpful.
   
• Use of social media – e.g. council FB page – can be useful in getting to new audiences, but unlikely to be younger ones. Need a range of channels.  However, this is normally done by the access officer and capacity is an issue. Community Volunteer Path groups use social media (mainly Facebook) to promote their activities and help attract new volunteers. Could LAFs make better use of social media or other online methods to raise their profile? 
   
• Sharing of minutes, it would appear that these are not publicly available in some areas.
   
• Use existing channels of communication with various groups e.g. community councils. One advantage is that these other groups often are looked after by other council staff/ departments and so the message about access can be disseminated.
   
• Mountain bike trail associations are using QR codes so that riders can donate money to contribute towards trail maintenance, this is now being replicated by volunteer path groups and could LAFs be making better use of QR codes?
   
• Topic of GDPR took up significant portion of session both in terms of fora members’ personal information and lack of information related to access issues.
   
• In D&G they have set up an Access Trust alongside the LAF. The Access Trust is freer to communicate directly with the public.
   
• Active travel is well funded right now, are there benefits in active travel staff discussing projects with the LAF to see what can be improved for general access?

Session 2: Forestry

Hugh McNish, Scottish Forestry, gave a presentation on the new United Kingdom Forestry Standard (UKFS) and how it relates to access. Scottish Forestry is the Scottish Government agency responsible for forestry policy, support and regulations. Hugh highlighted the Forestry Grant Scheme (FGS), which offers financial support for creation of new woodland and the sustainable management of existing woodland. He then introduced the new UKFS; the technical standard for forestry across the UK, which provides the foundations for sustainable forestry management. Several points within Chapter 7 (Forests and People) were referred to:

• Public access 
  • Legal requirements 3 and 4
  • Good forestry practice requirements 1 and 3
• Public involvement
  • Good forestry practice requirement 7

Hugh also referred to FGS conditions of award, Section 10:

“You must allow access to the property by virtue of any public rights of way over the property and comply with your obligations as a land manager in relation to LR(S)A 2003 and SOAC”. 

Session 3: Training

Nick Cole introduced this session by suggesting the following topics for discussion:

• What do people think they need, bearing in mind that each Forum is slightly different to each other?
• Legal issues, interpretation of the Act and how the Code fits in to it.
• Councils’ operating procedures – interdepartmental roles.
• Mediating.
• Admin, such as taking minutes, reporting, chairing.
• Networking via site visits, learning what issues trouble different interest groups.
• Media relations.
• Promotional activities
• Fund raising

Summary of points made in the breakout groups:

• Some participants were unsure about their own “qualifications” to be LAF members and the purpose and extent of their role – good induction process and ongoing guidance and training would aid this. 
   
• Generally no training or induction offered, members just learn as they go. Some participants had never received any training, despite being members of their LAF for up to 10 years. 
   
• Scottish Outdoor Access Network (SOAN) are developing an online training module introducing Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and SOAC. This course will cover a summary of LA duties and powers and introduce the act and the code. Although it is not aimed at LAFs their members could still benefit from participating, particularly if they are new members. 
   
• Another good example from PKC, their greenspace team have delivered tutorials to LAF members to help with the running of the group.
   
• Suggestion that LAF members are given an induction into the work of the LAF, background reading and references. Could this be prepared by NAF? NatureScot?
   
• There was a suggestion that the role of NAF could be formalised put on a statutory basis.
   
• Could NAF members deliver training to LAF, e.g., BHS delivering a session on horse access? 
   
• It is likely that NAF member organisations are already running training sessions for their members, some of which would be online. Should there be a central portal where all these resources could be made available to all LAF’s? Opportunities are taken to give briefings to LAF members, e.g. from the police on wildlife crime, and these are found to be useful.
   
• Neighbouring LAFs could join together for training sessions.
   
• Paths for All have run webinars where community path group representatives tell their stories e.g. how they got started, how they recruit volunteers, the challenges they face and how these have been overcome. These sessions are more engaging than a traditional online training format. The sessions also get recorded and shared online so people can access them whenever they want. Could LAFs be doing something similar? 
   
• Should training be provided to LAFs to help raise their profile and recruit members, could this training be included in a review and update of the Local Access Forums Guide? Short YouTube style videos would be very helpful.
   
• Do LAFs need GDPR training, there seems to be a lot of mixed messages coming from LAs on how information should be getting handled. For example, if there is an access dispute is it right that the landowners’ details are often widely available?
   
• Online training makes sense, especially for those in more remote areas, but the value of in person training, including site visits, was recognised.  
   
• Crossover with roads legislation impacts on access, could be useful to learn more.
   
• Forestry – some LAFs engage with forestry planning, public register can be viewed, but it can be difficult to understand the plans and only 3 weeks to respond. Could the LAF set up a sub-group to look at plans? Could a forester on the LAF (e.g., FLS staff) give quick training to members on how to read forestry plans?
   
• Planning – windfarm sites, planning applications - as above, can be impacts for access and often only a short period to respond. Sub-groups might engage with planning lists or major development applications, crossover with community councils’ work.
   
• Mediation skills training has been very useful for rangers/access officers, could be offered to LAF members, but there’s a cost involved. 
   
• Mentoring, perhaps neighbouring LAF members could help – sharing practice etc.  (Cost could be an issue for the volunteers).
   
• Legal advice (currently completely lacking and relies on LAF member diligence and experience).
   
• Council structures (they will all tend to be different).
   
• NAF/NS could lobby Ministers to highlight LAF roles? 
   
• Core path plan training 

Q&A Session 

1. Received before the NAF/LAF meeting - "Are there any other access authorities, apart from the one that I know of, who take the view that the provisions of s.3(3) of the Land Reform Act provide an authority with the discretion whether or not to take any action at all in accordance with the duty under s.13(1)?”

Discussion was had about the limited resources local authorities have, and several AOs highlighted they have to prioritise their work, e.g. focus on paths that are heavily used. It was also raised that in addition to the Act Sections mentioned in the question above, LAs have been known to use s.13(2) as a reason why they have carried out actions under their duties of s.13(1). 

2. Received before the NAF/LAF meeting - “Can we table the issues of GDPR for discussion please, and generation of advice for Councils and LAFs to ensure consistency?” 

GDPR was raised in both break-out room sessions as an issue. Tony Mason reported that at West Lothian Council, privacy and data-sharing documents have been developed by the data officer. Bridget Freeman reported that at Aberdeenshire Council, LAF members sign papers about data sharing when they join. The LAF has open and closed meetings, and the Chair is able to consent when asked for advice. 

3. Concern was raised that forestry schemes can be very concentrated geographically; could they be more spread out? Hugh McNish responded that this is something he would look into and reply to the LAF member in question.

Closing remarks and next steps

In closing, Don highlighted that feedback forms were to be sent out and encouraged attendees to give feedback either via the form or by e-mail to the NAF Secretary. He thanked the attendees, breakout room facilitators and speakers and noted that the discussions he sat in on were engaging and some interesting topics/potential solutions had been raised. 

Issues raised at this meeting will be raised at the NAF meeting in June with a view to determining the best ways forward to support LAFs.  A further update will be provided after the draft minutes of the June meeting have been prepared.

Further Information

Outdoor Accessibility Guidance - Supporting Inclusive Outdoor Access in the UK - Paths for All 

NatureScot
April 2024