North Yorkshire Local Access Forum (NYLAF)

Best Practices in Northern Local Access Forums, and suggestions for NYLAF

Date:  28 May 2025

Report of:  Will Scarlett and Stephen Clark

Purpose of the Report

In considering our programme in January we agreed to carry out a survey of best practices in other Local Access Forums (LAFs).  This note is based on input from seven LAFs in the North.  It is suggested that the Forum considers how we might build these best practices into our ways of working and our future programme.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Since our January meeting Stephen has discussed best practices with Lancashire, Cumbria, and Northumberland LAFs, and Will has had questionnaire responses from Bradford, East Yorkshire/Hull, Calderdale and North Yorkshire Moors LAFs[1].  This paper summarises findings and suggests how we might modify the way we work. 

1.2 In this note the term Appointing Authority (AA) is used for the individual or group of authorities that appoint the members of the LAF.  The term “Countryside Access Service” (as in North Yorkshire) is used to denote the officer team within the AA that is responsible for public rights of way.  In some authorities this team may be known by other names. 

2.0 Summary of Principle Findings

2.1 Interpretation of objectives of Local Access Forums

The Access Forums contacted have had to define their focus in:

· Maintaining a focus on higher-level issues, whilst also finding ways of promoting tangible change;

· Steering a clear line so that the LAF “adds value”, and does not duplicate the activities of the AA’s Countryside Access teams; and,

· Advising the Appointing Authority (and similar parties) rather than adopting “campaigning” positions.

Best practices emerge where (1) the Chair is very clear on these points, (2) where Access Forum members are encouraged to explore issues with each other informally as well as through formal meetings, and (3) where the training of Access Forum members brings out these distinctions. 

2.2 Structure of Local Access Forums

The Northern LAFs are similar in structure to the North Yorkshire LAF.  The main difference is that some LAFs have more “voluntary” members (in addition to officers and elected representatives).  There are benefits to having smaller numbers of members in order to make recruitment easier, meetings easier to manage, and to reduce the likelihood of factions developing around specific stakeholder interests.  In contrast larger LAFs have the potential to accomplish more as tasks can be shared between more people.  Notwithstanding this the size of the LAF does not seem to be a critical factor in whether it is effective.

The members of some LAFs are more clearly identified with “interest groups” (e.g. cyclists or horse-riders) than in North Yorkshire, although in all LAFs members are encouraged to take a wider view.  Some LAFs have had difficulty recruiting members who can effectively represent land-owners or occupiers.  In some LAFs there is a tendency for some “interest-group” members to become a little factional, and stray towards campaigning rather than advising. 

2.3 Relationship to Appointing Authority

Several Access Forums made clear that it was important to set an agenda that actively helped and supported the aims of the AA’s Countryside Access Service.  In most cases LAFs have good relationships with officials in the Countryside Access Service (or equivalent), and this is clearly essential for the success of the LAF.  In one LAF the Access Service was actively consulted, and constructive, in the management of the LAF meetings. 

Some LAFs would like better engagement with other Departments including planning and highways.  Similarly some LAFs feel they would benefit from better engagement of their elected representatives.

Many LAFs have more than one Appointing Authority (AA).  The LAFs for Cumbria, Northumberland, Lancashire and East Yorkshire/Hull all have more than one AA.  These Joint LAFs work well, although the advice was don’t change things in North Yorks unless they are broken!

In several areas the Appointing Authority also has a Public Rights of Way committee.  These committees are councillor-led but don’t have decision making powers, and often pre-date the creation of LAFs in the early 2000s.  They tend to advise the relevant Countryside Access Service on geographically-specific issues relating to rights of way.  These committees operate independently from the LAF. 

2.4 Operation of main Local Access Forum meeting

Most LAFs meet between two and four times per year: some have hybrid meetings.  At least one LAF arranges the main meetings so as to encourage informal interaction between members around the main meeting.  Sometimes this takes the form of members having tea/coffee or lunch together on the day of the meetings, and in other cases an occasional “field trip” is arranged around the main meeting.

One LAF has timed agendas for its meetings.  The meeting is accompanied by an action tracker so that nothing is lost between meetings.  To help manage the meeting the Chair, two Vice Chairs, the Secretary and the Head of Countryside Access Service have a pre-meeting where they plan the main meeting so that time is well spent. 

Several contacts expressed concerns that their LAF meeting had too many briefings by guest-speakers without any clear thinking as to what subsequent action the LAF might take. 

2.5 Progressing actions between meetings

The success of individual Access Forums is directly related to the work and effort that was carried out between meetings.  In some cases this was down to the enthusiasm and tenacity of individuals, and in other cases to the creation of formal “task and finish” groups. 

These ways of working both helped make progress between meetings on complex topics, but also created a sense of collective endeavour between forum members.  In the best examples almost all individuals on the LAF made direct contributions between the main meetings. 

2.6 Agenda:  What issues have other Access Forums engaged on

The list of agenda items covered by the LAFs researched included:

· Development Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP), and connectivity more generally between settlements.

· Establishment and publication of policies on certain issues (e.g. around levels of accessibility, surface treatments, diverting footpaths away flood-prone areas, UURs and their maintenance).

· Opportunities to create new permissive rights, including opening of old railway tracks as public rights of way/ greenways.

· Planning application related advice.  In some cases this was related to significant linear infrastructure such as roads, cables associated with electrical installations and pipelines. 

· Issues relating to erection of new fencing on/around access land.

· Making the case in the Appointing Authority for more resources to be provided to the Countryside Access Service (two LAFs). 

· Review of work of Countryside Access Service – at least annually. 

· Management plans and reporting in relation to National Landscapes (aka AONBs).  Inputs to the definition of National Trails.

· Improving access by public transport and car to the rights of way network outside major settlements.

· Some input to “difficult to resolve” public rights of way blockages and closures.

· Work to raise the profile of public rights of way in relation to visitor economy (e.g. through publicity and leaflets).

· Legal issues relating to access for cavers, or for canoeists.

· Celebration events, for example for long-standing members, or for LAF achievements.

2.7 External Communication

Some Local Access Forums have established proactive external communication of their work, linked to an identity or brand.  Those that have been proactive in communication see it as very important to their success.  Conversely if there is nothing substantive to report then proactive communication is pointless.

In all cases the Local Access Forum web presence is hosted on the Appointing Authority website.  In those Access Forums that have established their own brand these web-pages look and feel different to the AA.  One Access Forum noted that a distinct visual identity was important in making clear the independence of the Forum from its AA. 

Most Access Forums publish their meeting materials on the web (agenda and minutes).  Some Access Forums also publish an “about us” page on the web, an Access Forum annual report, key policies, news items, and a description of how people might get involved. 

At least one Forum makes use of local agricultural shows to reach out to the general public, and used this to get contributions to the ROWIP. 

2.8 Recruitment

The more active a LAF is, the easier it is for them to recruit.  Some LAFs noted that by improving their web presence or “brand” that people were more likely to know about the work of the LAF.  One LAF invites prospective applicants to attend a LAF meeting on a “try-before-your-buy” basis. 

2.9 Things we do and others don’t do

We do more on planning than other LAFs.  When I outlined that we tended to concentrate on protecting, and seeking improvements to, rights of way in the “larger” planning applications I had the impression that others could see the advantages of taking that approach.  I described our work on inputs to major solar farms covering several square kilometres, or major housing developments (>1000 units).

As already noted we do not identify our members with specific interest groups, albeit that our recruitment, in common with other LAFs, had sought to include a balance of interests amongst the LAF members.  My own view (Stephen) is that we are better off not changing the way we identify ourselves with “interest-groups”.

2.10 Sharing best practices with other Local Access Forums

It would seem there is scope to share Access Forum best practices more.  The Yorkshire Regional Forum is seen as effective.  Our engagement with other LAFs on best practice matters in the creation of this report was welcomed – and in some cases led to Access Forums re-evaluating their work. 

A best practice guide for LAFs, and a handbook for LAF members, were both published about 20 years ago.  Both can be supplied to members if desired.  Defra also maintain an up-to-date register of LAF chairs and secretaries, and this has the potential to be used to create sharing of best practices on a national level.

3.0 Suggestions for changes to Ways of Working NYLAF could adopt. 

We should consider the following:

· Ensure all Access Forum members having a clear understanding of the objectives of LAFs, including around issues of balance in the way those objectives are interpreted (see 2.1). 

· Time around the main meeting to allow for informal interaction and discussion between Access Forum members (see 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4).

· Engagement with the CAS and/or Secretariat to ensure that they are consulted on the NYLAF agenda, and wherever possible that the agenda is supportive of the CAS work (2.3).

· Good organisation of the regular meeting, including tracking actions, setting up task and finish groups, and an expectation that all Access Forum members will contribute to work between meetings (see 2.4). 

· Development of a stronger identity for NYLAF, and an enhanced set of external communications on the web-site (2.7).

· Agreement to a programme of work that includes a prioritised set of issues where the Access Forum can make a difference.  The draft of a programme as tabled at our last meeting is in the Appendix. 

· Sharing this paper with other Access Forums, with the aim of encouraging some more sharing of best practices between LAFs.

APPENDIX:  DRAFT PROGRAMME - NORTH YORKS LOCAL ACCESS FORUM

(As tabled in January 2025 – with some suggested changes in BLOCK CAPITALS.)

Meeting	Proposed item (Figures in brackets refer to section in January paper)	Lead individual(s) or sub-committee
2025
29 Jan	· Review of future programme (this paper). · Rights of Way Improvement Plan (2.1). · Consultation on Yorkshire Wolds AONB (2.5).
28 May	· Countryside Access Service report for 24-25 (2.2). · Rights of way network and North Yorkshire tourism, culture and leisure activities (2.3). · Howardian Hills/Nidderdale mgmt. plans (2.4).  [NOW LIKELY TO BE IN SUMMER] · Election of Chair and Vice Chair.
24 Sep	· Rights of way network, highways, transport policy (including active travel) (2.6).  ADD LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN? · Review of Best Practices in Local Access Forums in England (2.11).  [NOW FOR MAY 25.] · Review of NYLAF works with Stakeholders (2.12).
2026
21 Jan	· Review of effectiveness of NYLAF and review of future programme (2.13).
May	· Countryside Access Service report for 25-26 (2.2). · Election of Chair and Vice Chair.
Sep	· Public education on countryside and access (2.10).
Standing items	· Review of Minutes · Matters Arising · Public Questions and Statements · NYLAF Secretary’s Report · Regular updates from area and major project representatives (if needed). · Agenda for next meeting and forward plan
Items to be added when timescales are clearer.	· Next steps on Wolds AONB consultation (2.5). · Local Transport Plan / Active Travel Strategy (2.6). · Input to NYC Local Plan development (2.7). · Major planning interventions (2.8). · Emerging requirements for policies, strategies or operational position statements (2.9).

---

[1] Lancashire Local Access Forum covers Lancashire County Council, Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council and Blackpool Council.  Cumbria and Lakes Joint Local Access Forum covers Lake District National Park, Cumberland Council and Westmoreland and Furness Council.  Northumberland Joint Local Access Forum covers Northumberland National Park and Northumberland County Council.  The East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Kingston upon Hull City Council form a Joint Local Access Forum.