Contact: Andrew Smith, ext 6003 e-mail: [email protected]

1 Summary

1.1 In September, the Executive Member asked officers to seek the views of Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils on the appointment of a second Hampshire County Councillor to the joint Local Access Forum. This report conveys the results of that dialogue, and asks the Executive Member to confirm that additional representation for the County Council on the Forum should not be pursued.

2 Background

2.1 The County Council is required to establish a Local Access Forum by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to advise on and promote improvements in access to the countryside.

2.2 In September the Executive Member, with the support of her Policy Review Committee, approved the proposed membership for the next three year term of Hampshire Countryside Access Forum, as the Local Access Forum for Hampshire (excluding the New Forest) including Portsmouth and Southampton.

2.3 In addition to supporting the proposed membership, the Policy Review Committee recommended to the Executive Member that consideration be given to the appointment of a further Hampshire County Council Councillor, Councillor Carol Boulton, to the Access Forum.

2.4 In considering the report and the recommendations of her Policy Review Committee, the Executive Member decided that the issue of the possible appointment of a further HCC Councillor (which would fill the final of the maximum 22 places) to the Forum should be deferred pending further discussions with Portsmouth City and Southampton City Councils

3 Arrangements for the Joint Forum

3.1 Following wide consultation among stakeholders, officers and Councillors in all three authorities and a decision by the Executive Member in 2002, `Hampshire Countryside Access Forum' was established to advise Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council. This joint approach with local unitary authorities has recently been cited in national research on Local Access Forums as effective: "Where new (often unitary) authorities have combined with old more established authorities, as in Lancashire and Hampshire LAFS, a productive and stable relationship has been created."

3.2 The national regulations governing Local Access Forums permit Forums to comprise a maximum of 22 people. If membership exceeds 16 people, up to 3 places may be allocated to County or District Councillors.

3.3 It was determined prior to establishment, with the agreement of the Executive Member (Councillor Waddington) and both City Councils, that two places should be allocated to Councillors. One place is allocated to Hampshire County Council, in recognition of the greater amount of countryside within the authority's area, and the other place alternates between the two City Councils.

3.4 During the Forum's first term, the County Council was represented by Councillor Waddington and latterly by Councillor Ellis, in his role as the member of the Policy Review Committee with a special interest in the Countryside Service. The unitary councils were represented by Councillor Cunio of Southampton City Council.

3.5 For its second term, Councillor Ellis, with the support of the Executive Member, has agreed to continue to represent the County Council. The unitary councils will be represented by Councillor Henderson of Portsmouth City Council, who recently attended the first meeting of the new Forum. As the Forum is jointly established with the two City Councils, the previously agreed constitutional arrangements cannot be amended without their agreement.

4 Seeking views on additional County Council representation

4.1 Following the Executive Member's decision, Andrew Smith wrote to senior officers in both the unitary authorities, seeking their views on the proposed appointment of a second Hampshire County Councillor.

4.2 Southampton City Council responded to say that they would not support this proposal. In the response dated 9^th November 2005, the Travel and Transport Policy Manager said: "The City Council is of the view that the recent exercise to recruit to the Forum demonstrated the value of the existing tripartite approach to the issues that the Forum is intended to address, so that if it is proposed to add a third elected Member position to the Forum, then this tripartite approach should be continued. This would therefore imply that there should be one elected member from each of the three authorities, Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton, rather than two from Hampshire and one representing the interests of the two cities. The City Council would not, therefore, support the proposal to add a second County Council Member to the Forum".

4.3 No reply has been received from Portsmouth City Council.

4 Impact Assessment

5.1 No financial, personnel or other adverse impact is anticipated.

Recommendation

That the Executive Member for Recreation and Heritage confirms that, following correspondence with Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils, no additional Hampshire County Council elected member representative will be proposed to the membership of the Hampshire Countryside Access Forum.

Section 100D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

1. `The Local Access Forum (England) Regulations 2002', published by DEFRA

2. Report to Recreation and Heritage Policy Review Committee meeting of 15 September and to the Executive Member for Recreation and Heritage decision day of 21 September 2005 `Proposed Appointments to Hampshire Countryside Access Forum'.

3. `Review of Local Access Forums', July 2005, commissioned from the Countryside and Community Research unit at the University of Gloucestershire by the Countryside Agency on behalf of government