DRAFT MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL MEETING OF GENERAL COUNCIL HELD AT THE ADELPHI HOTEL, LIVERPOOL L3

29 – 30 MARCH 2014

Approved for circulation by the Chair June 2014.

ATTENDANCE LIST *denotes a member of Council (voter) President Kate Ashbrook* Vice-Presidents Andrew Bennett*(Saturday only) Richard Lloyd Jones* Cath MacKay* Malcolm Petyt* Paddy Tipping* Chairman Jonathan Kipling* Honorary Treasurer Robert Peel* Board of Trustees Naseem Akhtar* Mike Church* Moira Fraser* Des Garrahan* Max Grant* Alex Mannings* Richard May* Gwyn Lewis* David Thomson* Richard Trueman* Agenda Committee

John Esslemont* Liz Lawie* Sylvia Popham* Brian Reader* Clare Wadd* Avon Area Jill Fysh* Ann Light* Bedfordshire Area Bob Tarron* Rita Tarron* Berkshire Area Ali Melabie* John Moules* Buckinghamshire, Milton Keynes & West Middlesex Area John Elfes Paul Rhodes* John Wainwright* Cambs & Peterboro Area Brian Foster* Carmarthenshire Area No delegation this year

Ceredigion Area Chris Hodgson* Cheshire East Area Philip Guest* June Mabon* Clydesdale to Solway Area Ann Rankin* John Cooper* Cornwall Area Graham Ronan* Sylvia Ronan* Bob Fraser Mary Weston Derbyshire Area Martin Pape* Carol Shiers Keith Shiers* Devon Area James Baldwin* Robert Woolcott* Rosemary Kimbell Dorset Area Keith Seymour* Janette Seymour*

2

East Yorkshire & Derwent Area Peter Ayling* Tom Halstead* Dany Wlodarczyk Tony Corrigan Essex Area Richard Iles* Hilary Snell* Jon Caine* Forth Valley, Fife & Tayside Area John Andrews* Ian Bruce* Glamorgan Area Allan Harrison* Christine Harrison* Asta Smith Carys Holt Gloucestershire Area Catherine Benfield Ray Chaney* Bernard Gill* Molly Roberts Grampian Area Alison Mitchell* Anne MacDonald* Greater Manchester & High Peak Area John Ireland* Gordon Campbell*, Hampshire Area Patric Curwen* David Nichols* Owen Plunkett* Herefordshire Area Arthur Lee*

Hertfordshire & North Middlesex Area Sarah Lea* Declan Leyden* Norman Jones Justin Lumley Highland & Islands Area Vic Royce* Inner London Area Helen Abbott* (Saturday delegate only) Elspeth Cox* Phil Marson* Teri Moore* (Sunday delegate) Isle of Wight Area David Howarth* Michael Slater* Kent Area Alison Hargreaves* Les Preston* Lake District Area Dennis Pook* Margaret Pook* Leicestershire & Rutland Area Jeanette Hollis* John Howells Rob Jones* Yvonne Lake Lincolnshire Area Stephen Almond* Geoff Mullett* Lothian & Borders Area Sandy Janas*

Dorothy Stewart* Merseyside & West Cheshire Area Dave Beacher* Steven Green Margaret Hems* Joyce Hughes Mid Lancashire Area David Kelly* Brian Dearnaley* Norfolk Area Tim Arnold* Peter James* Northamptonshire Area Andrew Knapman* Joy Tripp* North & Mid Cheshire Area Jan Shipsides* Cath Thomas* North East Lancashire Area Michael Counter* Susan Baxendale* North Strathclyde Area Eleanor Peacock* Barry Pottle* Northumbria Area Rachel Orange* Richard Fletcher* Nuala Wright North Yorks & South Durham Area John Marshall* North Wales Area

3

Pete Bland* Gerald Moss Joanna Slattery* Nottinghamshire Area Judith Anson* Jenny Fillingham* David Hunt Allan Rogers Oxfordshire Area Dave Cavanagh* Vanessa Corrick Susan Maguire* Rosemary Williams Pembrokeshire Area George Allingham* Jeanette Allingham* Renfrewshire, Cowal & Bute Area David Collinson* Ross Elder* Shropshire Area John Newnham * Sue Jones* Somerset Area Gus Halfhide* Les Stather* South Yorks & NE Derbyshire Area Nicola Farmery* Terez Nagy Allen Pestell* Staffordshire Area Graham Evans* George Greensides* Ted Taylor Muriel Taylor Suffolk Area

David Harmer* Roley Wilson* Surrey Area Lynette Long* David Ross* Damian Wheeler* Sussex Area Graham Elvey* Clive Grumett Malcolm McDonnell * Stephen Kisko Warwickshire Area Andy Page John Phillips* Rob Heaton* West Riding Area Martin Bennett David Gibson* Elizabeth Snow Keith Wadd* Wiltshire & Swindon Area Grahame Lee* Tom Allen* Worcestershire Area Peter Davies* Sue Davies* Long Distance Walkers Association Norman Corrin* (Saturday day delegate) Paul Lawrence*(Sat evening and Sunday delegate) Ramblers Worldwide Holidays Cathy Cook Paul Cook

Annette Cotter* Red Rope Don Kinnibrugh* Adrian Jones David Symonds Visitors Rod Fillingham (Notts Area) Alan Kimbell (Devon Area) Chris Thompson (Notts Area) Guests Martin Abrams (Campaign for Better Transport) Beverley Arnold (Walking for Health volunteer) Mike Bates (Sussex Area) Derek Bunn (Surrey Area) Dave Callan, Merseyside Area Chair Maria Eagle MP Dave Hanbury (Walking for Health volunteer) Christine O’Byrne (trustee candidate) Will Renwick David Rutley MP Pat Sullivan, Liverpool Group Chair & Merseyside Area GC coordinator Nigel Woodhead (Surrey Area) Ramblers Holidays Charitable Trust Mavis Rear Peter Skipp

4

Area helpers Mary van Altena Margaret Beacher Fran Begbie Emma Campbell Alice Cutts Barry Davies Margaret Evans Yvonne Gordon Beryl Henderson Helen Holyoak Janet Hudson Terry McKenna Sally Partington Charlie Walker

Tony Walsh Richard Whitty Stella Yates Staff Simon Barnett Maria Castellina (Sat only) Justin Cooke Angela Charlton Janet Davis Des de Moor Tom Fewins Joe Fitzpatrick Anastasia French

Sarah Gardner (Sat only) Pam Gheerow Christine Grant Jacqui Heyhoe Dave Morris Gemma Petty Nicky Philpott Elly Hannigan-Popp Hazel Robinson Emily Shaw Benedict Southworth Paul Strong Robin Walton Caroline Wheeler Ed Wilson

5

1 INTRODUCTION SESSION 1.1 Opening remarks and welcome, Jonathan Kipling, Ramblers’ Chair

The Chairman opened the meeting. He said that it was a great privilege to be the Chairman of the Ramblers, and warmly welcomed delegates to General Council and particularly the 44% of delegates who had not attended before. He thanked them for giving up their weekend, and for everything which they did to help to implement the Ramblers’ mission. General Council meetings helped to shape that mission, but its formal job was to elect new members to the Board of Trustees, to hold the Board to account, to adopt motions and to guide the organisation. This weekend members of Council would be asked to think hard about the vision and governance of the organisation so as to change it and make it fit for the future. There would also be opportunity to meet volunteers from other areas and to socialise.

1.2 He told General Council that two innovations from last year would be continued:

first time delegates had been given yellow voting cards so that the Chairman would be more easily able to spot them and invite them to speak, and there would be a Chairman’s reception for new delegates. There would also be a consultation session on vision and governance issues on Sunday morning.

1.3 Welcome by Dave Callan, Merseyside and West Cheshire Area Chair, and

Pat Sullivan, Liverpool Group Chair Dave Callan welcomed General Council to Liverpool, and to the famous Adelphi Hotel at its heart, on behalf of Merseyside & West Cheshire Area.

1.4 He said that the Area encompassed five Groups which reflected the geographical diversity of the locality: Cestrian (Chester)—a Roman and medieval city in the heart of glorious Cheshire countryside; Southport—an elegant, Victorian seaside resort which offered coastal walking and possible sightings of red squirrels; St Helens—at the industrial heart of Lancashire with paths that reflected its mining heritage; Wirral—a rural peninsula between the estuaries of the Dee and the Merseyside offering shore-side walking; and Liverpool itself—a UNESCO World Heritage site. Additionally there was a Young Walkers Group, whose membership was vibrant and growing. The Area was also fortunate to have four national parks within easy travelling distance—the Lake District, Snowdonia, the Peak District and the Yorkshire Dales. He said he was proud of the Area, and of all that it could offer, and he wished all delegates an enjoyable Council, and a happy time in the City of Liverpool.

1.5 Pat Sullivan, Liverpool Group Chair and the host Area’s GC co-ordinator,

endorsed Dave’s comments, and said that the Area had for many years organised public rambles as a means of bringing in new members and of introducing people to hill walking. This was a wonderful way of introducing

6

people to the Ramblers and its work and she hoped that other Areas would follow the example.

1.6 Pat said that she was delighted to welcome people to the City. It had been the

second port of the Empire and there were many amazing listed buildings to see, including those on the waterfront and the cathedrals. The walks on Sunday afternoon would be led by architectural tour guides and she hoped that many delegates would be able to join them. She wished everyone an enjoyable and memorable time.

1.7 The Chief Executive, Benedict Southworth, gave a presentation, What we’ve

achieved together (Appendix one).

The Chief Executive recommended that delegates examine the Annual Report and the Impact Report for detailed accounts of the past year’s achievements, reporting that the work and outcomes of the last year had continued to be in line with the 2012-14 business plan. We have continued to deliver our great work for the benefit of everyone who walks, and are achieving the stability which had eluded the charity in recent years. There is a definite sense that the organisation is beginning to pull together toward a more common sense of purpose. Many thanks are due to all of our fantastic volunteers who are the life blood of the Ramblers.

1.8 The Chair, Jonathan Kipling, gave a presentation, Our future challenges.

(Appendix two)

The Chairman was pleased to tell Council that our recent achievements highlight what an excellent job the Chief Executive is doing. The last year has seen many innovations and initiatives. However, if we are successfully to enact the vision, we need to make further improvements and work on coordination and communication across the organisation. He was pleased to announce the exciting new “Path Watch’ project, with funding from Ramblers Holidays Charitable Trust. He further announced that a new three-year online-only deal for mutual marketing had been negotiated with Ramblers Worldwide Holidays as a walking holiday partner. The Chairman extended his thanks to the areas, not least to their Chairs, who are increasingly important players in the delivery of the mission. A key challenge for the future was to attract younger people, but he was confident the Ramblers would evolve to meet this challenge.

2 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Jo Bird (North Yorks & South Durham

Area), John Foster (vice-president), Tom Fisher (Herefordshire Area), David

7

Grosz (vice-president), Chris Hall (vice-president), James Lawson (Board of Trustees), Alan Mattingly (vice-president), Jerry Pearlman (vice-president), Andy Rogers (current trustee and candidate for re-election), and Owen Plunkett (Hampshire Area).

3 APPOINTMENT OF TELLERS The Chairman approved the appointment of:

Mary van Altena, Charlie Walker, Stella Yates, Sally Partington, Margaret Beacher, Margaret Evans, Janet Hudson and Terry McKenna.

4 MINUTES OF GENERAL COUNCIL 2013 The Chairman was authorised to sign these as a correct record. 5 AGENDA COMMITTEE REPORT Council noted a report from the Agenda Committee which had met to consider

the motions and amendments, and the order in which they should be debated. This year there had been no appeals or emergency motions and no need for motions to be composited, although the Agenda Committee had put forward some amendments of its own.

6 REVIEW OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON 2013 MOTIONS AND OUTSTANDING

MOTIONS FROM PREVIOUS YEARS 6.1 Council noted a report from the Board reviewing action taken on previous

motions. The following comments were made. 6.2 On behalf of Jo Bird (North Yorkshire & South Durham Area), Sylvia Popham

(Agenda Committee), asked how action on Motion 4 (2012—Membership Recruitment) could be complete when the first two actions outlined did not target independent walkers. Specifically, renewal of membership was targeting current members, not potential members who walk independently, and while some independent walkers may find Ramblers Routes useful, a great many of them never have had, and never will have, any need of this facility. While the two actions were commendable, they did not fulfil the requirements of the motion. While the third action, communication of our mission, was clearly of benefit in informing our members and the public, it had not specifically targeted independent walkers. Jo was asking the Board look into more ways of attracting the independent walker, and at the same time of better informing current

8

members of our work so that they can help spread the word; and to find more and better ways to publicise the work done at all levels of the organisation which benefits all who walk.

6.3 Phil Marson, (Inner London Area), expressed concern about the lack of progress

with the re-appraisal of Area structures within the geographical area covered by the Greater London Authority (Motion 8, 2011, Regional Structures). Brian Reader (Agenda Committee) said that any changes to Area boundaries in and around London needed to be achieved by way of discussion and agreement. The Chief Executive said that the Board was aware of the need for a body to act as an advocate for walking in the Greater London area and it needed to decide on the best way of achieving the Ramblers’ mission there.

6.4 Keith Wadd, (West Riding Area), said that he did not consider that work on

Motion 10 (2013—rights of way in future housing developments) to be complete. Clearly work was still continuing on this issue.

7 ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS 7.1 The Honorary Treasurer, Robert Peel gave a presentation, the financial

landscape. (Appendix three).

The Treasurer is satisfied the Ramblers’ finances are stable, under control, and he is confident we have good financial discipline and are delivering better and better value for money. Furthermore, clarity and transparency in reporting has improved. He expressed the charity’s deep gratitude to all those who had remembered Ramblers in their wills and urged others to do the same. He also drew attention to the huge added value of gift aid contributions and urged everyone to spread the word about this. However, financial stability has come not as a result of buoyant income but as a result of placing tight limits on expenditure. We need to be ever mindful of the Ramblers’ pension fund deficit. The Treasurer thanked everyone for their part in meeting our challenges so far and told Council he is confident that by pulling together we will not just survive, we will thrive.

7.2 Council noted a report (which appears as Appendix four to these minutes) from

the Board setting out a number of written questions and answers on both the Annual Report and Accounts. The following additional matters were raised from the floor.

7.3 Philip Guest (Cheshire East Area) said that over the last five to six years Groups

has reduced their reserves as requested by central office. He asked whether there was now money available from the central organisation to support Group

9

work when necessary. Robert Peel assured Council that such funding was available.

7.4 Referring to the penultimate paragraph of p.5 of the Annual Report, John

Esslemont (Agenda Committee) said that in describing General Council, the word “includes” would be more appropriate than “comprises”, since not all Areas send delegates to Council.

7.5 It was proposed by David Ross (Surrey Area), seconded by Patric Curwen

(Hampshire Area) and agreed by Council that the Annual Report and Accounts for the year to 30 September 2013 be adopted.

8 ELECTION OF OFFICERS President: Kate Ashbrook Proposed by Jonathan Kipling, and seconded by Robert Peel. Vice-Presidents: The following Past Presidents automatically remain Vice-Presidents: Andrew Bennett, Julia Bradbury, Chris Hall, Mike Harding, Peter Melchett, Chris Smith, Janet Street-Porter. The following Vice-Presidents were proposed en bloc by David Thomson, and seconded by Gwyn Lewis. Geoff Eastwood, John Foster, David Grosz, Richard Lloyd Jones, Cath Mackay, Alan Mattingly, Jerry Pearlman, Malcolm Petyt, John Riddall, David Sharp, Paddy Tipping. It was proposed by Mike Church and seconded by David Gibson (both of West Riding Area) that Keith Wadd should be elected as a new Vice-President. All officers were elected by Council. 9 APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS It was proposed by Naseem Akhtar (Vice Chair), and seconded by Richard May (Trustee) and agreed by Council that the firm of Crowe Clark Whitehill should be appointed as auditors. 10 ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES There was no contested election for membership of the Board of Trustees as there were three candidates for three ordinary Board member places. The three candidates were

10

Christine O’Byrne, Paul Rhodes and Andy Rogers. Each would serve on the Board for three years. 11 AGENDA COMMITTEE There was no contested election for membership of the Agenda Committee as there were five candidates and five positions available. The following persons would serve on the Agenda Committee: John Esslemont, Elizabeth Lawie, Sylvia Popham, Brian Reader, and Clare Wadd. 12 TRUSTEE AND SENIOR MANAGEMENT TEAM (PANEL) Council was provided with the opportunity to ask questions of the Board of Trustees or the Chief Executive and Senior Management Team. 1. Allen Pestell (South Yorkshire & North East Derbyshire Area) asked whether the recent increase in membership numbers was as a result of a concerted plan. The Chief Executive said that the plan had been to try to end the year with only 600 fewer members than at the beginning (so to stem the tide of loss of members). This was to be achieved by a new and more sophisticated membership renewal process with letters and e-mails reminding people of the need to renew their membership. This had been supplemented by a new telemarketing arrangement under which lapsed members were called. He said that to keep members it was necessary to love and care for them. 2. Sue Jones (Shropshire Area) commented that there appeared to be quite a number of vice-presidents. She asked what their rôle and function was within the organisation. The Chair said that the position of vice-president was an honour. A vice-president had no power other than a vote at General Council, of which they automatically become a member, but the organisation can call upon their wisdom and help at any time. 3. David Gibson (West Riding Area) asked what efforts had been made to persuade people to pay their subscription by direct debt, and to sign for gift aid. The Chief Executive said that members are constantly reminded to sign gift aid forms and that making sure the relevant forms are accurate was an ongoing project. Between 75% and 80% of members now paid by way of direct debt and there had been a discount scheme to encourage this this. It is planned to discontinue the discount scheme while managing the effect. Not everyone was happy to pay by this method. 4. David Collinson (Renfrewshire, Cowal, and Bute Area) expressed concern that he had not received a reply to e-mail correspondence to the Ramblers Scotland Office after two months. The Chief Executive said that a reply should have been sent. He went on to explain that several thousands of e-mails were received every week, and that there were too few members of staff to deal with the volume. Messages could get

11

passed between staff until they reached the appropriate person. A new “Zendesk” system was being trialled to try to overcome this problem with allocation of e-mails. He apologised for the delays and said that efforts were made to track and monitor correspondence. However, correspondents did need to bear in mind that for specific rights of way and access queries it might be necessary to ask volunteers for reports, which all took time. 5. John Esslemont (Agenda Committee) asked how the new footpath project, under which all paths will be walked, would differ from the previous project in which all paths were walked. The Honorary Treasurer explained that the earlier project involved no more than walking paths—no data about the condition of paths was collected centrally. Under the new project the data would be collected and subjected to statistical analysis so that local authority league tables and so on could be produced. 6. Clare Wadd (Agenda Committee) asked what could be done to fulfil the Ramblers’ mission in London. Des Garrahan (Trustee) said that the 2011 motion on Regional Structures that specifically mentioned the structure of the Ramblers within the geographical area covered by the Greater London Authority needed to be re-examined. The spirit behind it was understood, but the practicalities were more complex. 7. Sue Baxendale (North East Lancashire Area) asked what progress had been made with recruiting a countryside officer. Nicky Philpott, (Director of Advocacy and Engagement) said that a consultant had been working on countryside issues for the last ten months. He had been working on revision of the guidance notes for countryside/walking environment officers, and policy statements on, in particular, renewable energy issues. He had made many site visits to discuss these issues with volunteers and he had led a workshop, “Going green needn’t cost the countryside” that morning at GC. All of the new guidance and policy statements would be published on the website. 8. Rob Heaton (Warwickshire Area) asked whether the Ramblers was considering collaborating with any organisations with which it had not previously worked. Dave Morris (Director Ramblers Scotland) said that recognition of Ramblers Scotland as the governing body for walking in Scotland had opened the way for new funding streams with Sportscotland, and that £28,000 had also been obtained from the Ordnance Survey-funded GeoVation Challenge, for the development of Apps as part of the Medal Routes project (associated with the Commonwealth Games).

12

13 MOTIONS No Constitutional Resolutions were submitted. Policy Motions [1] Publicity for 2026 cut-off date The following motion was proposed by Malcolm McDonnell of Sussex Area, and seconded by Graham Elvey of that Area:

This General Council believes that, as the leading body representing walkers, Ramblers should do much more to raise awareness of the 2026 cut-off date in England and Wales to add historic rights of way to definitive maps, amongst the membership and the wider public.

Council requires that the Board authorises a long-term campaign to ensure that as many people as possible know what the cut-off date will mean, and what they can do about it.

The motion was carried nem con, with one abstention. [2] Guidance on 2026 cut-off date The following motion was proposed by Allen Pestell of South Yorks and North East Derbyshire Area, and seconded by Nicola Farmery of that Area:

This General Council is concerned that we are now half way to the 2026 cut-off date in England and Wales to add historic rights of way to definitive maps, introduced by the CROW Act 2000, and that Areas and Groups have not yet received any guidance on the types of routes which they should claim.

Council urges the Board of Trustees to issue, as soon as possible, clear advice on where and how we should all be concentrating our efforts in order to achieve maximum efficiency.

The motion was carried, with one vote to the contrary. [3] Waymarking The following motion was proposed by Keith Wadd of West Riding Area, and seconded by David Gibson of that Area:

This General Council calls upon the Board of Trustees to adopt and implement a proactive policy on waymarking with the purpose of ensuring that all rights of way

13

are reliably and adequately waymarked, thus enabling them to be followed with ease by members of the public.

The following amendment was submitted by West Riding Area, and accepted by Council. Delete entire text and replace with:

This General Council calls upon the Board of Trustees to campaign for a substantially higher standard of waymarking with the purpose of ensuring that all rights of way are accurately, adequately and appropriately waymarked on a countrywide standardisation following Natural England guidelines, thus enabling them to be followed with ease by members of the public. Council further calls on the Board to urge all highway authorities in England and Wales to show much greater willingness to authorise Ramblers volunteers to undertake waymarking on their behalf and to enter into negotiations with the Institute of Rights of Way Officers (IPROW), Local Authorities and other relevant organisations with a view to facilitating it.

The amended motion was carried, with one vote to the contrary and three abstentions. [4] Guidance notes for footpath workers The following motion was proposed by Pete Bland of North Wales Area, and seconded by Joanna Slattery of that Area:

“Guidance Notes for Footpath Workers” was last published in 2004. This General Council urges the Board of Trustees to make available in updated form, as soon as possible, the comprehensive guidance notes contained in that publication.

The following amendment was submitted by Clare Wadd of Inner London Area, and accepted by the proposer and by Council:

Delete the words after “as soon as possible” and insert “comprehensive guidance notes for footpath workers as part of the Ramblers integrated package of guidance for volunteers.”

The amended motion reads:

“Guidance Notes for Footpath Workers” was last published in 2004. This General Council urges the Board of Trustees to make available in updated form, as soon as possible, comprehensive guidance notes for footpath workers as part of the Ramblers integrated package of guidance for volunteers.

The amended motion was carried, with four votes to the contrary and one abstention.

14

[5] Biodiversity Offsetting The following motion was proposed by Sylvia Popham of Avon Area and seconded by Jill Fysh of that area:

This General Council notes with some concern Defra's consultative proposals on biodiversity offsetting in England, which could lead to the loss of recreational green spaces and valued habitats. However Council welcomes the recognition of the local social importance of biodiversity and landscape in the response submitted by the organisation ‘Wildlife and Countryside Link’.

Council requests the Board of Trustees to continue to work closely with Link and other organisations to ensure that any offsetting scheme brings benefits for walkers. In particular the impact on public access and enjoyment should be included in the adopted metric. Existing statutory measures, such as the dedication of access land using section 16 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and the creation of new public rights of way, could be employed (in addition to conservation covenants and other measures) to secure offsets for the long-term.

The following amendment was submitted by John Newnham of Shropshire Area and seconded by Sue Jones of that Area: After “benefits for walkers”, add “and all leisure users of the countryside.” The amendment was lost. The substantive motion was carried. [6] Barbed Wire The following motion was proposed by Margaret Hems of Merseyside and West Cheshire Area and seconded by Dave Beacher of that Area:

This General Council deplores the use of barbed wire in the countryside, alongside footpaths and bridleways, particularly the use of barbed wire on and around stiles.

Council therefore urges governments in England, Scotland and Wales to produce legislation to remove and prevent the use of barbed wire in these places. The planting of thorn hedging and non-aggressive fences which would not do damage to livestock and people should be encouraged.

Three amendments to this motion, (a), (b) and (c), were considered:

15

Amendment (a) was submitted by Jill Fysh of Avon Area, and accepted by the proposed and by Council: Replace the first sentence of the second paragraph with:

Council therefore calls upon the Board of Trustees to campaign for highway authorities to make greater use of their powers under the Highways Act 1980 to require the removal of barbed wire.

Amendment (b) was submitted by John Esslemont on behalf of the Agenda Committee, and accepted by the proposer and by Council:

If amendment (a) is passed add at the end of the first sentence of the second paragraph: “and to consider the case for stronger legislation.” If amendment (a) has not been passed, replace the first sentence of the second paragraph by the following: “Council therefore calls upon the Board of Trustees to campaign for highway authorities to make greater use of their powers under the Highways Act 1980 to require the removal of barbed wire, and to consider the case for stronger legislation.”

Since amendment (a) was carried, the first of these two alternatives prevailed. Amendment (c) was submitted by John Esslemont on behalf of Buckinghamshire, Milton Keynes and West Middlesex Area, and accepted by the proposed and by Council:

In the last sentence delete “The planting of thorn hedging and non-aggressive fences” and replace by “Use of appropriate hedging or fencing”.

On the Chairman’s authority the comma after the word “countryside” in the first line of the motion was deleted. The substantive motion reads:

This General Council deplores the use of barbed wire in the countryside alongside footpaths and bridleways, particularly the use of barbed wire on and around stiles.

Council therefore calls upon the Board of Trustees to campaign for highway authorities to make greater use of their powers under the Highways Act 1980 to require the removal of barbed wire, and to consider the case for stronger legislation. Use of appropriate hedging or fencing which would not do damage to livestock and people should be encouraged.

The substantive motion was carried, with 15 votes to the contrary.

16

[7] Access points to access land The following motion was proposed by David Kelly on behalf of Mid Lancashire Area and seconded by John Esslemont of the Agenda Committee:

This General Council is concerned about the continuing low level of usage of access land. The main reason why many walkers are reluctant to use access land is because they do not know where the access points are located; this is both to gain access to access land and within access land. Some local authorities have attempted to provide publicity about access points but this is frequently of poor quality. In many other places the publicity about access points is non-existent. Therefore the publicity on how to use access land needs to be improved, with ideally the access points being shown on OS 1:25,000 maps. General Council recommends that the Board of Trustees campaigns on this issue.

The following amendment was submitted by John Esslemont on behalf of the Agenda Committee and accepted by the proposer and by Council: Add a new paragraph at the end:

“Council is aware that the preceding paragraph is already Ramblers’ policy, following its approval as a motion in 2011, and motes the reports by the Board of Trustees issued in 2012 and 2013. However, Council does not consider action on the 2011 motion can be considered complete and requires the Board to continue campaigning and reporting progress on this issue.”

The substantive motion reads:

This General Council is concerned about the continuing low level of usage of access land. The main reason why many walkers are reluctant to use access land is because they do not know where the access points are located; this is both to gain access to access land and within access land. Some local authorities have attempted to provide publicity about access points but this is frequently of poor quality. In many other places the publicity about access points is non-existent. Therefore the publicity on how to use access land needs to be improved, with ideally the access points being shown on OS 1:25,000 maps. General Council recommends that the Board of Trustees campaigns on this issue. Council is aware that the preceding paragraph is already Ramblers’ policy, following its approval as a motion in 2011, and motes the reports by the Board of Trustees issued in 2012 and 2013. However, Council does not consider action on the 2011 motion can be considered complete and requires the Board to continue campaigning and reporting progress on this issue.

The motion was carried, with four abstentions.

17

14 THIRD SESSION OF COUNCIL- CONSULTATION AND DISCUSSION ON THE RAMBLERS GOVERNANCE AND VISION

14.1 Governance

General Council discussed in round table discussions themes identified by the Governance working party. The themes were:

Should we introduce one member one vote to elect the Board and therefore replace elected delegates making the decision?

How do we get the Board of Trustees the organisation needs whilst ensuring democracy?

How can we clarify the powers of the Board v General Council responsibility?

Should we have a simplified way of delivering our activities by streamlining group and area constitutions and having a separate route for providing accountability at all levels of the organisation?

Can we make governance changes that help areas become more effective in delivering the mission of Ramblers GB (Scotland/Wales)?

Are there practical things we can do to improve democracy such as better use of technology or changing how General Council operates?

How can we identify and harness volunteer expertise without using the traditional route of being elected into constitutional roles at Area or Board level?

How can we structure GC so that delegates are enabled to focus on the strategic direction of the Ramblers? The findings of the discussion are available as Appendix five to this document.

14.2 Vision General Council discussed in round table discussions questions arising from the six main themes that emerged as a result of feedback by members and the walking community from the first phase of the project. These results came from online surveys, discussion kits, interviews and stakeholder events.

The tabled questions were:

What should the relationship be between Ramblers and young people (below the age of 26)?

What does an organisation do that gives all types of walkers the skills, knowledge and confidence they need and what does it look like?

What is the path network for and what sort of path network do we want?

What type of open access would we like to see in England and Wales and why?

What should the goal of our countryside protection be?

What would we like the image of walking to be? Delegates also submitted any additional questions that they would like to see addressed by the project.

18

The findings of the discussion are available as Appendix six to this document. 15 VENUE FOR GENERAL COUNCIL IN 2015 General Council 2015 would take place on 28 and 29 March at Robinson College, Cambridge. 16 PRESIDENT’S CLOSING REMARKS 16.1 The President made a closing speech to Council, She recalled that Liverpool was

home to one of the first Ramblers’ federations: the Liverpool and District Ramblers’ Federation founded in 1922. We still face many of the same challenges that we did back then. For instance, green spaces were at risk, with development continuing apace.

16.2 She considers our biggest challenge is to change so as to be relevant to today’s

society while holding on to our traditions.

16.3 However, she said, there were plenty of opportunities for action, such as the UK election in 2015 and elections in Scotland, Wales and London in 2016. We should take our MPs, Scottish MPs and Assembly members and the candidates for walks — there was nothing like showing them the issues and discussing our concerns in the fresh air. And, she added, we must do much more local publicity about issues and campaigns, not just about walks. The volunteer awards last night had shown just a tiny example of the sheer volume of impressive work undertaken. But most members didn’t know about this, or understand the value of our skilled, professional staff, or our history. We must get better at explaining ourselves to all our members and the public. We are a mainstream charity that changes and saves lives. We must tell the world what we do.

16.4 The President would welcome more invitations to help plan or implement local

campaigns, to meet councillors, or to celebrate successes. With our proud history, our staggering number of active volunteers and the esteem in which we are held, there is so much we could do. We must be flexible and take calculated risks. We must become the organisation that no one can do without.

17 CHAIRMAN’S CLOSING REMARKS 17.1 In bringing the meeting to a close the Chairman thanked the President for her

inspiring speech and for presenting the Volunteer Awards. He was very pleased to be able to reciprocate that action and present to her the well-deserved certificate, awarded by readers of The Great Outdoors, for runner-up Outdoor Personality of the Year.

19

17.2 The Chairman went on to thank the out-going Trustees: Max Grant, who had played an important role in the development of the devolution arrangements for Ramblers Cymru; Naseem Akhtar, who had originally been co-opted on to the Board but who had gone on to be elected and to serve as Vice-Chair, and who had been a champion for the need for diversity within the organisation, and Moira Fraser, who had also been a recently co-opted member of the Board.

17.3 As ever, many thanks were due to those who had contributed to the running of a

successful General Council: Kevin and his team at the Adelphi Hotel; Dave Callan and Pat Sullivan and all of the wonderful volunteers from Merseyside & West Cheshire Area; the guest speakers who had assisted at the workshops and fringe meetings; Nicky Philpott, Hazel Robinson, Caroline Wheeler and the rest of the Ramblers staff team; and finally, and not least, to everyone who had attended Council and who had brought so many ideas and so much enthusiasm to the event.

17.4 It had been a good Council and although there were clearly many challenges for

the future, the Chairman was in no doubt that by working together the Ramblers could rise to meet them.

17.5 The President thanked the Chairman for his tireless work both at General

Council, and throughout the year.

THIS ENDED THE BUSINESS

Appendix one

What we’ve achieved together

Presentation by Ramblers chief executive Benedict Southworth to General Council

2014

The chief executive recommended that delegates examine the Annual Report and the

Impact Report for detailed accounts of the past year’s achievements.

He reported that the work and outcomes of the last year had continued to be in line with the

2012-14 business plan. He highlighted:

we continue to deliver our great work for the benefit of everyone who walks,

we secured the future of the England coast path,

we continue to develop the unique identities of Ramblers Cymru and Ramblers

Scotland, whilst maintaining a continuity of purpose across the three nations,

underpinning everything, we achieved the stability which had eluded the charity in

recent years,

and that the Ramblers had more members in March than at the start of the financial

year.

He said that overall there is a definite sense that the organisation is beginning to pull

together toward a more common sense of purpose. Many thanks are due to all of our

fantastic volunteers who are the lifeblood of the Ramblers – those who lead walks, those

who carry out vital path work, and of course those who serve on group and area committees.

A new Volunteer Approach will be previewed this weekend; it has been developed in

conjunction with current volunteers in order to support and develop the volunteers of the

future.

Over the weekend there would be discussions on the future Vision; how we are going to

continue to deliver our charitable objects, our mission; enabling people to go for walks –

including the inactive; providing education and information about walking, providing safe led

walks that do justice to our brand; being the guardians of the footpath network, advocates of

the right to roam; the champions of expanding opportunities for walking in every sense. The

Ramblers has served this vital role for many years, and will continue to serve it, working to

improve the lives of communities; to protect their countryside and to improve their health and

sense of freedom and wellbeing.

We are The Ramblers. This is what we do!

Appendix two

Our future challenges Presentation by Ramblers Chairman Jonathan Kipling to General Council 2014

The Chairman explained the relationship between General Council, the Board of Trustees and the chief executive; the chief executive’s job is to lead the organisation along the path that the Board of Trustees has chosen. Our recent achievements highlight what an excellent job he is doing. The last year has seen many innovations and initiatives, for example:

greater transparency board meeting minutes are now available for all to read on the Ramblers’ website;

the regular Mission reports that inform the trustees are now subsequently circulated to area chairs to keep them abreast of progress in mission delivery;

more than 80% of areas have sent representatives to the recent series of area chair forums around the country;

a Campaigns and Policy Conference was held in Edale for volunteers in England and Wales;

a new programme of Volunteer Development Days has been a great success;

a new “Approach to Volunteering” has been formulated with major input from existing volunteers;

overall efficiency has improved;

above all, there has been a relentless overarching focus on the mission.

Furthermore, he said, our statistics are impressive:

25,000 volunteers; roughly a quarter of members are active volunteers;

200,000 led walks per year;

30,000 people walking with the Ramblers each week;

40,000 new regular walkers per year.

Walking significantly reduces risks to health from many conditions. Evidence suggests that every pound spent on getting people walking saves £7 of NHS expenditure. Walking works! However, he cautioned, if we are successfully to enact the vision, we need to make further changes and improvements, and work on coordination and communication across the organisation. The Chairman welcomed the Holiday Fellowship (HF) and Ramblers Worldwide Holidays to General Council this year. The Ramblers has links with both organisations, dating back many years. Two years ago, General Council had indicated its disquiet concerning the partnership with HF. The partnership reaped some rewards but fell short of expectations. In the meantime Ramblers Worldwide Holidays had continued to make donations to local walking clubs and groups (including Ramblers groups) via the Walking Partnership, and to the Ramblers Holidays Charitable Trust, which also provided support for Ramblers projects. He was pleased to be able to announce a new, ambitious and exciting project with £300,000 funding from Ramblers Holidays Charitable Trust over the next three years: a new ‘Path Watch’ project which would engage people and at the same time survey all paths. He further announced that a new three year online-only deal for mutual marketing had been negotiated with Ramblers Worldwide Holidays as a walking holiday partner.

The Chairman extended his thanks to the areas, not least to their chairs, who are increasingly important players in the delivery of the mission. He had been delighted to meet so many of them at the area chair forums around the country; these meetings were proving instrumental in both creating a common vision and in empowering volunteers.

A key challenge for the future was to attract younger people who wanted to belong without joining, to help without making a fixed commitment, and to participate without having to attend meetings. The Ramblers had evolved to meet such challenges in the past, and now it was the time to do so again.

Appendix three

The financial landscape Presentation by Ramblers Honorary Treasurer Robert Peel to General Council 2014 The Honorary Treasurer was pleased to confirm to Council that the Ramblers has in the past year achieved its stated objective of stability. Furthermore, clarity and transparency in reporting has improved, but we can do yet more and bring more support on board by showing everyone what a great organisation we are. He stressed that the balance sheet is robust; however, the accounting surplus of £471K belies the money received in advance of related expenditure and, crucially, includes legacies of £865K, which are not budgeted for and not spent until the following year. He expressed the charity’s deep gratitude to all those who had remembered Ramblers in their wills, and urged others to do the same. Without those legacies we would have had a core operating deficit of £300K; not ideal but the recent important developments in the organisation have incurred expenditure. The presentation slides showed Council graphical representations of how the Ramblers income and expenditure can be divided. Core income plus legacies came to nearly £4.8m. Despite our attempts to diversify, we still rely on membership income. Fortunately, recent figures have been encouraging; membership may have stopped falling. The Treasurer drew attention to the huge added value of gift aid contributions and urged everyone to spread the word about this. The year’s expenditure had totalled £4,511K. He highlighted the significant savings resulting from the reduction in fundraising and marketing costs – we had realised that we weren’t getting much demonstrable return on a lot of our marketing spend The Treasurer repeated that he is satisfied the Ramblers’ finances are stable and under control, and he is confident we have good financial discipline and are delivering better and better value for money. But, he cautioned, that this should not give rise to complacency. Financial stability has come not as a result of buoyant income, but as a result of placing tight limits on expenditure. Obviously we try to do more with less and it is a tribute to the efforts of the staff that we succeed. But inevitably spending less means at some point not doing things we would like to do. It means not doing things some members might like us to do – as expressed, for example, in motions at General Council. So we do need more money and we need more members. There is also a caveat in the shape of the Ramblers’ pension fund deficit, which fluctuates but is around £1m. He explained that originally there was a small deficit due to poor performance of investments and because pensioners were living longer than expected. Then some other employers in the scheme, mainly charities and non-profit organisations, went bust and their deficits were apportioned to the remaining employers. So every time a scheme employer goes out of business the remaining employers get larger deficits and more go out of business. Therefore the pension fund deficit necessarily informs the overall level of our reserves. We have already put £350K aside and we are also paying down our deficit every year, so it is under control but still a constraint on activities. For the current year we have moved closer to a break-even budget on core income and expenditure. Early indications forecast a year end core deficit of £176K plus the cost of the Andrews case; this represents a variance of c £118K due to a delay in sponsorship income. When this deficit is added to investment expenditure of £373K, the total will be very much more than covered by legacy income from previous years.

The Treasurer concluded that he is content we are spending our limited money wisely and doing exciting and important things with it. And much of what we deliver is done by our fantastic volunteers who cost us very little. So the financial situation is under control but challenging; with thanks to everyone for their part in meeting these challenges so far, he is confident that by pulling together we will not just survive; we will thrive.

Appendix four

Part 1: Questions and answers on the annual report and accounts.

General Council delegates are provided with the opportunity before the

meeting to ask questions based on the annual report and accounts. Answers

are provided in writing at the start of the meeting.

1. Question submitted By John Esslemont, Agenda Committee Annual Report page 1, trustee list I note that a trustee was co-opted in December, presumably because her skills, experience and knowledge help to fill a perceived gap in the Board's overall coverage of relevant skills. This means that her initial term of office will have lasted for less than four months. Though she will be eligible for further co-option it is possible that her skills will duplicate those of trustees elected this year by General Council. Would it not be preferable for the Board to shortlist possible co-optees in the early part of the calendar year, so that co-option can take place immediately after the relevant skills of newly elected trustees are known, thus maximising the benefits of co-option? On a related matter, I have commented in previous years that the list of desired skills, as given on the nomination form for Board members, should be made available to Council Members, for guidance when voting. Please can this be done in the form of an answer to this question and, in future years, by inclusion in the General Council Information Pack? Answer: The search for a suitable candidate began almost immediately after the General Council. Unfortunately it took until December to bring Moira onto the Board. However Moira has already made a valuable contribution. More information on her background can be found on the website. Providing guidance for delegates is an interesting suggestion. The approach taken so far has been to provide a list of the desired skills on the nomination form in the hope of attracting a pool of available candidates who would be a valuable addition to the Board. The candidates’ statements and hustings then allow the delegates to decide which candidates they prefer. 2. Question submitted By John Esslemont, Agenda Committee

Annual Report page 16, activities in 2013-2014 You say that the replacement Group Walks Finder will be integrated with Ramblers Routes. At present, Walks Finder is available to all, while most of the Ramblers Routes walks are available to members only. Will this continue to be the case and, if so, how is this compatible with integration of the two? Answer:

While the full route details of some Ramblers Routes are only available to logged-in

members, the summaries of all routes are available to everyone and all routes also show up

in searches. The search functions will be integrated so people can search for both routes

and walks at the same time, using the same tools including a single interactive map. It will

also be possible to show if a led walk is taking place along a Ramblers Route, with links

between the two. But for members-only routes, users will still have to be logged-in members

to retrieve full details of these routes. Led walks details will by default continue to be

available to all users, though we are introducing a facility to enable some walks to be

identified as “members only”. Only logged-in members will see these walks in search results

and be able to retrieve further details about them.

3. Question submitted By John Esslemont, Agenda Committee Accounts pages 24, 28 (note 5), 29 (note 6) and 37 (note 18). The income and expenditure

summaries on pages 28 and 29 differentiate “Area and Group walking activities” (referred to

in annual returns as self-funded activities) from other (main fund) income and expenditure,

while the statement of cash balance on page 24 makes no such distinction. Please can you

provide a breakdown of the total £1,349,000 Area, Group and Council fund at 30 September

into the amounts attributable to self-funded activities, restricted funds, designated funds

and general funds (not restricted or designated). Please also explain how the figures for

cash attributable to restricted and designated funds differ from those shown on page 37 for

restricted and designated funds held by Areas, Groups and Councils.

If the cash (not restricted or designated) held by Areas, Groups and Councils is regarded as

excessive, are steps being taken to seek its reduction in future years?

Board minute B/29/13 referred to a decision to discourage groups from passing holiday

payments through their bank accounts; has this decision been implemented and, if so, what

effect is this expected to have on the income and expenditure figures for “Area and group

walking activities” in the current and future accounting years?

Answer: The £1,349,000 included £35,000 collected by areas and group but not yet forwarded on to third parties at 30th September 2013. There is no requirement to disclose this separately on page 24 of the financial statements in the cash flow statement. The breakdown of cash balances at 30 September 2013 was:

£ Self-funded 35,000 Designated 1,159,000 Restricted 155,000 ----------- Cash held by areas and groups

1,349,000

======= The figures presented for areas and groups within the movement of funds note on pages 37 differ from the cash figure above, because the funds include assets other than cash. Areas and groups hold stock, investments and fixed assets and these plus cash are reflected in the

overall movements of funds on page 37. Details of non-cash assets held by areas and groups are recorded in the notes to the financial statements.

Cash held by areas, groups and councils, excluding monies collected to forward to third parties, represents 44.94% of the overall Ramblers cash balances at 30 September 2013.

As noted in FIN007 of the “Guidance for treasurers”, areas and groups are recommended to maintain their reserves at a target range of between 40% and 100% of annual expenditure. Levels of reserves are reviewed as part of the annual budget bid process. The board did agree that groups should be discouraged from putting the monies through their bank accounts and that under no circumstances should officers pass the monies through their private bank accounts – members should be encouraged to either book their holidays directly or organisers should collect cheques payable to third parties from all participants. The planned action is to include this advice in an updated version of “Guidance to Treasurers”. This revision is in progress. Income and expenditure information from groups is only received annually, when annual returns are submitted as part of the year end audit process. No information is included on budget bid requests from groups or areas in respect to estimates of monies they anticipate collecting on behalf of members and passing onto third parties. Therefore it is not possible to predict the level of monies that groups are passing via their bank accounts in the current financial year or future years, in advance of receipt of the annual returns detailing the actual transactional information. The latest information is included in the financial statements to 30 September 2013.

Part 2: Questions and answers on the review of motions.

General Council delegates are provided with the opportunity before the meeting to ask

questions based on review of actions on previous motions. Answers are provided in writing

at the start of the meeting.

1. Question submitted By John Esslemont, Agenda Committee: 2013 Motion 2 The motion called for further actions apart from urging abandonment of the purchase by MoD. Have these been undertaken? If so, please report on the results. If not, please either explain why not, or record the motion as ongoing. Answer: The Ministry of Defence announced in May 2013 that it was abandoning its plans for the purchase of Cape Wrath, a matter of weeks after the issue had been discussed at General Council and the Motion approved. The Ramblers Scottish Office had begun to plan the activities referred to in the Motion, but as they were intended to achieve the objective of persuading the Ministry of Defence to abandon its plans for land purchase, it was not necessary to pursue the actions listed in the Motion. 2. Question submitted By John Esslemont, Agenda Committee: 2013 Motion 12 The motion called for an interim report to be issued by 31st December 2013, which (so far as I am aware) did not happen, and for completion by September 2014, which now seems improbable. These dates may have been unrealistic, but an explanation should have been offered in the report on actions taken. Even at this late stage issuing a brief report on the main options under consideration (thus allowing opinion to be sought within Areas) might lead to better-informed discussion during the Sunday morning session at General Council. Similarly, advance sight of a summary of findings to date on “Vision” could be helpful. Answer: The Board of Trustees approved a project plan for the Governance review and made this available via the minutes. The stages are:

Desktop survey of previous reviews; analysis of external best practice guidelines; analysis of governance practices in other organisations.

These findings examined by externally facilitated discussion with key stakeholders; Areas and Groups surveyed to test the outcomes of this discussion; survey analysed; recommendations formulated.

The Review document to be put to the Board. To include methodology, recommendations and detailing of changes recommended to governance related practice, including supporting analysis and appendices of key documents.

Proposals for changes drafted. Areas asked to comment on proposals in advance of circulation to General

Council. The desktop survey has been received by the working group who are considering it. A number or preliminary themes have been developed. Session 3 of General Council will provide an opportunity for discussion of the themes. This feedback will be fed into the facilitated discussion. 3. Question submitted By John Esslemont, Agenda Committee: 2013 Motion 13

Board minutes B/514/13 to B/517/13 incorrectly state that the motion called on Ramblers to become “the lead organisation”. The actual wording was that we should take “a leading role”. There is a very significant difference here between the implications of the definite and indefinite articles, and the latter should be significantly less resource-intensive than the former. Will the Board undertake to reconsider this aspect of the motion in the light of the actual wording? Answer: When the Board of Trustees considered the motion they had the formal wording. We apologise for the mistake in the Board minutes however we don’t think that error reflects a problem in the way the motion was addressed. The motion was discussed in two parts. The first part which the Board fully supported was discussed in May and acted upon. The employment of a policy consultant to provide dedicated support on countryside protection for a 12-month period has enabled significant progress to be made on the updating of policy and guidance on countryside protection. During the past year, the Ramblers has entered into discussions with a number of government departments, agencies and other environmental organisations on countryside protection issues, including on renewable energy, fracking, biodiversity offsetting, permitted development rights, brownfield development, natural capital, wildlife and economic issues.

Part 3: Questions and answers on miscellaneous subjects submitted.

Every year we receive a number of questions that are not directly covered by this process but if we have time we answer them, we do. In general, if members want information, they should first check the website and/or email ceo@ramblersweb.zendesk.com 1. Question submitted By John Esslemont, Agenda Committee:

I have a recollection, possibly incorrect, that an undertaking was made last year that a summary of discussions during the informal sessions at Warwick would be made available. As far as I am aware this did not happen. Is it intended to issue a report on this year's workshop and fringe sessions? It would seem a pity if any useful suggestions were not placed on record. Answer Following last year’s General Council additional information was put on the website from three sessions: “Planning to protect the countryside”, “Ramblers and Parliament” and “Honorary Treasurer's Financial Presentation”. All hosts of workshops and fringes are encouraged to share information and suggestions if that is appropriate and useful. A blanket commitment to provide a summary of everything that happens over the weekend would take up too many resources although capturing the discussions in the bar might be instructive in the morning! 2. Question submitted by David Kelly, Area Secretary, Mid-Lancashire:

In the Autumn of 2012, a report was published about funding for Public Rights of Way and then in Autumn 2013 another report 'Paths in Crisis' was published. If this is to become an Annual Report then no objections, although a set of background tables would have been useful, for it took a few emails to get the details I desired. In order to keep the issue in the public consciousness it really needs periodic follow up, with perhaps the aim being to do a photo opportunity once a quarter. What plans do you have regarding follow up action? Footnote - in Lancashire (excluding the agency agreements) in the last three and a bit years the number of outstanding footpath reports has more than trebled whilst those older than two years has increased seven fold. Answer: We intend to make an annual freedom of information request to all local authorities, and report on the findings. The Paths in Crisis report is being evaluated at the moment and the learning from this will help to guide the delivery of future projects. When the report was published, we emailed all council leaders and invited them to come on a walk to discuss ways in which the Ramblers and the local council can work together to improve paths. Several leaders took us up on the offer, and local press work has been carried out accordingly. The report also highlighted the definitive map backlogs in every local authority, which was useful for local press work on the Deregulation Bill in February 2014. The campaigns team are happy to support any local campaigns, including with photo opportunities, in any way they can and the President has made repeated offers to be available for groups running campaigns. 3. Question submitted by Bernard Gill, Chair, Gloucestershire Area

I've been watching the news on railway crossing closures over the months (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26478145). Over here in Gloucester it took us 5 years to win a replacement for an urban crossing between a housing estate and their local shops and services Network Rail has been quoted in the past as saying 'the only safe crossing is a closed crossing'. Obviously it's not a crossing if it's closed! Yet many crossings are used safely every year There's something about the implementation of some crossings that makes some unsafe (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-26322599). Network Rail are aiming to close approximately 100 crossings per year (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25820925). If we're not careful the mantra could extend to footpaths especially in urban areas 'the only safe footpath is a closed footpath'. The crossings issue cropped up at General Council Leicester. Is it still being pursued? I.e. are we monitoring footpath closures relating to crossings? Answer: The Ramblers continues to engage with the level crossing issue in a number of different ways. For the last five years we’ve been part of an Advisory Group working with the Law Commission on the reform of the law relating to level crossings. This has entailed attending numerous meetings and making the case for walkers in the context of the safety of level crossings. There are many approaches to this: make the level crossing safer, provide a bridge or an underpass, divert it (but make sure the diversion is a good one – not one that is going to take people miles out of their way, or mean they have to share a busy road with cars).

When the Law Commission produced a consultation paper setting out its recommendations we made a detailed response. When the House of Commons Transport Committee announced that it was conducting an investigation into level crossing safety we submitted evidence (it is the report of that Committee which has been published on 7 March 2014). The report is a good and measured response to the issue which we have welcomed. We propose to write to the Minister at the Department for Transport to give our support to its recommendations.

Staff members have met with Network Rail representatives and have emphasised that the Ramblers fully understands the problems associated with level crossing safety: we don’t oppose closure as a matter of principle but we have to press for decent alternatives. A poor alternative might even be worse than not closing the crossing because it could lead to trespass on the railway. Through our path order monitoring we are able to monitor the number of rail crossing orders being made. To make this data more helpful we need to get background information from volunteers about Network Rail’s engagement with users, how helpful they have been and what the end result has been for users.

Appendix five

Should we introduce one member one vote to elect the Board and therefore replace the current system of Council delegates electing the board?

How can we structure GC so that delegates are enabled to focus on the strategic direction of the Ramblers?

How can we clarify the powers of the Board v General Council responsibility?

How can we identify and harness volunteer expertise without using the traditional route of being elected into constitutional roles at Area or Board

What practical things we can do to improve democracy such as better use of technology or changing how General Council operates?

How can we make governance changes that help areas become more effective in delivering the mission of Ramblers GB (Scotland/Wales)?

Should we have a simplified way of delivering our activities by streamlining group and area constitutions and having a separate route for providing accountability at all levels of the organisation?

Appendix six

1. What should the relationship be between Ramblers and young people (below the age

of 26?)

Twenty seven participants from the Vision session chose to examine this issue in more detail. Most people

chose to explain how they thought the relationship could be encouraged and what issues would need to be

addressed in order to enable a better relationship to develop.

1.1 Collaboration with young people’s organisations:

This was the most frequently mentioned response to the question. Over half of those that took part

in the conversations felt that there was a need to ‘connect’ and ‘collaborate’ with young people’s

organisations such as Scouts, Guides, Duke of Edinburgh groups and youth groups. Slightly less

than half felt that it was important to connect and collaborate with schools (primary and secondary),

colleges and universities. For example

‘we should collaborate or encourage school and university rambling groups

and help out with school ‘activity days’, run map reading walks’.

1.2 Different opportunities for different age groups

Many participants talked about the need to consider the image of Ramblers and walking and in

particular the idea of separating age groups with separate identities:

‘could different age groups be rebranded as different names like Scouts do

e.g. Scramblers (up to 18)?’

‘engagement should be tailored to age and interests e.g. younger children

– walks with families, treat walks as adventures’

‘it is too much to expect young people in their 20s-30s, for example, to join

a club in which they are sharing the same walks with much older people’

Some saw that local groups had a role in providing such targeted opportunities:

‘individual groups organise walks targeting young people, shorter walks,

action on the way (streams, rocks, treasure hunts)’

Five attendees felt specifically that there was a lot to learn from the Scramblers initiative.

‘follow the Welsh lead of the Scramblers’ and ‘study the SCRAMBLERS

model’

Only a few individuals went on to consider what different opportunities might be appropriate for

young people, one person talked about the need for fun:

‘raising awareness and promoting the objectives of Ramblers through fun

activities, getting young people out into the countryside, offering walks and

activities to get them interested and involved’.

‘we could produce a walker leader qualification and run it at schools so

students could be accredited’

1.3 Membership

Eight people specifically talked about membership. Four talked about the need for a family

membership option. Others talked about the idea that offering membership should come later after

they had been introduced to the joys of the activity:

The following quotes were typical:

‘encourage children and young people (to have) an interest in walking and

the countryside without necessarily insisting on them joining Ramblers’

‘it’s not about getting them to join as members yet but increasing

awareness of who the Ramblers are and what they do’.

1.4 Legal issues

Five people expressed some concern about the legal implications of involving young people:

‘we cannot take walkers under 18 without parental accompaniment’.

‘what do you do with a 15 year old who wants to walk without parents?’

1.5 Technology

Four respondents felt that technology could have an important role:

One person who described themselves as the chair of a 20s-30s group said ‘having discussed with

other representatives of 20s-30s groups it would appear that young people under 25 are

increasingly using services like ‘Meetup’ to join non Ramblers walking groups’.

1.6 The relationship

A couple of respondents did explain what they thought the relationship could bring

‘confidence to explore the real world’.

‘an educational and empowering relationship that can equip young people

with the skills and knowledge to explore the countryside by themselves and

learn to value it’.

In developing this relationship, three others spoke of the need to listen to young people:

‘we need a ‘young person’ champion who will co-ordinate all ideas’

‘listen to what the under 20s require’.

2. What does an organisation do that gives all types of walkers the skills, knowledge

and confidence they need and what does it look like?

Thirteen participants from the Vision session chose to examine this issue in more detail.

2.1 Skills and training

When considering this question six people spoke of the need to organise training and courses, all of

them spoke of the need for training and courses in either, map reading, (and compass work) or walk

leadership skills.

‘the focus of our group discussion was on how to equip new walkers with

navigation and walk leading skills’

Some participants also suggested how this might happen. A number talked of the need for college

courses (including on line courses). Other ideas from individual respondents included ‘specific

navigation walks, at a slower pace to train people in route finding’, ‘mentoring to encourage and

support’ and ‘put on walks with experienced leaders giving others the opportunity to learn map

reading skills’.

2.2 Paths

Some two thirds of participants felt that central to the answer to this question is paths and a need for

them to be open and maintained and that the resources and skills are provided to enable this to

happen. Typical comments included:

(an organisation that gives all types of walkers the skills, knowledge and

confidence they need) ‘equips all members with knowledge to deal with

e.g. overgrown paths or aggressive farmers’.

2.3 Skills and knowledge for local groups

Some participants felt that the skills needed to run an effective local group are vital e.g.

‘organisational, administrative and IT skills’ and ‘support for those setting up new groups’.

2.4 Resources

There were four suggestions for relevant resources:

‘publish walks leaflets etc with walks that are guaranteed easy to follow,

information points in car parks’.

‘a card for walk leaders to carry as to where you can walk e.g. field freshly

cut and approaching a grumpy land owner’

‘a video on subjects such as map reading, dos and don’ts when walking’.

‘a short flash card outlining rights of way law which would help in giving

walkers confidence in talking with landowners/farmers when problems are

encountered’.

2.5 Publicity

Three participants felt that publicity and being ‘visible’ is key

‘should be seen more at trailheads, saying what has been achieved’.

2.6 Listen to walkers and members

Three members commented on the importance of our organisation doing this.

3. What is the path network for and what sort of path network do we want?

Thirty seven participants from the Vision session chose to examine this issue in more detail.

a) What is the path network for?

Virtually all people that took part in these conversations felt that the path network had two main

purposes firstly as a means of ‘getting from A to B’ and secondly for recreational purposes, the

following quotes were typical:

‘to provide access to the countryside for enjoyment of the outdoor

environment and heritage’

‘to provide a framework which gives a predictable means of getting around

from A to B’

‘I use the paths to walk in the countryside and to go shopping locally and to

walk to work’

For many the opportunity to spend time in the natural world as well as reconnecting with history was

very important

‘historical paths are wonderful, (the) sense of history that years and years

ago our ancestors walked this path, the joy of walking on cobblestones

across fields that have been walked on for hundreds of years is wonderful’

Seven people felt that health was one of the main reasons for the existence of a path network

Five people used the language of rights in their answers i.e.

‘it is my right to walk this path over private land’.

Two people spoke of the economic value of having a network of paths: e.g.

‘(the network) should bring economic value into rural areas and unskilled

accessible employment in support services’.

b) What sort of path network do we want?

3.1 A well maintained, open network

By far the most frequently mentioned feature identified by twenty-eight participants was the need for

a well maintained network of paths. The following was typical:

‘we want a well maintained, well signed and way marked network which is

easy to use’.

One person drew the parallel with the canal network: ‘the canals which were once solely for

transport, but we allowed them to go derelict and (they) are now being restored for recreational use

at enormous expense’.

However the issue that split respondents was whether or not the path network should be

rationalised. Five people felt strongly that the network should not be rationalised:

‘we need an uninterrupted network i.e. no bits extinguished, no

rationalisation to remove paths perceived to be not used’.

While five others felt the opposite:

‘all paths must be well maintained and well signed. If that means that some

less used and duplicated paths are not maintained due to lack of resources

then so be it!’

‘paths that are not used (as opposed to paths that cannot be used) should

be extinguished and other more relevant paths created’.

3.2 A linked network

Thirteen people spoke of the need for a joined up network of paths. Of particular concern seemed to

be the desire firstly for a: ‘connected network, e.g. no gaps along busy roads’ and secondly a

network that enables ‘paths that cross town /country boundaries to be continuous (this is a common

point of a break in the network)’.

3.3 An easy to use, accessible network

Twelve people spoke of the importance of this, most often in terms of making sure paths are open

to physically disabled people, e.g.:

‘gates where possible rather than stiles’

But, also in terms of accessibility for all, for example:

‘the path network is for the use of all walkers not just Ramblers’.

3.4 A mapped network of paths (definitive maps and statements)

Eleven people spoke of the need for all paths to be ‘clearly shown on maps’, typically respondents

went on to say

‘I want an open recorded and defined network on the definitive map and

statement’.

‘local authorities to have definitive maps and statements readily available

and to keep the definitive map and statement up to date’.

3.5 New paths

Some ten participants were keen to stress that the network should be expanding firstly to address

any ‘dead-ends’, secondly to open up access to military areas and thirdly to ensure that paths are

designed into ‘new urban developments’

‘Additional new paths linking new roads, housing developments, schools to

the existing path network to encourage use everyday not just weekend,

leisure use’.

‘whilst I appreciate historic paths or rights of way, in some cases the

network ought to be modernised, e.g. where no direct path exists to new

villages or settlements’.

Others talked about the importance of valuing the paths network in urban areas ‘linking interesting

sites and features’.

‘a good pavement in a busy section of road can be as important as a

scenic footpath’

‘the built environment (e.g. urban paths) should encourage people to walk

by creating a network of snickets’.

‘remember that ginnels, alleyways are rights of way too’.

3.6 Safety

Five people spoke of the need for a network that is ‘safe to use’, e.g. ‘ensure safe crossings where

paths cut by new road development’

3.7 Others

The following issues were mentioned by one or two people

3.7.1 One person felt that it’s important that paths are kept ‘multi-purpose’ while another felt it

important to ‘keep bikes off’.

3.7.2 Two respondents talked of the importance of a network that is well publicised.

3.7.3 Two participants spoke on the issue of amenities and a path network:

(we want a network to) ‘have sufficient amenities (toilets, cafe, car parking)’

‘I don’t think facilities (toilets, tea shops) are important’.

4. What type of open access would we like to see in England and Wales and why?

Twenty one participants from the Vision session chose to examine this issue in more detail.

4.1 The ‘Scottish model’

Eleven participants felt that England should adopt the Scottish model of access. Three were

opposed.

For most respondents there were still concerns, primarily the issue of potential conflict in lowland

areas:

‘we need to address the idea that open access would facilitate rural crime’

‘an objection raised is that an irresponsible minority, especially in urban

fringes would abuse the new rights. The objectors however, were not

familiar with the Scottish arrangements which we are told, are working well

in lowland Scotland. Thieves, hooligans, poachers, rustlers operate as it is;

do they worry whether where they go is legal?’

‘there are parts of lowland England where we may need to be mindful of

the effect on landowners where the public may damage crops, this I feel;

may bring negative publicity on the Ramblers’.

Ten participants felt that key to the expansion of a version of the Scottish system is ‘a well

developed code of conduct to ensure appropriate use of land’.

‘it will be important to incorporate an access code as in Scotland, which

details out responsible access and which can be included in the education

system, so that children can be taught from a young age’.

Two participants talked of the need to ‘change the logic’ upon which access is based;

‘the real question should be on the landowner to give good reason why we

can’t be there, the emphasis should be on the landowner to justify the

action not the person who wants to walk across the land’.

For those in favour of open access along the lines of the Scottish model the primary justifications

were the desire for ‘unity across the whole of GB’ and also the belief that more access would

‘hopefully attract/encourage more of the public to take up walking and educate people’.

Those that were opposed voiced similar sentiments to the following:

‘General open access in England would be a big problem and potential

disaster. It would probably lead to neglect of R.o.W. network, particularly

sparsely used paths. It would be unpopular with farmers, particularly with

respect to people crossing fences, hedges, walls. Scotland and Nordic

countries are largely uncultivated with few locally protected paths, England

isn’t Scotland’.

4.2 Access to woodland and waterside

Six people spoke of this need for example ‘add riverbanks and woodland to existing access land’.

One person also included ‘coastal access’ within this plea.

4.3 Improving access points

Three people felt that a priority is improving existing access arrangements and in particular access

points:

‘priority to make current access land accessible with well publicised access

points’

‘urgent need for access to access land, O.S. mapping to show access

points’.

5. What should the goal of our countryside protection be?

Twelve participants from the Vision session chose to examine this issue in more detail.

Few respondents offered a clear goal:

e.g. ‘to protect natural areas of beauty for everyone to enjoy, once gone can never be replaced’

e.g. ‘to protect the nature of the countryside and preserve its natural beauty’.

However, there was some discussion as to whether or not it is desirable to have a clearer position on

the issue and for what purpose.

‘the subject is something of a Cinderella amongst our constitutional aims,

except when people get exercised about a highly visible wind farm

development’.

‘I question if the Ramblers remit is the protection of the countryside or the

protection of the footpath network. We know about Rights of Way but are

we qualified to have strong views about countryside protection against

urban development, wind farms, solar panels etc, the goal should be to

establish a firm policy on how countryside protection’.

Three respondents echoed the following comment

‘if Ramblers were to be more public, proactive about being seen to ‘protect

countryside’ perhaps in association with other organisations then we might

get more members’.

Countryside protection was discussed in two contexts, firstly, in terms of ‘major developments’ (four

people spoke of this), i.e.

‘concern about current threats to develop on green belt land’

‘try to keep countryside as undeveloped as possible so that walking is as

enjoyable as possible’.

and energy production (solar farms and wind turbines).

Secondly, in terms of climate change (three people).

‘the goal needs to be longer term than ten years, countryside protection

needs to reflect the likelihood of climate change affecting our countryside

negatively’.

In total four people echoed the idea that whatever policy was developed needs to think long term.

‘work closely with other organisations to develop a long term strategy. The

long term should be more than ten years as periods shorter than this are

effected by government changes’.

Finally, ten people commented on the need for co-operation with other agencies in order to address the

issue of countryside protection.

‘(there is a) need for closer working in co-operation with other interested

organisations such as CPRE to present a unified front in opposing

inapplicable developments, strength in numbers.’

‘dealing with the countryside protection part of our mission has become

more complex. This is due to government regulations and the number of

other organisations involved in this area e.g. CPRE, Woodland Trust,

Wildlife Trust, 38 Degrees etc. Our goal to manage this part of the mission

must therefore be one of consultation and co-operation with these other

organisations. This will allow a sharing of views and strengthened and

more credible response to these issues’

6. What would we like the image of walking to be?

Twenty-six participants from the Vision session chose to examine this issue in more detail.

The most common summary of what the image should be was of an activity that is enjoyable (and fun),

is sociable (friendly), is inclusive and healthy. Thirteen people prioritised these four features:

6.1 Fun and enjoyable: a typical comment was

‘it’s enjoyable and something that people from all ages, backgrounds and

abilities can enjoy’

6.2 Sociable and friendly: in the words of one participant

‘it is a great social activity and a good way to make friends’.

6.3 Inclusive: the following quotes summarise the responses:

‘(we need an) image that reaches a broader population not the

stereotypical image of a white middle class male’.

‘the image of walking needs to be that it’s for everyone, it’s not just for

middle aged white people in anoraks! It offers something for everyone from

challenging hikes to relaxing strolls in the countryside or urban. It’s

enjoyable and something that people of all ages, backgrounds and abilities

can enjoy’.

Eight out of the thirteen talked specifically about the need to show that walking is for all ages. Some

individuals also spoke specifically about inclusivity in terms of families, social groups and multicultural

inclusion. Three spoke of how walking can be done in groups or on your own, while four spoke about

how it could be easy or it could be challenging and adventurous.

6.4 Healthy: some people spoke of the need to promote walking’s image in terms of its impact on

health (both mental and physical).

Other features of the preferred image included the following (all of which were mentioned less

frequently than the first four).

6.5 Inexpensive/free: eight people spoke of the cheap nature of the activity; five went on to talk about

the need to promote the fact that, (walking) ‘doesn’t need any specialist equipment so it’s cheap’.

6.6 Relaxing and pace: six people spoke about pace. One spoke of ‘walking provides the opportunity

to see the world at a pace that pleases’, while others spoke specifically of how walking ‘takes time

out from the pace of modern life’.

6.7 Others: Other ideas of what the image should be included the following (mentioned by between one

and three people). Firstly an opportunity to connect with nature, secondly, a chance to go places,

see things and explore, thirdly it’s easy to do and finally its cool. One person spoke of the need to

show the ‘sexy’ side of walking.