Meeting of the Federation of Cumbria Commoners (FCC), RPA Commons Scheme Management Unit (SMU) and RPA Exeter Processing
Tuesday 17 April 2007
Golden Lion Hotel, Northallerton
Present:
Federation of Cumbria Commoners (FCC): Fiona Southern, Elizabeth Moore, Carl Walters, Julia Aglionby
Central Association of Agricultural Valuers (CAAV): Alice Russell-Hare
RPA Commons SMU: Stephen Jenner (Chair), Nicola Crosby, Andrew Scott, John Aitken, Kev Dunnill
RPA Exeter Processing: Ian Constance and Chris Stapley
Secretariat (SMU): Ruth Wilson
Apologies: Pauline Blair (FCC), Harry Hutchinson (FCC)
1. Kev Dunnill (RPA SMU) circulated 4 letters to the group regarding Common Land and Hill Farm Allowance Area Allocation, Common Land Area Allocation, Common Land Area Allocation (Explanatory note) and Common Land Area Ownership Surplus Allocation.
A review was undertaken of the letters and several amendments were agreed. The FCC queried if 1 letter would be sent per common or if a combined letter could be drafted. Action: The SMU agreed to consider this.
The Common Land Area Allocation letter (Explanatory note) was reviewed and it was agreed that this along with the Ownership Surplus Allocation letter would be amalgamated and published as a Briefing Note to enable applicant’s to refer to it in the future. It was also agreed that this would be published on the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) website. The format of the note would be amended to include section and paragraph numbers which applicants could quote if necessary.
Following a review of the letters by the FCC and CAAV, the SMU will circulate the documents to stakeholders for comments. It was anticipated that the Briefing Note regarding Common Land Area Allocation will be distributed to applicants by the end of April.
Action: The SMU requested that comments from the FCC and CAAV are forwarded to Kev Dunnill by close of business on Wednesday 18 April.
2. The FCC suggested that the Common Land Area Surplus Allocation letter should be circulated to all individuals who claim against the common. At present, this is distributed to the surplus owner only. It was also recommended that the letter include details regarding 1) Is there are owner surplus Yes/No and 2) Has an owner surplus been claimed Yes/No.
The SMU advised that there are approximately 20 owner surpluses for 2006 to date. 2005 figures are still being calculated.
Action: The SMU agreed to discuss 2007 claim submission with Ray Anderson and DEFRA Policy.
3. The issue of customer contact with the RPA was discussed. There was some concern that applicants were not being given access to Team Leader’s at the RPA.
Action: Ian Constance agreed to review the process but stressed that all phone calls must be directed via the Customer Service Centre (CSC). The CSC number would be included on the letters that were circulated during this meeting.
4. The FCC and CAAV requested that a review be undertaken regarding the quotation of the Commons Registration Act 1965 in RPA letters. It is acknowledged that applicants also possess other legally binding documents and that these should be considered by the RPA when advising applicants of their entitlement to use common land.
An example was outlined where rights were allocated to the wrong common and subsequently removed. An agreement was made amongst the commoners which constitutes a legally binding document.
The SMU acknowledged this and advised that in this situation the entire common must be re-calculated.
Action: The SMU agreed to discuss this issue with Ray Anderson and DEFRA Policy and hold a further meeting to discuss with Stakeholders/FCC.
5. The FCC questioned if penalties are applied to claims where applicants claim against a parcel of land unaware that this land forms part of a common. This has occurred where registration against the Rural Land Register (RLR) has generated a parcel number which is subsequently given to the applicant. The SMU confirmed that this would not be classed as a dual claim and that the field number would be removed. A penalty would not be applied.
6. The FCC advised that incorrect advice had been given to commoners by RPA and DEFRA regarding split rights. An applicant had rights to 2 commons but was advised to allocate the rights to the main common which has resulted in the allocation only being given for the common on the application form and not given for the all the commons involved in the splits.
Action: The SMU requested that case examples are forwarded to them for consideration.
Action: Julia Aglionby requested sight of the legal guidance held by RPA regarding the interpretation of split rights.
7. The FCC highlighted a case to the SMU regarding Uldale Common. This has been registered as a Severely Disadvantage Area (SDA) however the correct land type is Moorland.
Action: Chris Stapley agreed to investigate.
8. The FCC advised that Hoggs and Followers are given different Livestock Unit allocations but Hoggs are classed as Followers.
Action: John Aitken agreed to investigate.
9. The FCC requested sight of the commons audit sheets and split right calculation. It was agreed that if required, the Chairman of the common would contact Ian Constance at Exeter RPA. The RPA agreed to check any potential Freedom of Information (FOI) issues this may raise.
Action: Ian Constance to check with FOI