Natural England denies claims of backdated appointments
Men-an-Tol standing stones on the Penwith peninsula © AdobeStock/Marcin Just weeks after an independent review began looking into its conduct on Dartmoor, Natural England (NE) is facing further scrutiny over its controversial decision to designate almost 12 square miles of west Cornwall as a conservation area.
On 28 June this year, the under-fire government body held a quasi-judicial hearing in St Ives when it voted to confirm the designation of 3,044ha of the Land’s End peninsula as a site of special scientific interest (SSSI).
The decision means farmers face a range of restrictions, including use of vehicles, animal stocking levels, muck- or lime-spreading, and even cutting their grass.
See also: Farmers exposed by Natural England data leak over Cornish SSSI plan
A fifth of SSSI restrictions relate to water supplies from Penwith’s ancient man-made streams, modern boreholes and natural springs in a part of the UK without access to mains water supply.
St Ives MP Derek Thomas, a Conservative, recently submitted a written parliamentary question to Defra asking: “How many members of the Board of Natural England held valid appointments to that Board on 28 June 2023?”
In response, minister for natural environment and land use Trudy Harrison said: “On 28 June 2023 the Natural England Board consisted of 12 members with valid appointments.”
Before the confirmation hearing in St Ives, a petition by attendees was handed to NE chairman Tony Juniper and Mr Thomas.
The beleaguered organisation was accused of voting to designate West Penwith as an SSSI 28 days after several board members’ terms of office had apparently expired.
Four board members were originally appointed on 1 June 2020 by an NE panel, consisting of Mr Juniper and three others, each for a three-year term (see panel).
Signatories specifically drew attention to perceived conflicts of interest and allegedly expired terms of office. They also alleged that the board’s Register of Interests had not been published.
The day after the vote, 29 June, complaints were made to NE about conflicts of interest and board members’ attendance at the St Ives meeting despite allegedly expired terms.
Two months and one day later, on 30 August, NE announced the reappointment of the four members of the Board. However, in the announcement, the appointments appeared to have been backdated to 1 June 2023.
A screen grab from the gov.uk website
Mr Juniper was served with the petition on the morning of the hearing, but chose to go ahead as planned after reading it.
Farmers Weekly has reviewed the transcript of the hearing and found that Mr Juniper did not address the issues raised in the petition with regard to terms of office, or the conflicts of interest alleged by petitioners for five board members.
Mr Juniper did, however, state that the board’s Register of Interests was published on the gov.uk website.
Despite requests, Farmers Weekly has not been given a link to the online publication of the board’s Register of Interests.
A Natural England spokesperson said: “We reject these claims – all the members of the Natural England board in attendance on 28 June 2023 held valid appointments to the board.
“Natural England has robust systems in place to ensure high standards of proprietary in decision making, and our board members act in accordance with the principles set out in the Natural England and Cabinet Office Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies.”
Petitioners level allegations of backdating
Three of the four NE board members, whose terms of office were alleged by petitioners to have expired 28 days previously on 31 May, attended the hearing in St Ives as full participants in the discussion. All three voted in favour of designating the West Penwith area as an SSSI.
Farmers Weekly reviewed all NE board appointments since 2017. In each case an appointee’s term has, at the most, expired one day short of their three-year anniversary.
For example, on 23 April last year Mr Juniper was reappointed to his £546-a-day role for three years, until 22 April 2025.
NE maintains that the four appointments were valid despite not publishing them for 91-92 days after the dates it claims they took effect.
When asked by Farmers Weekly, an NE spokesman said the announcements had been delayed, but did not give a reason for the delay.
The spokesman also stated that the appointments were made in accordance with the Governance Code for Public Appointments.