ˇˆ ˘˙˙ ˝ ˛˚˜ ! # $ %&’ ’ · 2009. 6. 9. · been informed by consultations undertaken as part of the Best Value Review of Public Rights of Way and Countryside Sites during

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )1

�

CONTENTS

PAGE Foreword 3 Executive summary 4 Background 6 Gloucestershire focus 17 The ROWIP process 21 Definitive map and statement 23 Maintenance 28 Enforcement and prosecution 33 Condition of the public rights of way network 36 Promoted walks and rides 40 New access rights 45 Education and awareness 48 Understanding present and future needs of different users 51 Community safety 58 Social inclusion and access for all 63 Health promotion 68 Land manager liaison 70 Partnership working and shared priorities 73 Voluntary involvement and community participation 75 Economic development and regeneration 78 Permissive access in the countryside 81 Sustainable transport 83

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )2

Gloucestershire Local Access Forum 85 Planning 88 Biodiversity 91 Statement of actions 93 Resources 94 Publicising the draft ROWIP 95 Implementation and monitoring 97 Annexes 101

Text of sections 60/61 of the CROW Act 2000 Analysis of results of initial ROWIP consultation Walking and riding routes in Gloucestershire Priority guidelines for path orders Digitisation and consolidation of the definitive map Priority guidelines for managing new access rights Priority guidelines for public rights of way maintenance and enforcement

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )3

FOREWORD In Gloucestershire we have long recognised the importance of public rights of way and the opportunities they provide for public access, both utilitarian and recreational. In such a large and predominately rural county, the path network allows people to enjoy the beautiful countryside in which many live and work, as well as to travel from place to place for work or school without having to resort to the car. Gloucestershire’s successful Parish Paths Partnership scheme, part funded by the then Countryside Commission was started in 1993. It eventually led to the active involvement of around 120 town and parish councils. Between them, these local councils organised a wide range of practical improvement work and a number of associated promotional route guides and leaflets. Although the funding provided for this scheme ceased in 1999, we have continued to work closely with town and parish councils in a more informal way. We recognise how important it is to have local people involved in the maintenance of the network, liaising with local farmers and landowners, who manage the land the routes cross. During 2001 and 2002, Foot and Mouth disease had a devastating effect on the rural economy of Gloucestershire – not to mention the personal effect on those involved. However, it did highlight the importance of our countryside for tourism as well as agriculture. Indeed for the first time, we really started to appreciate the sheer diversity of economic activity that takes place in rural areas. The foot and mouth crisis also highlighted the importance of countryside access and the public rights of way network in particular to the county’s economy. In 2002/03 we took the opportunity to conduct a “best value review” of our public rights of way and countryside sites services. This helped us to identify further improvements we could make through “developing a proactive approach to promoting access to the countryside, focusing on specific geographical areas for improvement, targeting socially excluded groups and contributing to wider community partnership objectives such as health improvement.” Rather than focus solely on public rights of way this document also carefully considers the new access rights that are due to come into effect in the autumn. A consequence of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, these new rights, and the new responsibilities that come with them, will be one of the most significant changes in public access to the countryside and represent a real challenge. We intend this document to build on the work done so far and to make the links that have been highlighted through its production – links to our local communities and potential partners in delivery of our shared priorities; as well as links to and between the users and landowners of the network. We hope that you will become a partner in this and help us to make further improvements. This draft document, and it is just a draft, is intended to prompt discussion and encourage everyone to share their ideas and think about their priorities for improving access in Gloucestershire. Welcome to Gloucestershire’s Draft Rights of Way Improvement Plan. Mark Parker Public Rights of Way Manager Gloucestershire County Council June 2005

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )4

SECTION 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Background Gloucestershire County Council as the local highway authority is required to develop and produce, under Section 60 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, a Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) by November 2007. The statutory guidance states that a Rights of Way Improvement Plan must assess:

• The extent to which the local public rights of way meet the present and likely future needs of the public;

• The opportunities provided by local public rights of way for exercise and other forms of outdoor recreation and enjoyment of the authority’s area;

• The accessibility of local public rights of way to blind and partially sighted people and others with mobility problems.

1.2 Scope Putting together a ROWIP is a new duty for highway authorities and causes them to look at adapting the path network to both current and possible future needs. The ROWIP is a step beyond the Countryside Commission’s earlier “Milestones” initiative which aimed to get the existing public rights of way network in good condition. Elected members approved Gloucestershire County Council’s “Milestones Statement” in March 1996. The statutory guidance also states that the ROWIP itself should not contain information on site-specific assessments, but draw broader, generic conclusions, which are then the focus of a “statement of action” for the management of local public rights of way and for securing an improved network of paths. 1.3 The process The process of developing this draft ROWIP has been informed by a number of factors, including the authority’s statutory duties and powers, the statutory ROWIP guidance, Countryside Agency advice, and wide ranging consultations. There has been some initial input from the Gloucestershire Local Access Forum, other statutory agencies and local voluntary organisations, parish councils, county and district council officers and user groups. It has also been informed by consultations undertaken as part of the Best Value Review of Public Rights of Way and Countryside Sites during 2002/03. 1.4 The assessment The Gloucestershire draft ROWIP sets out the context of public rights of way maintenance, improvement and management in strategic terms. It identifies and evaluates the needs of various users and summarises the current levels of public rights of way and recreational countryside access provision. There is an attempt to evaluate how adequate current provision is and then draw up conclusions in the form of action proposals to make improvements. Some of the key issues identified in the assessments were,

• Better safe and easy to use routes are needed for all close to where they live. • A better-managed public rights of way network to ensure a high quality experience. • Thorough integration of public rights of way and countryside access issues and the

definitive map into all strategic plans of local and regional significance. • Accessible information and better promotion of countryside access opportunities for all

people. • Better joined up working between organisations.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )5

• A need for ongoing data collection on user needs and demands and network condition surveys.

1.5 Consultation and implementation Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, Gloucestershire County Council has a statutory duty to prepare and publish a Rights of Way Improvement Plan, but not to implement it. At the time of writing no additional funds had been earmarked for ROWIP implementation. However, putting together a ROWIP will enable the county council to seek funding from external sources for access improvements. Such funding would be over and above existing core public rights of way budgets, which are used to undertake statutory responsibilities. The Government’s statutory guidance makes reference to the concept that the Rights of Way Improvement Plan will become a “distinct strand” in the Local Transport Plan (LTP), though it is assumed that the government sees its inclusion as a means of obtaining funding for network improvements subsequently identified in an annual bidding round. This draft ROWIP is being published as an appendix to the Gloucestershire Provisional Local Transport Plan (LTP2) in July 2005. 1.6 The next step The next step is to seek comments on this draft ROWIP from land management representatives, user groups, other local authorities, town and parish councils, the wider public and other agencies in the county. The government’s statutory guidance requires a period of public consultation, of at least 12 weeks, with the draft ROWIP held on deposit. This will provide an opportunity for local people to make written representations on the draft ROWIP. The intention, at the time of writing, is to complete the public consultation process in Autumn 2005. The consultation responses can then be consolidated with the final ROWIP ready for publication in 2006. 1.7 Our vision Through the Rights of Way Improvement Plan, Gloucestershire County Council will: -

• Continue its work in protecting, maintaining, and defining the public rights of way network.

• Recognise the economic and social value of the public rights of way network and accessible open spaces as an important means of access to the countryside.

• Look for opportunities to improve public rights of way and access land in order to promote and encourage their use and enjoyment for physical activities and mental well being for all local people and visitors, where resources permit.

• Increase opportunities for sustainable travel and development, for leisure and access to work, school and local services.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )6

SECTION 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 Public Rights of Way in Gloucestershire The Public Rights of Way Team of Gloucestershire County Council is contained within the Highways Maintenance Unit of the Environment Department. The team is responsible for the management of a network of 9,662 paths, extending to 5,467km (about 3430 miles). The network is comprised of: 8,448 public footpaths, (4,511km); 815 bridleways, (696km); 399 roads used as public paths and byways open to all traffic (260km). Gloucestershire is one of the largest “shire” counties in England and benefits from a surprisingly diverse range of landscape types, including the Forest of Dean, the Severn Vale and the Cotswolds. Within these three main landscapes other distinctive areas can be recognised including the Wye Valley, the Leadon Vale, the Stroud Valleys and the south Cotswold lakes. Local public rights of way provide a convenient means of travelling, particularly for short journeys, in both rural and urban areas. They are important in the daily lives of many people who use them for fresh air and exercise on bicycle, foot or horse, to walk the dog, to improve their fitness, to visit local shops and other facilities, and to get to and from places of work. Nationally 15 per cent of all visitors to the countryside go walking, which brings many benefits from supporting the rural economy to improving health and well-being. It is interesting to note that walking proved to be more popular than shopping when research was done regarding visits to the countryside. Research for the Countryside Agency on public rights of way use and demand in 2000 revealed that just over 50 per cent of households had at least one member who had used local public rights of way in the previous year. The most popular activities were walking and cycling. 30 per cent of households felt that there were not enough paths and tracks while 40 per cent felt that provision was adequate. 70 per cent of households (including a third of those where nobody had undertaken any activities in the countryside in the previous year) said that they would increase activity, particularly walking and cycling, if more paths and tracks were available. In the 44 per cent of households where no use was made of public rights of way, 16 per cent cited health and 13 per cent their age as barriers to participation. Other reasons for making no use of public rights of way included having no time. The research also revealed that many people believe that public rights of way are frequently obstructed or poorly maintained as to be difficult to use. Improved management, combined with better information and the promotion of new routes in carefully chosen locations could make a significant difference to people who use, or who would like to use, footpaths, bridleways and byways. In some areas, the highway authority needs to improve the management and maintenance of the existing network. In all areas, in order to meet the Government’s aim of better provision for walkers, cyclists, equestrians and people with mobility problems, the highway authority will need to better understand the use and demand for public rights of way. It will, thereby, be more able to meet the needs and expectations of people with all levels of interest and ability. Rights of Way Improvement Plans are intended to be the prime means by which local highway authorities will identify the changes to be made, in respect of management and improvements, to their local public rights of way network in order to meet the Government’s aim of better provision for walkers, cyclists, equestrians and people with mobility problems.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )7

2.2 The Milestones Statement 1996 The 1993 Countryside Commission’s “Milestones Initiative” recommended that, “applying the Milestones approach will help every authority to ensure that it is on course and can achieve the national target for rights of way as quickly and as efficiently as possible”. Gloucestershire County Council embraced this recommendation and their “Milestones Statement” was adopted by resolution of the County Council’s Environment Committee on 6th March 1996. This document has remained the key strategic guide for the PROW Team’s activities during the subsequent period. The key objectives of set out in the document are that Gloucestershire’s public rights of way network should be: i) Legally Defined - all areas covered by a Definitive Map and Statement that correctly records the line and legal status of all highways required to be shown on the map ii) Properly Maintained - all public rights of way to be open and available for use so that users are able to: • find the start of any PROW; • follow the line of any PROW, if necessary with the help of waymarks, a guide book or an

OS map; • use any PROW, in accordance with its legal status. iii) Well Publicised - the authority assists with the development and promotion of a range of routes categorised in the statement. 2.3 Monitoring of Milestones Statement objectives The last “detailed” survey of the rights of way network was undertaken in 1995 when officers from the public rights of way team, assisted by a number of volunteers, undertook a survey of approximately 38% of the county’s path network. A detailed survey methodology was prepared and software written to capture the relevant information. Paper files were compiled of all visits. It was recognised at the time that regular (3 yearly) follow up surveys would be required to update and review the statistical database; however limited funds precluded such an action until 2003 when the first BVPI178 survey was undertaken. Since that time 2.5% survey sampling has been conducted on a twice-yearly basis and a one-off survey of paths wholly or partially on county council land has also been completed.

Within the Milestones Statement each objective was broken down into component tasks and these were broadly ranked on the basis of statutory duty, statutory power and desirability. The statement set out the additional resources required to meet many of the basic aspirations set out within the plan. However, until 2000 the authority was unable to identify further resources. In recent years, and particularly since the passing of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, additional resources have been made available which have assisted in meeting some of the authority’s new statutory obligations.

The Milestones Statement provided a useful tool in allowing the county council to prioritise and focus the work of the public rights of way team, while providing it with a degree of protection against legal challenge. It is important that the ambitions contained within the Milestones Statement – to create a well defined, easy to use and well promoted network – are not lost in the attempt to take on more ambitious aspirations.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )8

2.4 Wider context 2.4 (i) Economy and regeneration Tourism in Gloucestershire is now recognised as being of growing importance to the local rural economy. In September 2003, the Ramblers Association published the report of Mike Christie and Jon Matthews on “The economic and social value of walking in England”. Their report based on available existing research from sources such as the Audit Commission, National Rights of Way condition survey and UK Day Visitors survey found that over 527 million estimated walking trips were made annually in England billion with associated spending valued at over £6.14 billion. The income generated by this spending is estimated to be between £1.4 billion and £2.7 billion, and supports 180,559 and 245,560 full time equivalent jobs. They made the point that they had identified that £69.2 million is needed to restore the existing English path network to an acceptable standard for public use and that a further £18.55 million will be required annually to maintain the network to this standard. The overall conclusion of the national study was that the total benefits from walking are greatly in excess of the costs of path restoration and maintenance. There is also significant economic value to be gained from the social benefits of walking in respect of health and environmental gains. Key Facts:

• �Gloucestershire generates 8% (2.3 million) of trips, 6% (7.3 million nights) and 7% (£366.7 million) of spend in the South West Region;

• The domestic market is the biggest generator of trips (2.0 million), nights (5.1 million) and spend (£258.2 million) in Gloucestershire;

• Staying with friends and relatives is the most important sector in terms of domestic trips (812,000), whereas the serviced accommodation sector is most important in terms of income generation (£117.4 million);

• The serviced accommodation sector is the most important for overseas visitors, both for trips (131,000) and for spending (£51.1 million);

• The largest proportion of tourism expenditure is spent on food and drink; • Domestic and overseas staying visitors spent the largest portion of their expenditure on

accommodation, (£90.0 million and £35.2 million respectively); • Gloucestershire has around 7% of tourism jobs in the region, equating to 19,425 FTEs; • 9% of employment in Gloucestershire is related to tourism; • The largest proportion of jobs directly related to tourism in Gloucestershire is in the

catering sector (4,466 FTEs).

Source: Economic Value of Tourism in Gloucestershire 2002 Report prepared for: Gloucestershire Tourism, Shire Hall Gloucester GL1 2TH

The impact of the 2001 Foot and Mouth disease outbreak resulted in a realisation by the Government that the rural economy was having many problems. Many organisations national, regional and local are now working to develop tourism opportunities to revitalise the rural economy. It is now recognised that the public rights of way network plays a key role in underpinning the rural economy.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )9

2.4 (ii) Social well-being Providing high quality parks and public spaces is crucial to building sustainable communities and ensuring that places are attractive for people to live in. The Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 “Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation” recognizes that open spaces, sport and recreation all underpin people’s quality of life. It gives Local Authorities clear guidance on well designed and implemented planning policies on this matter and enables them to deliver a range of broader government objectives. These include urban renaissance, rural renewal, social inclusion, health and well being and promoting sustainable development. The provision of a linked network of green spaces, water bodies and open areas together with appropriate recreation and sports facilities throughout Gloucestershire could contribute significantly to improving quality of life. The public rights of way network is seen as a key way of linking these areas and to enable people to gain access to them close to where they live through sustainable modes of transport. 2.4 (iii) Agriculture and the environment Over the next decade changes in farming subsidy payments and reform of the Common Agricultural Policy could result in environmental stewardship becoming universally available. These subsidy payments could enable the countryside to be managed as a high quality resource, which in turn has increased benefits for the rural economy, nature conservation and public rights of way. The lower tier or “entry level” is intended to be fairly straightforward to achieve and will require farmers to carry out more environmentally friendly and sustainable farming practices as a condition of receiving area payments. An entry-level scheme grant aided by DEFRA was started in various locations throughout England in spring 2003. The higher tier should be more generous, to properly cover stewardship costs whilst incorporating some contribution to the farm profits. On some farms where stewardship schemes are not practical there could be direct grant payments for specific conservation activities, such as creating new wildlife habitats, encouraging certain rare flora or fauna, caring for vernacular buildings and maintaining old or planting new orchards. There could be an increasing amount of permissive public access created on these new stewardship areas. Conservation set aside, linked to higher rates of payment, could prove to be a useful tool in combining care for wildlife, creating access opportunities whilst controlling over production and improving profitability on some land holdings. 2.4 (iv) Biodiversity The Biodiversity Action Plan for Gloucestershire aims to achieve a county richer in wildlife. The plan covers both local and national concerns and contributes to an international process. A summary of the plan has now been produced to inform everyone about its purpose and how individuals, communities, landowners, businesses and organisations, including the county council, can contribute to conserving and enhancing biodiversity. The summary document is now available on the GCC website at:

http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=2479 . The county council is a key partner of the Gloucestershire Biodiversity Partnership and helps to steer the implementation of the actions set out in the plan. Much has been done since the launch of the plan at the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust Centre in 2000. One of the first actions the county council needed to take was the appointment of a County Ecologist and in May 2002

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )10

Gary Kennison took up this post. In September 2002 Rachael Fickweiler, working on a short-term contract, produced a guide to the nature conservation section of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. This has proved to be a useful document and has helped staff across the authority deal with the new responsibilities relating to Sites of Special Scientific Interest, as well as the increased protection now given to certain species. 2.5 Other headline plans and strategies There are many other plans and strategies in Gloucestershire that are relevant to the ROWIP. These range from regional strategies to local plans, often covering subjects as diverse as development, health improvements, minerals and waste, and transport. Some of these have a direct relationship with the ROWIP whereas others are more indirectly linked. These evolving relationships with the ROWIP once established will become mutually supportive. The ROWIP will eventually begin to influence plans being developed elsewhere in the county. There is a continued challenge with synchronising the ROWIP with the raft of local strategies and plans in Gloucestershire because of constant changes and shifting priorities. In establishing the strategic context, and in turn, the aims and objectives of the ROWIP there are a wide range of other strategies, plans and sources of information that exist, and these included the relevant sections of:

• Local Development Plans, Local Transport Plan, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Management Plans (Wye Valley, Cotswolds and Malvern Hills);

• Tourism, economic regeneration, community development plan proposals or studies that have been undertaken in Gloucestershire and which have a bearing on public rights of way or the use of the countryside for recreation; These include the Cotswold Water Park Management Strategy, Biodiversity Action Plan and the Conservation Management Plan that aims to restore the Cotswold Canals.

• Assessments that have been made of the route network or its potential for development as part of a sustainable local transport infrastructure (e.g. safe routes to schools and business travel plans or the contribution of public rights of way to any local walking or cycling strategies, including healthy living initiatives);

• Plans or proposals for the development of non-vehicular routes, quiet lanes, home zones or traffic calming; crime reduction strategies;

• National and local landscape planning, nature conservation, archaeological and other designations together with any strategies, policies or plans associated with those designations. Information about the amenity value, vulnerability, use and management of these designated areas and sites relevant to public rights of way;

This evaluation helps to set local public rights of way in the context of other relevant plans and initiatives for Gloucestershire, and give a preliminary indication of the extent to which local public rights of way meet the present and likely future needs of the public. Where possible it is desirable to synchronise the ROWIP with all other appropriate strategies and plans in Gloucestershire and the region. This will be a challenge to achieve because of the diverse range of strategies and their varying timescales. For example, it was considered appropriate, given present government guidance, that this draft ROWIP be annexed to the timetable for the Local Transport Plan. However, it is recognised that this will inevitably mean that it cannot easily be tied in with the respective timetables for a raft of other strategies.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )11

The ROWIP has to be clearly linked to any tourism or economic development strategies being developed in the county and regionally. Many other organisations are producing strategies at a regional level, which will have links to the ROWIP. These organisations include the local Primary Care Trust, National Trust, Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Countryside Agency, Forestry Commission, Woodland Trust, British Waterways, English Nature, English Heritage, Environment Agency and Sustrans. 2.5 (i) Community Strategy The strategy aims to deliver improvements for the whole community. Developed by the Gloucestershire Strategic Partnership (GSP), it sets out the steps to be taken to improve the well-being of the County until 2014. The GSP has set out to tackle county-wide issues, and has the support of six themed partnerships. Six district-based local strategic partnerships are also developing community strategies to tackle local issues. The Community Strategy and its 6 key themes overarch all other local authority plans: The 6 key themes are: • A thriving economy • Learning and opportunity for all • Living life to the full • A better environment • A safer county • Thriving communities It is recognised that any improvements that flow from the ROWIP will need to assist and support the various objectives and actions set out in these shared themes. 2.5 (ii) Gloucestershire County Council’s Corporate Strategy 2004-07 The vision, as set out in the Corporate Strategy, is to make Gloucestershire a better place in which to live, learn and work. This work is supported by three core principles:

• Social inclusion • Sustainability • Fairness and diversity (equality of opportunity)

Our aims are to:

• Provide learning throughout life • Support those most in need in our communities • Manage and enhance the Gloucestershire environment • Meet local transport needs more effectively • Support and encourage a thriving local economy • Promote safer communities • Gloucestershire focus

Within service objectives the public rights of way team is contributing to the following key tasks for 2003/6

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )12

• Implement the Biodiversity Action Plan • Implement the new responsibilities under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 • Improve the condition of footways by 5% • Increase the proportion of journeys that are and can be made by transport other than the car • Support the rural economy, including tourism • Continue to support canal restoration as a tourism and regeneration asset • Increase the contribution made by tourism to the local economy, including developing a

tourism action plan 2.6 Legal Context This section outlines the role of Gloucestershire County Council as highway authority, surveying authority and access authority. The county council has a wide range of statutory duties and powers with respect both to the protection and maintenance of public rights of way and the upkeep of the definitive map. In addition, it will have a range of new powers relating to the management of the new access rights to access land. This section provides a general overview of these statutory duties and powers. If you require more specific information about discrete statutory duties and powers this can be found under the separate themes listed in section 5. 2.6 (i) The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW Act) aims to extend the public’s ability to enjoy the countryside whilst also providing safeguards for landowners and occupiers. It has created a new statutory right of access to registered common land and “open country”, and sought to modernise aspects of the management of the public rights of way network, as well as giving greater protection to Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), providing better management arrangements for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) and strengthening wildlife enforcement legislation. The CROW Act is a package of measures that aims to allow people to enjoy more of the countryside. It aims to conserve the rural environment, protect wildlife, and ensure landowners can use their land to its best advantage. Its five main parts are:

• Part I – Access • Part II - Public Rights of Way • Part III - Nature Conservation and Wildlife Protection • Part IV - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty • Part V - Miscellaneous -Town and Village Greens.

It is within Part II, which focuses on public rights of way, specifically sections 60 to 62, that the provisions requiring every highway authority in England and Wales to produce a Rights of Way Improvement Plan are detailed. 2.6 (ii) The legal duty to publish a Rights of Way Improvement Plan Gloucestershire County Council is required to publish a Rights of Way Improvement Plan covering the entire county. In drawing up the plan, the council is required to assess the extent to which local public rights of way meet the present and likely future needs of the public; the opportunities provided by local public rights of way, and in particular by footpaths, cycle tracks, bridleways and restricted byways, for exercise and other forms of open-air recreation and the enjoyment of their area; the accessibility of local public rights of way to blind or partially sighted

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )13

persons and others with mobility problems; and such other matters relating to local public rights of way as the Secretary of State may direct, see CROW Act section 60(1) and 60(2), (which is set out in Annex A of this document). Rights of Way Improvement Plans should also include a statement of the action the council proposes to take for the management of local public rights of way and for securing an improved network of local public rights of way, with particular regard to the matters dealt with in the assessment and such other material as the Secretary of State may direct, see CROW Act section 60(1). The work leading up to the published plan must be conducted to a timetable that enables the council to have published their improvement plan within five years from the date when section 60 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act came into force, i.e. 2002. Thereafter, the council is required to make a new assessment and review their plans, and decide whether to amend them, not more than ten years after first publishing their plans, and subsequently at intervals of not more than ten years, see CROW Act section 60(3). On such reviews, the council should, if they decide to amend the plan, publish it as amended and if they decide to make no amendments to it, publish a report of their decision and their reasons for it. Local highway authorities must, in exercising their functions under sections 60 and 61, have regard to such guidance as may from time to time be given to them by the Secretary of State. After the first plans are published, the Secretary of State intends to review this guidance in consultation with the Countryside Agency and other interested bodies, see CROW Act section 61(4)). The Secretary of State will issue further guidance if she considers that there is a need to do so. 2.6 (iii) Other specific legal duties and responsibilities In law public rights of way are highways. The principal duty placed on highway authorities, under section 130 of the Highways Act 1980, requires that they, ‘assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway’. A range of other duties exist that assist the highway authority in carrying out this duty, for example in assisting with the removal of unlawful obstructions (s137), though a commensurate power exists for any member of the public to require a highway authority to cause the removal of certain types of obstruction (s130A). Furthermore, section 41 of the same Act requires highway authorities to maintain all highways maintainable at public expense, (the bulk of public rights of way are publicly maintainable highways). This again can be enforced via a statutory power available to the public to require either the highway authority or another person responsible for the maintenance of a highway to repair the highway. Finally, it is a duty under the provisions of section 27 of the Countryside Act 1968 that a highway authority erects and maintains signposts indicating that a footpath, bridleway or byway exists where that public right of way leaves the metalled road. The highway authority has wide-ranging powers to improve public rights of way, including works to level, widen, or drain the way. It may also put up barriers and is empowered to authorise the erection of barriers like stiles and kissing gates for stock control purposes. On the mapping side, section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 requires the surveying authority, Gloucestershire County Council, to keep the definitive map and statement under continuous review. This includes the duty to modify the map as a result of legal events, or as a result of its discovery of evidence that a legal event has taken place (e.g. the acquisition of public rights over a way). The highway authority also has a range of powers enabling it to deal with applications for the creation, diversion and extinguishment of footpaths and bridleways, both in the landowner’s and

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )14

the public’s interest. The CROW Act has introduced measures to allow for the diversion of public footpaths and bridleways in the interests of nature conservation, and for the diversion or extinguishment of certain paths (generally speaking as a last resort) for crime prevention or school security reasons. In relation to access land, the powers provided to access authorities are contained within Part I of the CROW Act and enable the authority to help manage the new access rights. While the authority that deals with the mapping of access land and the management of restrictions and exclusions is the Countryside Agency. 2.6 (iv) Other general legal duties and responsibilities Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (“DDA”), local authorities are service providers. Authorities, as a matter of good practice, and to fulfil their duties under the DDA, should ensure that in all the stages of preparing, publishing and implementing their ROWIPs that as many people as reasonably possible can access ROWIPs, the ROWIP consultations and the improvements made to local public rights of way. Gloucestershire County Council is promoting sustainable development in all areas of its work. The Council will follow sustainable development principles in exercising its duties with regard to the Rights of Way Improvement Plan and subsequent implementation. Local highway authorities must make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which their functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. In doing so, authorities must consult, among others, representatives of persons who use or are likely to use services provided by the authority. The preparation and implementation of the ROWIP is compatible with this requirement. The highway authority will have to take account of the published ROWIP for Gloucestershire when they have to decide about the diversion, creation or extinguishment of a public path under the Highways Act 1980. 2.7 The national context regarding Rights of Way Improvement Plans On 21st November 2002 sections 60 to 62, Part II, of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 came into effect. These are the provisions requiring every highway authority in England and Wales, except Inner London Boroughs, to produce a Rights of Way Improvement Plan. On 29th November 2002 DEFRA released its statutory guidance on the production of Rights of Way Improvement plans. The document includes advice on how authorities should seek to fund the improvements recommended in their plans since there is no statutory requirement for them to be implemented. The Government has said that money will be made available as part of wider transport planning: “It is envisaged that Rights of Way Improvement planning will be a distinct strand within the new Local Transport Plans and the revised Guidance on Full Local Transport Plans (planned for 2004) will cover this point”. The Gloucestershire Draft Rights of Way Improvement Plan identifies and prioritises the key issues relating to countryside access, amongst stakeholders, users and the general public.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )15

2.8 Latest ROWIP LTP guidance The following guidance is taken from the Department for Transport website:

Over the course of the second LTP period, Rights of Way Improvement planning will be progressively incorporated into local transport planning. This provides authorities with a new opportunity to ensure local transport planning is making the most effective use of the rights of way network, in both urban and rural areas - particularly in delivering better networks for walkers and cyclists.

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 introduced a duty for all local highway authorities to prepare a Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP). ROWIPs will:

• provide an assessment of the need to which rights of way meet the present and future needs of the public

• provide an assessment of the opportunities provided by local rights of way for exercise and recreation

• and provide an assessment of the accessibility of local rights of way to all members of the community, including those with visual impairment or mobility problems.

• The aim of integrating these two plans is to: • clearly establish the shared aims and establish a definite link between ROWIPs and

LTPs; • ensure that, as public highways, rights of way are embraced by the LTP process

and recognised in LTPs as a key ingredient in the development of an integrated transport network that provides choice in a variety of transport modes;

• recognise the invaluable role rights of way can play in assisting LTPs to achieve the shared priority and wider quality of life objectives;

• strengthen and facilitate the long term sustainability of rights of way • in the longer term, reduce the quantity of plans produced by an authority

The Government recognises that it would be unrealistic to expect authorities to fully integrate the two plans by March 2006, particularly as the first ROWIPs do not have to be completed until November 2007. Full integration will therefore take place from 2010 onwards, building on the development of full ROWIPs. In the meantime, as a first step towards integration authorities are required to submit a short progress report on their ROWIP with their provisional LTP in 2005. This should:

• identify the stage that the authority has reached in preparing their ROWIP; • include a high level statement of policy and objectives for improving the rights of

way network; • identify any rights of way improvements or proposals that link to the delivery of

transport objectives and shared priorities for transport, which include - accessibility, congestion, air quality, road safety and other quality of life issues.

Authorities are encouraged to incorporate prioritised rights of way improvements that would help to meet LTP objectives into their provisional (July 2005) LTP implementation programme, to identify the funding source (LTP capital funds or an alternative) and to report on the delivery of those improvements in subsequent Annual Progress Reports. The Government will consider these progress reports and consider whether to ask for further material in final LTPs in March 2006. Where Rights of Way Improvement Plans are not sufficiently advanced to enable priorities to be identified and incorporated into the provisional LTP in 2005, authorities should seek to include them in the final LTP or in subsequent Annual Progress Reports. Authorities may then wish to re-prioritise their LTP

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )16

delivery programmes to deliver identified improvement schemes on the rights of way network.

Not all planned improvements to the rights of way network will be relevant to transport priorities. A full ROWIP will therefore still need to complete by November 2007. Further guidance on the integration of the two plans will be issued in due course.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )17

SECTION 3. GLOUCESTERSHIRE FOCUS 3.1 The Gloucestershire Context Gloucestershire residents enjoy wide-ranging leisure pursuits amid some of the finest countryside England has to offer. Six theatres and numerous arts festivals provide live entertainment throughout the year including, in October, the Cheltenham Festival of Literature. The county is home to national hunt racing and the Cheltenham Gold Cup, premiership rugby at Gloucester, league soccer with Cheltenham Town, motor sport at the Prescott Hill Climb, while Gloucestershire County Cricket Club hosts festivals in Gloucester and Cheltenham, the latter the world’s longest-running cricket festival on the same ground. It is also blessed with many picture-postcard villages in the Cotswolds, in the Forest of Dean and the Stroud Valleys. The landscape changes dramatically as one crosses the county, reminding us of the different economic and social contributions made by these areas over the years.

The ancient Roman city of Gloucester, whose Norman cathedral dominates the skyline, is experiencing the most exciting period of city centre and dockside regeneration for centuries, while neighbouring Cheltenham’s understated elegance acts as a magnet to shoppers and tourists. Both major conurbations give way to the surrounding countryside and the many prosperous market towns and villages that produce Gloucestershire’s intrinsic appeal.

Tourism is a vital part of Gloucestershire's economy. It brings £705.7 million to the economy and supports one in nine jobs - the county's fourth largest employer. Gloucestershire is an important tourism destination in the South West, attracting over two million tourists who stay in the county as well as around fifteen million tourism day visits a year. Apart from leisure tourists, it also attracts a significant level of business tourism generated by various manufacturing, service and public sector establishments in the county. Social and personal visits to friends and relatives are also an important element in the tourism mix within the Gloucestershire. Compared to 2001, Gloucestershire as a whole has enjoyed strong growth in the staying tourist market with tourism trips rising from 1.8 million to 2.3 million in 2002. Data on tourism day visits, (i.e. those taken for leisure purposes from home on an irregular basis with a duration of over 3 hours), is still awaited from the 2002 Day Visit Survey. The figures for day visits in this report are therefore based on the last day visit survey in 1998, with the spend per trip updated in line with the retail price index changes over the period. The strong growth in staying trips and the associated increase in expenditure has resulted in an apparent increase in business turnover and tourism supported employment in the county. 3.2 The Gloucestershire public rights of way network Gloucestershire has about 5500km/3380 miles of public footpaths and bridleways, along with 'roads used as public paths' and byways marked on the legal record, the Definitive Map. This is one of the longest networks managed by any shire highway authority: for example, Oxfordshire manages around 4000km (2500 miles). Through tourism and local use alike, the recreational path network helps the local economy to generate a considerable income for rural businesses, while functional routes – to schools, workplaces and service facilities – form an essential part of the wider highway and amenity network. The density of the public rights of way network varies throughout the county, with high densities of paths in parishes in the Stroud Valleys and Tewkesbury areas, while significantly lighter densities exist in the Cotswolds and parts of the central Forest of Dean and Berkeley Vale. PROW exist as a record of historic patterns of use by the public, prior to the advent of mass communications, and the widespread use of the car.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )18

Fig 1. PROW density by parish excluding main urban areas (dark = high; pale = low))

The majority of RUPPs are concentrated in a relatively small number of parishes – Hewelsfield, St Briavels, Newent, Gorsley and Kilcot and Didmarton. Bridleways are more evenly scattered throughout the county though there are a fair number of parishes with no bridleways at all. 3.3 The Gloucestershire Users (Users survey – see Annex B) 3.3 (i) Walkers The public rights of way network in Gloucestershire is used mainly for walking, and 73% of a sample of local residents surveyed in autumn 2002 for the Best Value review said they used the Gloucestershire public rights of way network at least once a month. Some recent Countryside Agency national use and demand studies showed that in 48% of households, at least one member had walked in the countryside during the previous year. 47% of these households said they would walk more if there were better provision. Walkers are entitled to use all classes of local public rights of way. The Public Rights of Way Team began the process to assess the needs of walkers by carrying out an initial consultation in spring/summer 2004. This research followed extensive work carried out as part of the county council’s “Best Value Review of Public Rights of Way and Countryside Sites Service” that was concluded in spring 2003.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )19

It was found that local walkers felt that many improvements have certainly been made to the county’s public rights of way network in recent years and the positive attitude and enthusiasm of officers of the Public Rights of Way Team was well received. However, there clearly is much scope for further improvements and a number of needs were identified that are important for all categories of walkers in the county. All walkers need a network that is safe and easy to use with adequate clear waymarking on all routes. There should be fewer obstructions on paths caused by heavily overgrown vegetation and ploughing. Fewer obstructions created by farmers and land managers, that are sometimes seen as being aimed directly at walkers and dog walkers such as barbed wire around stiles. Much work has been done by the Public Rights of Way Team to develop good working relationships with landowners and managers to reduce the number of obstructions but some walkers felt that more could be done. There should be continued replacement of stiles on the network with more easy to use kissing and wicket gates or gaps. There should be measures taken to address particularly muddy conditions on footpaths and bridleways. Walkers identified poor information provision as a problem, though not a high priority for improvement. However it is clear that there should be more readily available information on local walks and walks within Gloucestershire generally. The Internet will be a valuable resource for many individuals but other members of the public will require a range of information materials and points of access. More promoted short circular walks suitable for the less experienced casual walker and dog walkers could also be developed. More information on finger posts and waymarking to indicate destinations, proximity to facilities and the likely distances involved was felt to be a simple yet practical improvement that could be made. 3.3 (ii) Horseriders Gloucestershire equestrians felt that the bridleway network in the county was highly fragmented. Bridleways sometimes change status at the parish or the county boundary resulting in “cul de sac” routes. According to a survey of horseriders undertaken in summer 2004, equestrians want safe and easy to use bridleways, particularly as there are now more people riding. Roads have become too dangerous and frightening to use for many riders, particularly children. The enhancement and use of wide roadside verges for horse riders could be a solution, though ideally these would have to be about 6 metres wide to separate horses from traffic sufficiently. This would require closer working with divisional staff in the wider Highways Maintenance Unit, as well as with projects staff in some instances. The needs of long distance and endurance riders have to be taken into account. There is one promoted long distance horse trail in the county, the Sabrina Way. There is also a booklet, ‘The Cotswolds on Horseback’, which was produced as part of the British Horse Society’s AROW (Access and Rights of Way) project and which details a series of rides in the area. In our survey, equestrians felt that for the most part bridleways in the county were easy to access and use, though choice of appropriate surfaces was an issue. Tarmac is considered to be too slippery. The safest surfaces are grass, sand and compacted earth. Very muddy bridleways, wide puddles and non-reinstated ploughed land were considered to be significant obstacles for horses. Other obstacles were slippery wooden bridges, barbed wire next to bridleways, electric fences and overhanging vegetation. There is scope for the county council and its partners to improve management of bridleways in some places. All gates need to be well hung, self closing and easily negotiated by horses. There should be at least three metres either

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )20

side of the gate where practicable to enable the horse to turn and riders to shut or open it. Equestrians also felt that there was a need for better promotional material on rides in the countryside. These materials could be in the form of leaflets and web pages. They would like to see more information about permissive routes for riders. 3.3 (iii) Other users Other groups, which identified themselves during the consultation process, include cyclists, users with disabilities and recreational motor vehicle users. Particular concerns voiced by consultees included the need for more cycle routes and routes for disabled users and concern about the use of recreational motor vehicles in the countryside conflicting with other types of use.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )21

SECTION 4. METHODOLOGY This section sets out how we went about the process of putting together this draft ROWIP and how we will monitor it in the future. 4.1 The Rights of Way Improvement Plan Process The Draft Rights of Way Improvement Plan covers the whole of the county of Gloucestershire. Significant inputs were made from both internal and external consultees in developing the Draft Improvement Plan. Large numbers of Parish Councils, local groups, statutory and voluntary organisations plus a considerable number of members of the public have all contributed to the development of this draft plan. Gloucestershire Local Access Forum was established in 2003 as a new statutory body to advise Gloucestershire County Council and the Countryside Agency on matters relevant to outdoor access in the county. They are a new and influential voice to promote investment in public outdoor access in Gloucestershire. They will be involved as substantial contributors to the final plan. 4.2 Recent research There is a considerable body of existing available research used to inform the ROWIP assessment process. Examples of the types of recent research used in the ROWIP are listed below: - Christie Mike and Matthews Jon (2003) The Economic and Social Value of Walking - Ramblers Association, London, DEFRA (2002) Rights of Way Improvement Plans - Statutory Guidance to local Highway Authorities in England - DEFRA, London Entec (2001) Public Rights of Way Use and Demand Study Social and Community Planning Research (1996) UK Day Visits Survey 1996 SCPR, London Walking for Health Initiative (2004) Medical evidence of benefits of walking Website www.whi.org.uk Gloucestershire Minerals Local Plan (Gloucestershire County Council, 2003) Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan (Gloucestershire County Council, 2004) Gloucestershire Community Strategy 2003 - 2013 (Gloucestershire County Council, 2003) Gloucestershire Corporate Strategy 2004 - 2007 (Gloucestershire County Council, 2004) Gloucestershire Structure Plan (Gloucestershire County Council) Local Plans 2001 Census - Key Statistics (HMS2003) Access for All Fieldfare Trust study 2003 Sustainable Communities ODPM Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan 2001/02-2005/06 4.3 Reviewing the ROWIP Process Local highway authorities should put in place arrangements for monitoring progress on preparing and implementing their Rights of Way Improvement Plans. In this respect it should be noted that in section 71 of CROW Act 2000, the Secretary of State may make regulations requiring local highway authorities to publish reports on the performance of any of their functions so far as relating to local Public Rights of Way. This would enable the Secretary of

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )22

State to require local highway authorities to report on progress in preparing and implementing their Rights of Way Improvement Plans. The people of Gloucestershire will be kept informed on the progress of the ROWIP process and be given opportunities to make their own input through the current consultation process. Information is being made available through the Gloucestershire County Council website at www.gloucestershire.gov.uk and at other appropriate public information points Gloucestershire County Council will monitor the ROWIP and there will be updates on progress to the Gloucestershire Local Access Forum. Gloucestershire County Council will inform their partners of ROWIP development issues through the appropriate meetings. In addition, “access for all” and meeting the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act have to be monitored as an integral part of the ROWIP. 4.4 Monitoring the Rights of Way Improvement Plans The ROWIP statement of action will be implemented through the annual Highways Maintenance Unit Business Plan, or to give it its full title the Integrated Service and Performance Plan (ISPP). Further, this information will be made available on the county council website. The monitoring of the ROWIP will also be linked to the Corporate Strategy, the Community Strategy, the Local Transport Plan and other countywide strategies monitoring and review processes where appropriate. Progress on implementing the ROWIP will be featured on the county council website with a dedicated ROWIP webpage. Where appropriate aspects of the ROWIP will be built into the Unit Business Plan annual targets. Further, we will work with the Local Transport Plan process to integrate any new aspects of the monitoring process, which might be introduced following new statutory guidance in 2005.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )23

SECTION 5. THE DEFINITIVE MAP AND STATEMENT The definitive map and statement are legal documents held and maintained by the county council, which record all the public rights of way we know about in the county. These documents are a valuable tool for landowners, developers, planners, walkers, cyclists, riders, and anyone else interested in access to the countryside or limitations on the use of land. 5.1 Definitive map and statement and related activities – duties, powers and policies. Duties • To keep the definitive map and statement under continuous review

[Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, (WCA 1981) section 53; modified by Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW 2000) section 53*]

• To re-classify roads used as public paths, [WCA 1981 s54; to be repealed by CROW 2000 section 47*]

• To consider applications from certain landowners for a public path diversion or extinguishment order, (new sections 118ZA, 119ZA and 121 A-D to be inserted into HA 1980 by CROW 2000 Sch 6, 7-10 during 2005.)

• To keep a register of applications for diversions and extinguishment orders, for modification orders and of section 31(6) depositions, (to be inserted by CROW 2000 during 2005.)

Powers • To consolidate the definitive map, [WCA 1981 section 57]. • To create footpaths and bridleways by agreement with compensation

or compulsory purchase, [HA 1980 sections 25/26]. • To make an order stopping up footpath/s or bridleway/s, [HA 1980

section 118]. • To make an order stopping up footpath/s or bridleway/s which cross a

railway, [HA 1980 section 118A]. • To make an order diverting footpath/s or bridleway/s, [HA 1980 s119]. • To make an order diverting footpath/s or bridleway/s which crosses a

railway, [HA 1980 section 119A]. • To stop up or divert footpaths or bridleways if satisfied it is necessary

to enable development to be carried out, [Town and Country Planning Act 1990, (TCPA 1990) section 257]

• To stop up or divert footpaths or bridleways temporarily if satisfied it is necessary to enable minerals to be worked and can be restored [TCPA 1990 section 261].

• To make a cycle tracks order under the Cycle Tracks Act 1984 section 3 to upgrade a public footpath to a cycletrack.

Gloucestershire Corporate Strategy

• Sustainability

Gloucestershire Community Strategy

• A thriving economy • Learning and opportunity for all • Living life to the full • A better environment • Thriving communities

Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan 2006 – 2011 Vision Objectives

• Real Choices Provide people with viable alternatives to car use, to enable and encourage people to use the car less. This will mean providing public transport and facilities for walking and cycling as an alternative to journeys by car, whilst acknowledging that there is a role for the car, particularly in rural areas.

• Awareness - Raise awareness of alternative ways to travel; the impact of transport on the environment; and the health benefits of

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )24

walking and cycling. • Maintenance and Improvement - Manage, maintain and improve the

transport network to meet local transport needs more effectively for all users.

• Integration - Integrate all forms of transport, land use and economic planning leading to a better more efficient transport system.

5.2 Consolidation of the definitive map and statement By the terms of section 56(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 the definitive map and statement is conclusive evidence as to the particulars contained therein, but without prejudice to the possible existence of other or higher public rights not shown. That is, if the map and statement show a public footpath then that is conclusive evidence that the public have a right of way on foot, but it does not mean that the public do not also have higher unrecorded rights, bridleway rights for example. In 1996, the county council began a project to update, or ‘consolidate’, the definitive maps and statements. What this means is that all the ‘legal events’, i.e. diversions, extinguishments, creations etc., which have happened since 1953 were to have been incorporated onto the definitive map and statement and an updated copy published. However, this project started in 1996 was not completed. However, following the transfer of the definitive map staff to the public rights of way team, as a consequence of the Public Rights of Way and Countryside Sites Best Value Review in 2003, the consolidation project was reappraised in the autumn of 2004 and the resource implications revisited. Proposals for completion of the consolidation exercises are contained in Annex E. 5.3 Modification Orders As well as map consolidation work, we also receive applications – currently running at between 12 and 20 a year, though already rising as a result of the potential imminent closure to applications for byway open to all traffic status – to amend the definitive map in the light of evidence presented to us. Our statutory duty in this area requires us to determine applications for modification orders within a period of 12 months and to update the definitive map as necessary in the light of such applications. In order to do so we must prepare a report based on user, landowner, and documentary evidence, and present our recommendations to the County Council Commons and Rights of Way Committee for determination. This involves painstaking work and is a long process, which results either in the publication of an order to which people may object, or a refusal to make an order where the applicant has the right to appeal. Where objections are received the order is determined by the Secretary of State, either by written representations or as is more often the case at a public inquiry. The Definitive Map Section currently has a considerable backlog of work in this area. Furthermore, compared with other areas of work regarding public rights of way, processing modification orders represent a significant drain on officer time, particularly when one takes into account the eventual outputs relative to other activities. In addition to the information set out above it is important to note that the Countryside Agency has embarked on a “Lost Ways Project” to identify unrecorded public rights of way before the closure of the definitive map to applications based on historic evidence in 2026. This may well result in a large number of new applications for modification orders being received by the county council for processing. There is a need for a system for prioritising and effectively managing this area of work. A proposed system for doing so is contained in Annex D.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )25

5.4 Anomalies on the definitive map and statement The ongoing process of consolidating and updating the county’s definitive maps and digitising the data onto a geographic information system (GIS) is revealing a large number of ‘anomalies’, which are being logged. Following the publication of the consolidated map, (timetable and resources required currently being assessed), we will need to consider how we can start to address these thousands of anomalous records. Anomalies can be classified in five main categories, and their resolution prioritised accordingly: 1. Permanently obstructed and not a realistic option to seek removal of obstruction, for example an occupied dwelling that was constructed over the definitive path many years ago. 2. Gaps and dead-ends, but not including those cul-de-sac routes which have a destination, e.g. a viewpoint or a purpose, e.g. provide access to a spring. 3. Wrong status on map, e.g. a bridleway incorrectly recorded as a footpath. 4. Used route anomalies, e.g. where the long-term used route does not accord with the route shown on the definitive map 5. Redundant vestiges and duplicate paths, e.g. short ‘dead end’ sections of paths left over after development. 5.5 Public Path Orders We process public path orders, e.g. creation orders, extinguishment orders and diversion orders, either in response to applications from the public, or as county council generated schemes. We also process public path orders affecting the national trails in the county on behalf of the Countryside Agency to help improve the alignment of these nationally important routes, and Cycle Tracks Orders to upgrade public footpaths to Cycle Tracks to assist with the development of cycling routes. County Council generated schemes are those that contribute toward the corporate objectives of the council and/or have at least one of the following attributes:

• a significant recreational benefit; or • enable the more efficient management of the public rights of way network, or • resolve a definitive map anomaly; or • rectify an acknowledged mistake of this or another local authority

5.6 Unmapped areas In Gloucestershire, the Secretary of State exempted one area from the original survey; this was the urban area of Gloucester City centre. The Gloucester City Council has provided a list of proposed additions to the definitive map to the County Council. However, further work is required to legally record these routes as public rights of way on the definitive map or as streets on the highway records. Given their nature as predominantly urban alleyways and as potentially useful utility routes, it is suggested that consideration be given to recording them on the county highway records. This issue will probably require further careful consideration. 5.7 Roads Used and Public Paths (RUPPs) Section 54 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 placed a duty on surveying authorities to reclassify all ways shown on their Definitive Maps and Statements as RUPPs. This requirement will shortly be superseded by the terms of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which will automatically reclassify all remaining RUPPs as restricted byways.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )26

Few RUPPs in Gloucestershire were reclassified under the earlier legislation, so the bulk of these will become restricted byways. We intend marking these clearly at the roadside so as to inform users of the change in their recorded status. 5.8 The definitive map and statement - key issues identified

• There is a need to manage more effectively the number of modification order applications received by the county council. This includes applications expected to be received as a result of the Countryside Agency’s “Lost Ways Project”. A proposed system for doing so is appended at Annex D.

• There is also a need to prioritise applications for public path orders received by the county council. A proposed system for doing so is appended at Annex D.

• Consolidation of the map needs to be properly funded and completed before the county council can meaningfully look at the large number of anomalies on the path network. Work on the definitive map is constrained by a burdensome legal framework, so improvements will have to be planned over several years to allow for this. A proposed system for doing so is appended at Annex E.

• The network is still locally fragmented, particularly in terms of gaps, dead-ends and non-continuation at parish and county boundaries.

• There are a significant minority of public rights of way, which are ‘permanently’ obstructed and require either statutory enforcement action or a public path order to make them available to users.

• There is a need to make available information about the location and status of paths to the wider public via the Gloucestershire County Council website.

• There is a need to agree a way forward regarding the recording of minor public streets in the unmapped area of Gloucester City.

• Finally, there is a need to create a register detailing each of the following: Section 31(6) depositions; public path order applications; and modification order applications, as required under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

5.9 The definitive map and statement - action proposals Action Proposal 1 Establish a priority system for processing modification order applications and public path orders, (see proposed system at Annexe D). Action Proposal 2 As resources allow, complete the consolidation of the definitive map, (see Annex E). Action Proposal 3 Create a register detailing each of the following: Section 31(6) depositions; public path order applications; and modification order applications. Action Proposal 4 When the legislation comes into force, re-sign all the remaining “Roads used as Public Paths” as”Restricted Byways” and use on site notices to explain the nature of the rights along them. Action Proposal 5 Work towards having an up-to-date digitised map of public rights of way available on the web. Longer term, as resources allow, create a digitised definitive map, (see Annex E). Action Proposal 6 Take advantage of future funding opportunities to create an integrated access map including definitive public rights of way and other linear and area public access areas.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )27

Action Proposal 7 Look to record the publicly maintainable alleyways in Gloucester City as highways maintainable at the public expense on the county highway records rather than record them as public rights of way on the definitive map. Action Proposal 8 Other authorities’ public path orders: ensure consistency among other authorities processing public path orders in the county. Action Proposal 9 Scope and assess the implications for Gloucestershire of the Countryside Agency’s “Lost Ways Project” pilots.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )28

SECTION 6. MAINTENANCE 6.1 Maintenance of Public Rights of Way - duties, powers and policies. Duties • To assert and protect the rights of public to the use and enjoyment

of any highway including a duty to prevent, as far as possible, the stopping up or obstruction of highways, [HA 1980 section 130; amended CROW 2000 section 63].

• To maintain highways maintainable at public expense, [HA 1980 section 41].

• To prosecute re: disturbance of surface where desirable in the public interest, [HA 1980 section 131A; inserted by Rights of Way Act 1990 (RWA 1990) section 1].

• To enforce provision re: ploughing of footpaths or bridleways [HA 1980 section 134; amended RWA 1990 section 1].

• To remove snow or soil where it forms an obstruction [HA 1980 section 150].

• To erect and maintain signposts where any footpath, bridleway, byway open to all traffic, (BOAT), leaves a metalled road, [CA 1968 section 27].

• To erect such signposts if in the opinion of the Highway Authority this is required to assist persons unfamiliar with the locality to follow the way [CA 1968 section 27].

• To have regard to the needs of people with mobility problems when authorising stiles, etc. on footpaths, [CROW 2000 section 69].

Powers • To erect/maintain signposts along any footpath, bridleway, byway open to all traffic, [CA 1968 section 27].

• To adopt, i.e. become responsible for maintenance of, highways by agreement, [HA 1980 section 38].

• To improve highways, [HA 1980 section 62]. • To widen highways, [HA 1980 section 72]. • To construct a bridge to carry a public path, [HA 1980 section 91]. • To reconstruct a bridge forming part of a public path, [HA 1980

section 92]. • To drain highways, [HA 1980 section 100]. • To remove unauthorised marks, [HA 1980 section 132]. • To remove structures, [HA 1980 section 143]. • To repair stiles, etc, [HA 1980 section 146]. • To require cutting or felling of trees or hedges that are overhanging

or a danger, [HA 1980 section 154; amended CROW 2000 section 65].

• To provide safety barriers on a cycle track, [CTA 1984 section 4]. • To make traffic regulation orders, [Road Traffic Regulation Act

1984, (RTRA 1984) section 1]. • To make a temporary traffic regulation order during works, [RTRA

1984 section 14]. • To enter land in connection with traffic signs, [RTRA 1984 section

71]. Gloucestershire Corporate Strategy

• Social inclusion • Sustainability • Fairness and diversity


• A thriving economy • Learning and opportunity for all

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )29

• Living life to the full • A better environment • A safer county • Thriving communities


• Real Choices - Provide people with viable alternatives to car use, to enable and encourage people to use the car less. This will mean providing public transport and facilities for walking and cycling journeys by car, whilst acknowledging that there is a role for the car, particularly in rural areas.

• Accessibility - Provide high quality access to services by all forms of transport. Of particular importance will be meeting the transport needs for those without access to cars.

• Awareness - Raise awareness of alternative ways to travel; the impact of transport on the environment; and the health benefits of walking and cycling.

• Economy - Provide a transport system that assists today’s economy and the economic development of the county.

• Maintenance and Improvement - Manage, maintain and improve the transport network to meet local transport needs more effectively for all users.


6.2 Gates, stiles and similar structures Many users understand that there is a need for some structures such as gates and stiles in the countryside, but they would like them only used where they are really essential. In consultation, horse riders and less able users also felt strongly that such structures must be easy to use. Heavy or damaged gates can cause problems, especially for horse riders who find it hard or impossible to open them without dismounting and remounting, while high stiles provide a considerable obstruction to progress for walkers with arthritic problems. People with limited mobility have the greatest concerns about structures as they often prevent access to some routes. They can be especially difficult for people with pushchairs, older people, dog walkers and wheelchair users. These structures need to be well maintained to ensure they are usable. There was a strong emphasis on improving access for all in the consultation. There was also a feeling that improvements should be in harmony with the surrounding countryside, and that in some contexts the galvanised steel kissing gate whilst very practical in terms of stock control, user friendliness and durability is not particularly attractive to look at, particularly when it is brand new and very shiny. A British Standard, BS5709 (revised 2001) has been introduced covering the provision of gaps, gates and stiles, and recommending specifications for stiles and other structures. Public Rights of Way Team staff have informally adopted this, and although there is no strict legal requirement will provide structures to this British Standard where possible when landowners request or require new structures on public rights of way. 6.3 Surfaces Cyclists are particularly concerned with surfacing issues and many insist that routes should be accessible in all weather conditions. Family and leisure riders prefer good surfaces but they do not always advocate hard surfacing on all paths. Hard surfacing is not always suitable for all users and unsympathetic design or materials can spoil the look of the countryside. Cyclists and horse riders share bridleways but the horse rider’s needs for surfacing are slightly different to cyclists. Horse riders prefer soft natural surfaces and cyclists prefer a firm made up surface.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )30

6.4 Waymarking Public footpaths and bridleways have been waymarked since the introduction of Countryside Commission initiatives of the 1970’s, which in turn followed the lead of US National Parks. These yellow footpath and blue bridleway arrows are now a common sight in the countryside. In spite of this it is quite probable that the majority of the general public are not aware of the national colour coding system, so an indication of the status in words is also added. 6.5 Roadside Signing Some users felt that information supplied on signs should include the destination and the distance to that destination or other useful facilities, though it should be recognised that there is a considerable amount of additional staff time and resource required to do so much more widely than at present. Users requested the need to have appropriate signing to indicate whether the path is part of a named or circular route or a ‘cul-de-sac’ path. They felt that some information about the ease of use of route would be of interest for users. There is a need to have improved signing especially near farm buildings and rapidly changing residential areas where most maps are insufficiently detailed or become out of date. Improved clarity of waymarking and signage on the ground would benefit both users and landowners. Interestingly, the last national path condition survey undertaken by the Countryside Agency in 2000 also indicated that signing and waymarking of the path network needed to be improved in Gloucestershire. It is recognised that the issue of cul-de-sac paths and paths that allegedly go ‘nowhere’ is often more complex than at first it might seem. Many cul-de-sac paths have a destination, e.g. access to a well or a spring, or a purpose, e.g. access to a viewpoint or an interesting building, such as a church. Where cul-de-sac paths appear to have no obvious destination or purpose it is often because the path meets a parish or county boundary and there was a failure to claim the path as a through route. 6.6 Bridges The survey for the Milestones Statement of 1996 estimated that there exist some 2,500 footbridges and bridlebridges serving public rights of way in the county. There is no record of where these bridges are and there is no routine pro-active inspection regime. The large majority of these bridges are the responsibility of the highway authority. Many of them are constructed from treated softwood kits installed in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s under government supported schemes, and are coming to the end of their serviceable lives. There is a pressing need to record the location of all these structures and to have a system in place for their proactive management. 6.7 Maintenance - key issues identified

• Approximately one third of Gloucestershire’s public rights of way network is not easy to use at any given time.

• Key statutory duties underpin the work of the public rights of way team in maintaining this network. However, the main constraint preventing the improvement of the whole network to even a ‘bronze’ standard has been the limited resources, albeit it is recognised that the authority has done well to find additional resources over recent years since the introduction of the CROW Act.

• All users require easy to use infrastructure and surfaces on a well-maintained network.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )31

• An ageing footbridge asset extending to some 2,500 structures is in need of regular

inspection and maintenance – however no register of the whereabouts of the county’s foot and bridleway bridges exists.

• Most users felt that only a small part of the whole right of way network is affected by over hanging vegetation but they wanted to see efficient management to ensure they could use routes unhindered.

• Many complained about problems with undergrowth along paths.

• Many complained about ploughing and cropping problems along paths.

• Horse riders expressed a preference for firm grass surfaces whenever possible, but on the whole, bike riders particularly those in family groups on recreational rides prefer sealed or smooth surfaces.

• The current Gloucestershire bridleway network is more suitable to horse riders rather

than cyclists at present, with relatively few being substantially surfaced. This reflects the legal requirement for maintenance of these routes for walkers and horse riders rather than cyclists.

• The desirability of identifying surfaces suitable for multi-user routes needs consideration.

• All signage needs to be well maintained and up to date, and where resources allow

consideration should be given to providing additional information on top of status and direction, e.g. destination, named route.

• A good quality overall condition for public rights of way was considered to be important by many users. Opportunities for joint working to improve the condition of public rights of way should be taken forward where cost effective.

6.8 Maintenance – action proposals Action Proposal 1 Continue concentration of additional available resources on improving the overall condition of the majority of the public rights of way network as measured through the BVPI 178 methodology to a good, basic ‘bronze standard’. Action Proposal 2 Continue to seek the resolution of public rights of way deficiency reports in line with the Milestones priority guidelines. Action Proposal 3 Seek opportunities to improve and expand our seasonal vegetation clearance programme. Action Proposal 4 Ensure the adoption of highway authority approved specifications and standards to all parties in the execution of their powers regarding the roadside signposting of public rights of way, with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and as a guide along with County Council specifications.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )32

Action Proposal 5 Ensure that the signposting of public rights of way from roads continues to be carried out and maintained to a consistent high standard. Action Proposal 6 Explore opportunities for joint working with other organisations and departments where the network may be improved in a cost effective way, whilst ensuring that overall management control is retained in line with the authority’s overall legal responsibility for the highway network. Action Proposal 7 Aim to provide structures on public rights of way within the spirit of British Standard BS5709 (2001), where agreement can be reached, and with highway authority making an appropriate contribution in line with legal powers.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )33

SECTION 7. ENFORCEMENT AND PROSECUTION 7.1 Obstructions Consultation suggests that many users want to see the prompt removal of obstructions on public rights of way through improved enforcement action. The 2003/04 BVPI survey of the condition of the Gloucestershire network indicated that some 16% of the network sampled was affected by obstructions of one sort or another be they minor or major. Whilst the county council has a duty under the Highways Act to assert and protect the public’s right to use public rights of way, that duty has to be carried out reasonably, proportionately and in accordance with the requirements of a whole raft of legislation and statutory guidance, including for example the Human Rights Act. The council also has to balance the objective of protecting and opening the public rights of way network with the level of resources available to it. The checks and balances contained in the prosecutions process mean that embarking on such statutory action cannot provide instant resolution of obstructions and other practical problems, being an outwardly slow and gradual process, taking a fair amount of officer time. There is, therefore, a balance to be struck in each particular case between the council’s duties and powers, and consideration as to how the public’s interest would best be served. An area of vulnerability the council faces in carrying out its powers and duties under the Highways Act, as amended, is where any many of the public can serve a notice on the authority for the highway being out of repair, (section 56 of the Highways Act 1980), or where the highway is obstructed, (section 130a of the Highways Act 1980 as introduced by the CROW Act 2000). These issues where raised, may, even if relating to a trivial matter, force the authority to act in a way that may not be the most efficient use of officer time or be particularly cost effective. The Gloucestershire public rights of way network must first be managed in a sustainable way to provide the basis for any future ROWIP improvements. The PROW team should work actively to make improvements that benefit all users and develop the network to meet the future needs of the people of Gloucestershire. There is probably a need for some users to accept that it is not always realistic for the county council to fully comply with the statutory duty to keep all paths in an easy to use condition in all parts of Gloucestershire all of the time. Clearly keeping the network free of obstructions will always be a “moving target”. However, this challenging goal clearly needs to remain as an aspiration and to a degree worked towards through the subsequent implementation and development of the ROWIP. The county council has developed a robust process to assess when and how to deal with the repetitive ploughing cropping and obstruction of public rights of way in the county. This has built on knowledge of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and related legislation present within the unit. It has proved a useful tool, over the six years since it was developed, in gaining high profile convictions of repeat offenders and the knock-on deterrent effect this has.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )34

7.2 Enforcement and prosecution - duties, powers and policies. Duties • To assert and protect the rights of public to the use and enjoyment of any

highway including a duty to prevent, as far as possible, the stopping up or obstruction of highways, [HA 1980 section 130; amended CROW 2000 section 63].

• To prosecute re: disturbance of surface where desirable in the public interest, [HA 1980 section 131A, inserted by Rights of Way Act 1990 (RWA 1990) section 1].

• To enforce provision re: ploughing of footpaths or bridleways, [HA 1980 section 134; amended RWA 1990 section 1].

Powers • To prosecute if expedient for the promotion and protection of the interests of the inhabitants of the area, [Local Government Act 1972 section 222].

• To remove unauthorised marks, [HA 1980 section 132]. • To remove structures, [HA 1980 section 143]. • To repair stiles, etc. [HA 1980 section 146]. • To require cutting or felling of trees or hedges that are overhanging or a

danger, [HA 1980 section 154; amended CROW 2000 section 65]. • To require removal of barbed wire, [HA 1980 section 164]. • To make Traffic Regulation Orders, [Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

(RTRA 1984) section 1]. • To make a temporary Traffic Regulation Order during works, [RTRA

1984 section 14]. • To require removal of signs, [RTRA 1984 section 69]. • To enter land in connection with traffic signs, [RTRA 1984 section 71].




• A thriving economy • Learning and opportunity for all • Living life to the full • A better environment • A safer county • Thriving communities






• Maintenance and Improvement - Manage, maintain and improve the transport network to meet transport needs more effectively for all users.


�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )35

7.3 Enforcement and prosecution - key issues identified

• The county council has a statutory duty to keep all public rights of way open and easy to use.

• There are practical, financial and legal reasons that make it difficult for the council to fulfil its duty in 100% of cases.

• The duty to assert and protect the highway is a blunt instrument, which does not differentiate between important, heavily used routes and less important, little used routes.

• Enforcement action is costly, time-consuming and labour intensive. Council officer time and public funds may sometimes be more effectively spent elsewhere than on enforcement action. That is, the public interest might sometimes be better served by not taking enforcement action. Although it is recognised that this is sometimes a difficult message for some individuals and user representatives to accept.

• However, the prosecution of a minority of repeat offenders continues to be an effective deterrent.

• The council is vulnerable to the serving of notices under various legislation that may affect its cost effective delivery of a better-maintained and managed network.

7.4 Enforcement and prosecution – Action Proposals Action Proposal 1 Continue to resolve customer deficiency reports in line with priority guidelines and as resources allow. Action Proposal 2 Continue current policies for dealing with ploughing and cropping obstructions and general enforcement action and prosecution of repeat offenders. Action Proposal 3 Continue to use the ‘Prosecutions Protocol’ and recognise the important deterrent effect of prosecutions.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )36

SECTION 8. THE CONDITION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY NETWORK 8.1 The adequacy of the current network. A significant limitation to the county council’s ability to effectively and responsively manage the 3300 mile network is the absence of any asset register or infrastructure database. For example, we have something like 2500 bridges on the path network – but no comprehensive record of where they all exist, or their condition. In order to more effectively manage the network it is imperative that an asset register is collated as a first step to more effective management of the public rights of way and access asset. 8.2 Public rights of way infrastructure – duties, powers and policies. Duties • To assert and protect the rights of public to the use and

enjoyment of any highway including a duty to prevent, as far as possible, the stopping up or obstruction of highways [HA 1980 section 130; amended CROW 2000 section 63].

• To maintain highways maintainable at public expense [HA 1980 section 41].

Powers

• Many and varied










8.3 Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) 178 In an attempt to standardise the way in which local authorities measure the extent to which their public rights of way network is easy to use, and to allow comparisons and the development of ‘league tables of performance’, the national Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) 178 was developed. The Audit Commission requires local authorities to survey a random sample of their network twice a year. In total, this annual survey has to cover at least 5%, (in length), of the total

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )37

network. The BVPI 178 methodology requires all local authorities to measure a range of elements, including: signing, stiles/gates, bridges, surfaces, obstructions, etc. If a particular path fails the survey on any of the elements, it fails overall. The results of the 2003/04 BVPI survey were: 61.7% of the PROW network ‘easy to use’. Analysis of these figures puts the condition of the public rights of way network in Gloucestershire into perspective, namely that just under two thirds of the network is easy to use. Further, when the figures are broken down it can be seen that just over 80% of the network is free of obstruction. It should be noted that the BVPI survey covers just 5% of the county’s path network in two surveys, once in May and the other in November, and is significantly affected by seasonal factors. The statistical ‘confidence level’ is approximately 10%, meaning there is the possibility that any one annual survey ‘result’ could, in the most extreme case, be some 10% different from any other survey and this difference accounted for purely by statistical variation. 8.4 Highway authority responsibilities The highway authority is responsible in law for the maintenance of the surface of most highways, including the majority of public rights of way. The responsibility is held to extend to most footbridges. Structures across public rights of way, like stiles and gates, on the other hand, are usually the responsibility of the landowner. 8.5 Gates, stiles and similar structures These structures need to be well maintained to ensure they are usable. There was a strong emphasis on improving access for all in the consultation. 8.6 Surfaces Cyclists are particularly concerned with surfacing issues and many insist that routes should be accessible in all weather conditions. Family and leisure riders prefer good surfaces but they do not always advocate hard surfacing on all paths. Hard surfacing is not always suitable for all users and unsympathetic design or materials can spoil the look of the countryside. Cyclists and horse riders share bridleways but the horse rider’s needs for surfacing are slightly different to cyclists. Horse riders prefer soft natural surfaces and cyclists prefer a firm made up surface. 8.7 Waymarking Public footpaths and bridleways have been waymarked since the introduction of Countryside Commission initiatives of the 1970’s, which in turn followed the lead of US National Parks. These yellow footpath and blue bridleway arrows are now a common sight in the countryside. In spite of this it is quite probable that the majority of the general public is not aware of the national colour coding system, so an indication of the status “in words” is also provided. 8.8 Roadside Signing Some users felt that information supplied on signs should include the destination and the distance to that destination or other useful facilities, though it should be recognised that there is a considerable amount of additional staff time and resource required to do so much more widely than at present. Users requested the need to have appropriate signing to indicate whether the path is part of a circular route or a ‘cul-de-sac’ path. They felt that some information about the ease of use of route would be of interest for users. There is a need to have improved signing especially near farm buildings and rapidly changing residential areas where most maps are insufficiently detailed or become out of date. Improved clarity of waymarking and signage on the ground

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )38

would benefit both users and landowners. Interestingly, the last national path condition survey undertaken by the Countryside Agency in 2000 indicated that signing and waymarking of the path network needed to be improved in Gloucestershire. It is recognised that the issue of cul-de-sac paths and paths that allegedly go ‘nowhere’ is often more complex than at first it might seem. Many cul-de-sac paths have a destination, e.g. access to a well or a spring, or a purpose, e.g. access to a viewpoint or an interesting building, such as a church. Where cul-de-sac paths appear to have no obvious destination or purpose it is often because the path meets a parish or county boundary and there was a failure to claim the path as a through route. 8.9 Bridges The survey for the Milestones Statement of 1996 estimated that there exist some 2,500 footbridges and bridle bridges serving public rights of way in the county. There is no record of where these bridges are and there is no routine pro-active inspection regime. The large majority of these bridges are the responsibility of the highway authority. Many of them are constructed from treated softwood kits installed in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s under government-supported schemes, and are coming to the end of their serviceable lives. There is a pressing need to record the location of all these structures and to have a system in place for their proactive management. 8.10 The condition of the Prow network - Key Issues Identified

• Approximately one third of Gloucestershire’s public rights of way network is not easy to use at any given time.

• Key statutory duties underpin the work of the public rights of way team in protecting and maintaining this network. However, the main constraint preventing the improvement of the whole network to even a ‘bronze’ standard has been the limited resources, albeit it is recognised that the authority has done well to find additional resources over recent years since the introduction of the CROW Act.

• All users require easy to use infrastructure and surfaces on a well-maintained network.

• Most users felt that only a small part of the whole right of way network is affected by

over hanging vegetation but they wanted to see efficient management to ensure they could use routes unhindered.

• Many complained about problems with undergrowth along paths.

• Many complained about ploughing and cropping problems along paths.

• Horse riders expressed a preference for firm grass surfaces whenever possible, but on the whole, bike riders particularly those in family groups on recreational rides prefer sealed or smooth surfaces.

• The current Gloucestershire bridleway network is more suitable to horse riders rather

than cyclists at present, with relatively few being substantially surfaced. This reflects the legal requirement for maintenance of these routes for walkers and horse riders rather than cyclists.

• The desirability of identifying surfaces suitable for multi-user routes needs consideration.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )39

• All signage needs to be well maintained and up to date, and where resources allow consideration should be given to providing additional information on top of status and direction, e.g. destination, named route.

• A good quality overall condition for public rights of way was considered to be important by many users. Opportunities for joint working to improve the condition of public rights of way should be taken forward where cost effective.

8.11 The condition of the Prow network – Action Proposals Action Proposal 1 Make best use of existing information to continue with the development of management regimes, for example an annual review of the deficiency reports database to identify the most common issues and target resources accordingly. Action Proposal 2 Look for resource opportunities to support the production of an asset register, which would detail all access infrastructure, for more effective management of the public rights of way and access land network.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )40

SECTION 9. PROMOTED WALKS AND RIDES 9.1 Overview There are a great number of locally promoted walks and rides and many routes have already been identified for inclusion on the website and for promotion via the Map Digitisation Project. There are 5450 kilometres or 3340 miles of public rights of way in the total network of which most are footpaths. The map digitisation project is aiming to digitise the majority of promoted walks and rides to make information about them easily accessible to local people and visitors through an interactive website. Key walks in the county include parts of three National Trails, the Cotswold Way, Offa’s Dyke Path and Thames Path, along with the popular Severn Way and Gloucestershire Way. Of the riding routes the Sabrina Way is the main one, (see Annex C for list of promoted routes in the county. 9.2 Promoted walks and rides – duties, powers and policies Duties • None Powers • None Gloucestershire Corporate Strategy





• Real Choices Provide people with viable alternatives to car use, to enable and encourage people to use the car less. This will mean providing public transport and facilities for walking and cycling journeys by car, whilst acknowledging that there is a role for the car, particularly in rural areas.

• Accessibility Provide high quality access to services by all forms of transport. Of particular importance will be meeting the transport needs for those without access to cars.

• Awareness Raise awareness of alternative ways to travel; the impact of transport on the environment; and the health benefits of walking and cycling.

• Economy Provide a transport system that assists today’s economy and the economic development of the county.

• Safety Reduce the number and severity of road accidents; and improve personal security to reduce the fear or crime particularly for users of public transport, pedestrians and cyclists.

• Environment Reduce air and noise pollution and the harmful physical impacts of transport on both the natural and built environment.

• Maintenance and Improvement Manage, maintain and improve the transport network to meet transport needs more effectively for all users.

• Integration Integrate all forms of transport, land use and economic planning leading to a better more efficient transport system.

Our duties: the county council has no legal duty to carry out the promotion or marketing of public rights of way, it’s principle roles established by statute are, as highway authority: to assert

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )41

and protect the rights of users to the use and enjoyment of public rights of way; to maintain certain public rights of way to a standard whereby lawful public users may pass along them without undue hindrance; as surveying authority to maintain the definitive map and statement; and as access authority to help manage public access to access land. However, planning authorities are being asked by the government to undertake assessments of user needs and demands for open space and recreational facilities through Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 (PPG 17). 9.3 Promotion - inadequacies of existing walking guides and leaflets There is indeed a great deal of promotional material, particularly walking guides and leaflets, usually generated by private individuals and commercial publishers. However, such material tends to be available in conventional formats, which can be difficult to access for some groups. Further, such material is sometimes out of date and provides insufficient information on ease of use, links to public transport or location of the facilities needed by users. Much of the promoted material currently available is primarily focussed on the needs of able-bodied walkers. Often the provision of information is too generic and does not have information tailored to specific needs. Many users and particularly non-users lack the confidence or background knowledge to use the countryside and public rights of way network on their own. Promotional materials are used as the main tools to engage and enable both visitors and local people to use the Gloucestershire countryside and public rights of way network. People use their local public rights of way for a wide range of purposes, which include walking, cycling, horseriding, visiting places or gaining health benefits. Various agencies and authorities, often working through partnerships, sometimes promote specific routes. The assessment has identified that the process of preparing and publishing promoted materials is often not as well co-ordinated as it could be. There are currently no strategic policies to prioritise which routes or public rights of way opportunities are promoted and what the target audiences will be. The named routes that are “promoted” are often concentrated in particularly popular areas. In some cases an individual footpath carries numerous promoted routes, which in many cases results in unclear signage and high levels of wear and tear in these areas, along with user and traffic congestion. This while other little-used paths in more neglected if still attractive areas of the county with equal potential fall into disrepair through lack of use. The potential benefit of spreading users more evenly throughout the county needs to be highlighted to authors and publishers of route guides. There are over 250 known promoted routes overlaid on Gloucestershire path network. They are mostly walking routes promoted by a wide range of organisations. There is only one promoted long-distance horse riding route, the Sabrina Way, passing through the county while there are a number of cycle routes and ‘stile free walks’ aimed at the less able bodied walker. Parish groups, ramblers and landowners have established many of these routes. With the county council often funding the path improvements – mainly by replacing lawful stiles with kissing or pedestrian gates - on circular routes close to settlements. It is essential that public rights of way that are already available, as well as those which are going to be improved in the future, are appropriately promoted and publicised. This is an area where the county council could improve matters by supplementing information already provided in a conventional way, e.g. by publishing information on its website so users know where they may go. Information to users can improve their understanding of the countryside and its long-term care. It also helps to increase the confidence of users and landowners and managers about their rights and responsibilities. Information is a key to encouraging visitors to an area and promoting the opportunities for them to both look after and enjoy the countryside through walking, cycling and horse riding. Consultation to date has demonstrated that information is

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )42

provided in an uncoordinated way and does not give all types of user the confidence they need to try out new routes. 9.4 Promoted walking routes The principle long distance walking routes through Gloucestershire are the Cotswold Way National Trail (98 miles in total length) and the Gloucestershire Way (102 miles total length), a regional route. The Cotswold Way is being developed with support from the Countryside Agency and though it runs mainly in Gloucestershire, it also passes through Bath and Northeast Somerset Council, South Gloucestershire Council and Worcestershire County Council areas. It is due to be launched in 2007. Two other established National Trails also pass through the edges of the county. Firstly, the Thames Path, that runs from near Coates via the Cotswold Water Park and Lechlade, repeatedly crossing the boundary between Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, and then on via Oxford to London. Secondly, the Offa’s Dyke Path that begins at Sedbury Cliff, east of Chepstow, but on the Gloucestershire side of the River Wye, and runs north to Monmouth and on to Prestatyn on the north Wales coast. Both are principal tourist attractions, by way of example, the section of Offa’s Dyke Path above Tintern receives something like 20,000 visitors a year. All three national trails receive grant assistance towards their maintenance from the Countryside Agency. The Gloucestershire Way is a route established by the publisher Countryside Matters with assistance from Gloucestershire County Council and the Heritage Lottery Fund and launched in 2000. It runs from Chepstow through the Forest of Dean and Gloucester Vale to Stow on the Wold in the north Cotswolds and then back to Tewkesbury. Gloucestershire County Council is developing a walking strategy. A footway hierarchy takes account of use by vulnerable pedestrians such as the elderly or parents with children as well as other local needs such as schools or shopping areas. The walking strategy will complement both Gloucestershire County Council initiatives such as school travel plans and guided walks, and central government initiatives, in particular from the Countryside Agency. 9.5 Promoted horseriding routes Recreational horseriding is now recognized as a significant element of the rural tourism economy. The main horseriding route passing through the county is the Sabrina Way, established by the British Horse Society in 2002. In addition in 1996, the British Horse Society published a riding route guide, the Cotswolds on Horseback. There is also a network of hard surfaced off-road routes provided within the Forest of Dean by the Forestry Commission. An organisation called Bridle Rides provides an innovative service to those wishing to ride. They help people to ride their own horses on networks of bridleways by researching and designing routes, and arranging good accommodation for riders and horses. Parties of 2 to 4 are self-guided, with detailed written route guides and marked maps. 9.6 Promoted cycling routes Gloucestershire has currently part of several Sustrans cycle routes including NCN41 and 45 running through the county. In addition, a number of local projects have converted both county council owned land and footpaths to cyclepaths for local use. These include the Stroud Valleys Cycle Trails, covering some 9 miles mainly of old railway between Stonehouse, Stroud and Nailsworth, and converted to cycle trail in the 1980’s. And the Highnam to Gloucester cycle

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )43

route, aimed mainly at commuters, and converted by a Cycle Tracks Act Order from a footpath to a cycle track in 2002. In addition, a cycle route has been established in Cheltenham along the former Honeybourne railway line, principally aimed at local users and providing a safe traffic free route to the Pittville Leisure Centre and local supermarkets. Finally, there is an extensive network of recreational cycling routes in the Dean managed by the Forestry Commission. County policy is to encourage cycling, especially as a commuting mode in urban areas. In addition, a network of cycle routes is being established in the Cotswolds, Forest of Dean and Severn Vale. These cater for recreational and family cycling, mountain biking and touring, as well as the encouragement to ‘Cycle to Work'. 9.7 Promoted walks and rides - key issues identified

• Statutory duties focus on the protection, maintenance and definition of public rights of way shown on the definitive map.

• Opportunities for using all types of public rights of way in Gloucestershire could be highlighted and audited and this information made clearly available to users.

• The public rights of way network offers opportunities to improve non-car based recreation and can be seen as a considerable asset.

• Public rights of way also form important links in many towns and villages to local facilities and opportunities should be taken to provide funding for their improvement in line with other county initiatives such as Safe Walks to Schools.

• Provide a range of information in different formats to help give everyone the confidence to enjoy the countryside and to plan their recreational experiences.

• Users wanted the distribution and accessibility of route information improved.

• Need to put all access opportunities, promoted walks, open access areas, cycle routes,

horse trails etc. onto the proposed Gloucestershire interactive website and make the information available through our electronic mapping system, (for the benefit of both the public and officers).

• Users wanted good signage with clear information and to consider developing a more

flexible signage system, which can carry a variety of information.

• Rural businesses were keen to have more promotion to encourage more people to use the Gloucestershire countryside to aid economic development.

• National Trail officers are keen to see the Countryside Agency publication ‘Quality Standards for National Trails’ adopted as the benchmark for the national trails.

9.8 Promoted walks and rides – action proposals Action Proposal 1 Ensure promoted routes that are recognised by the highway authority where practicable are clearly named on roadside signarms, as resources allow. Action Proposal 2 Take advantage of funding opportunities to record all currently available approved national trails and regional routes and disabled access routes on GCC’s website mapping, when available, for the public to access.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )44

Action Proposal 3 As staff resources allow, offer a proof reading facility to those producing new walking, riding and cycling guides affecting rights of way or access land in the county. Action Proposal 4 As resources allow, adopt the benchmark ‘Quality Standards for National Trails’ (Countryside Agency 2004) countywide as it applies to national trails in the county.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )45

SECTION 10. THE NEW ACCESS RIGHTS 10.1 The new access rights – duties, powers and policies. Duties • None Powers • Making of bylaws, (CROW 2000 section17)

• Appointing of wardens, (CROW 2000 section18) • Erection and maintenance of notices indicating boundaries,

(CROW 2000 section19). • Provision of “means of access” to access land sites, including

island sites, (CROW 2000 section 35). • Making access to island sites through legal process (CROW 2000

sections 37,38, 39). • Entering into agreements regarding the provision of means of

access to land, (CROW 2000 section 33) • Undertaking necessary works if such an agreement cannot be

reached, (CROW 2000 section 36). Gloucestershire Corporate Strategy









10.2 - There are 3700 hectares of newly mapped “access land”, made up of 370 identifiable areas, shown on the provisional map of registered common land and open country. A number of these areas have been accessible for many years and these are mostly located on the limestone escarpment running north south through the county. Some are already managed for public access, and enjoy existing public access rights. This land is termed ‘Section 15 land’ and includes such areas as Cleeve Common and Selsley Common. Management of these areas of land will continue to be delivered as in the past. The county council will not have any additional duties as a result of the designation of these areas of land on these maps. 10.3 Some areas of access land offer new walking opportunities. These areas lie mainly in some of the smaller Cotswold valleys, as well as along the main escarpment itself. However, some areas appear to be relatively isolated and it is unclear whether they will provide a

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )46

particularly valuable access resource, being on steep hillsides and in fairly inaccessible locations. In order to manage the new access rights as effectively as possible, a system for prioritising these areas of access land has been drafted, in consultation with the Gloucestershire Local Access Forum, (see Annex I, at the back of this document for more details). In summary, health and safety, biodiversity and accessibility to the public, are some of the main considerations that have taken into account. 10.4 The Forestry Commission manages the Statutory Forest of Dean and allows access to most areas to many users. It has established a substantial network of cycle routes and horse riding trails. This land is expected to be dedicated as access land under section 16 of the CROW Act and Gloucestershire County Council will become the access authority for the area. The Forestry Commission is also expecting to dedicate all of its remaining freehold estate – in total, this could add more than 12,000 hectares of land to the access authority’s sphere of statutory responsibility. There are opportunities here for joint working to establish routes for many types of user where links can be made between Forestry Commission land and the wider public rights of way network. There will also be similar access improvement opportunities on some larger access land sites closer to population centres. 10.5 Our duties: the local highway authority is defined as the ‘access authority’ under the provisions of Part 1 of the CROW Act 2000. However, the provisions of the act make it clear that the access authority has a range of powers, rather than duties, which the government is looking to it to take up. These principally relate to providing the means of access and signing the new CROW access land. In addition, public expectations have been raised that access authorities will be able to offer advice and assistance to land managers in particular, and to the public in general in relation to access land. 10.6 The new access rights - key issues identified

• Accessible open spaces can enhance everyday life for many people. These may be made available, resources permitting, and using the system of priorities agreed by the Gloucestershire Local Access Forum.

• Opportunities exist for joint working with the Forestry Commission and other landowners

to secure access to areas of Access Land for particular groups of user.

• CROW Access land may provide additional opportunities for informal recreation on foot, however the access authority has been provided with limited new resources with which to take up the powers. No new funding has been provided to the authority by central government through the Formula Spending Share, however the county council has itself provided some funds for such work.

10.7 The new access rights – action proposals Action Proposal 1 Adopt proposed priority guidelines, (compiled with the assistance of the Gloucestershire Local Access Forum), as set out in Annex F. Action Proposal 2 Within priority guidelines and where resources are available, provision of signage on and near access land as appropriate, emphasising the rights and responsibilities of users. Action Proposal 3

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )47

Within priority guidelines and where resources are available, provision of the means of access, i.e. gate or stile, where landowner and/or site manager request assistance. Action Proposal 4 Seek the designation of permissive access to isolated access land areas in accordance with the priority guidelines. Action Proposal 5 Publish bylaws to deal with access land issues only where this is the last resort and other practicable approaches have been tried unsuccessfully. Action Proposal 6 If the Secretary of State decides to extend the right of access to coastal land, in accordance with s.3 of CROW2000, make clear the specific challenges associated with the tidal estuary and the particular issues of nature conservation and user safety.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )48

SECTION 11. EDUCATION, INFORMATION AND AWARENESS 11.1 Education and awareness – duties, powers and policies. Duties • Every surveying authority shall take such steps as they consider expedient for

bringing to the attention of the public the effect of section 47 (2) and 48 (8) of CROW 2000, (the blanket reclassification of roads used as public paths to restricted byways).

Powers • An access authority may appoint wardens as respects access land in their area, for certain prescribed purposes, including to secure compliance with bylaws, to enforce any exclusion etc., and to advise and assist the public and persons interested in access land (CROW2000 s18).

• An access authority may erect and maintain notices indicating the boundaries of access land and excepted land, notices informing the public of any restrictions in place, and any other matters it considers appropriate, CROW 2000 s19 (1-4).












• Maintenance and Improvement Manage, maintain and improve the transport network to meet local transport needs more effectively for all users.


11.2 Overview Every visit to the countryside, whether it be in a formal group or ‘walking the dog’, provides informal education and learning whilst planned interpretation can be seen as ‘passive learning’. Natural and historic heritage provide excellent places and opportunities to learn more formally about other subjects, as well as for education ‘about’ and ‘for’ the environment.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )49

Information to users can improve their understanding of the countryside and its long-term care. It also helps to increase the confidence of users and landowners and managers about their rights and responsibilities. Information is a key to encouraging visitors to an area and promoting the opportunities for them to both look after and enjoy the countryside through walking, cycling and horse riding. Consultation to date has demonstrated that information is provided in an uncoordinated way and does not give all types of user the confidence they need to try out new routes. There are also comments in the consultation that suggest closer working with landowners and landowner representatives might help to improve matters on the ground for walkers and riders. The Best Value Review identified a number of areas of information provision that could be improved – these include the targeting of landowners, as well as the provision of clearer information for users about how to get something done about a problem they encounter on a public right of way. Particular communities that should be targeted include black and other ethnic minority groups and other infrequent visitors. Finally consultees highlighted the need for a more general education for users – to include issues such as litter, dogs, shutting gates, country code, and the responsible use of paths. The public rights of way team publishes a yearly magazine called Grass Routes, which carries news and information about public rights of way, access and conservation issues. This is posted directly to over 3500 people on a mailing list that includes landowners, tenant farmers, parish councils, volunteers and local users. One of the main aims of the magazine is to encourage active involvement by volunteers, particularly at a local parish level. The team also aims to provide information leaflets for the public and landowners, and published ‘A guide to public rights of way’ in 1998, which was revised for re-issue in 2002. This is complemented by a wide range of publications by the Countryside Agency directed at educating the public about the countryside. 11.3 The “new” Countryside Code The new Countryside Code for England was produced by the Countryside Agency and launched in July 2004. The Countryside Code has been revised and re-launched to reflect the introduction of new open access rights and changes in society over the last 20 years. Countryside Code - advice for the public

• Be safe - plan ahead and follow any signs • Leave gates and property as you find them • Protect plants and animals, and take your litter home • Keep dogs under close control • Consider other people

Countryside Code - advice for land managers Know your rights, responsibilities and liabilities:

• Where can people go on your land? • What rules apply to people while they are on your land? • What are your rights and responsibilities towards people on your land? Make it easy for

visitors to act responsibly. • How can you help people get access to your land responsibly and keep to the

Countryside Code? • What help and advice can you get? Identify possible threats to visitor safety.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )50

• Are there any risks to the safety of people on your land, and how can you deal with these risks?

11.4 Education, information and awareness – key issues identified

• The initial ROWIP scoping consultation indicates that most stakeholders do not see this area as a high priority.

• Some consider users need guidance on how to use the countryside to make sure that they get their best possible recreational experiences from it.

• Consultation suggests information provision is sporadic and uncoordinated. • There is a need for better information to be provided to help landowners and farmers. • There is also a need for the public to be better informed as to how path problems might

be resolved. • There is an expectation that clear information will need to be provided to the general

public about access land and their associated rights and responsibilities.

11.5 Education, information and awareness - action proposals Action Proposal 1 Work with partners to provide information and advice, including re-iterating the messages contained within the new Countryside Code, in a more co-ordinated way. Review information provision and current materials. Seek to identify shared priorities, thus maximising use of resources and take advantage of cross-promotional opportunities. Action Proposal 2 Develop and maintain a quality interactive website to disseminate public rights of way and access information and guidance. Action Proposal 3 Respond to low awareness of the new access rights and seek to raise users and land managers awareness of their responsibilities. Action Proposal 4 Produce information leaflets on Gates and Stiles, Ploughing and Cropping and other subjects as appropriate to assist landowners.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )51

SECTION 12. UNDERSTANDING PRESENT AND FUTURE NEEDS OF USERS 12.1 Understanding present and future needs of users – duties, powers and policies. Duties • As required under CROW 2000 sections 60(1)(a) and 60(3)(a) a key

consideration in the ROWIP • To have regard to the needs of people with mobility problems when

authorising stiles etc. [CROW 2000 section 69]. Powers • To make a cycle tracks order under the Cycle Tracks Act 1984 section 3

to upgrade a public footpath to a cycletrack. Gloucestershire Corporate Strategy













12.2 Overview In making assessments under section 60(1)(a) and 60(3)(a) of the CROW Act 2000, we have sought to consider the needs and circumstances of different classes and types of users and of wider interests relevant to the area. We have carried out preliminary and targeted consultations and research, building on the consultations undertaken in connection with the 2002 Best Value Review, to consider the adequacy of the existing network and any need for further provisions. These include:

• Access to new areas of “access land” that the public will be able to visit following the completion of the mapping exercise and commencement under Part I of the Act. We

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )52

anticipate that the new rights of access will become available to the public in Gloucestershire in October 2005.

• Opportunities for cycling, harness-horse driving, horse riding and walking other than on roads used mainly by motor vehicles;

• Links which encourage walking and cycling as an alternative to the car, (e.g. the ‘Safe Routes to School’ and ‘Safe Routes to Work’ initiatives);

• Routes from centres of population, which can be used in conjunction with public transport, or that allow people to gain easy access to the countryside from where they live;

• Circular routes and better facilities for cyclists, equestrians and walkers, and recreational vehicle users for leisure and health;

• Routes and crossings to ensure the safety of local public rights of way users and help ameliorate the effect on people’s enjoyment of the countryside of a major road, railway, river or development.

It is important that these proposals for improving public rights of way should not unduly benefit one class of user at the expense of another. In particular, improvements that are intended to benefit cyclists, harness-horse drivers, horse riders or walkers should not restrict lawful motorised use of public vehicular public rights of way. In addition, horse riders and cyclists have expressed concern that the authority’s powers to manage the new access rights have the potential to further focus resources on the needs of walkers. 12.3 Cyclists The Countryside Agency’s public rights of way use and demand survey showed that 23% of households had at least one member who participated in cycling in the countryside in the previous year. They also found that 32% of households said they would increase cycling as an activity if more provision was available. The most common needs for local cyclists are good routes that are safe, attractive and relevant for users. These should have good surfaces, be well signed, with information on distances and destinations, and avoid heavy traffic to make them pleasant to use. Cycling is considered to be beneficial as both a mode of transport and as a healthy form of exercise. Better direct cycle links from towns could reduce the amount of car traffic in the countryside. Public transport links, from the urban fringe to the countryside, which can accommodate cycles, would also benefit users. Provision for cycling can be placed into a number of categories, albeit there is much overlap as the list below illustrates, they include:

• family cycling - notable provision in the Forest of Dean; • off-road/mountain biking – particularly on bridleways and minor highways; • road cycling – through out the county, but specific provision on key routes; • utility cycling – commuter routes, e.g. Highnam, Nailsworth and Honeybourne cycle

tracks.

The list above illustrates the extent to which cyclists use routes that are maintained and promoted by a wide variety of organisations. This represents a real challenge in making sure provision is meaningfully joined up. 12.4 Horse riders and carriage drivers The British Horse Society estimates that around 4.5% of the UK population are regular horse riders. The Countryside Agency’s public rights of way use and demand survey showed that 5% of households have at least one member who participates in horse riding regularly.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )53

Gloucestershire equestrians felt that the bridleway network in the county was highly fragmented. Bridleways sometimes change status at the parish or the county boundary resulting in “cul de sac” routes. According to a survey of horseriders undertaken in summer 2004 (se Annex C), equestrians want safe and easy to use bridleways, particularly as there are now more people riding. Roads have become too dangerous and frightening to use for many riders, particularly children. The enhancement and use of wide roadside verges for horse riders could be a solution, though ideally these would have to be about 6 metres wide to separate horses from traffic sufficiently. This would require closer working with divisional staff in the wider Highways Maintenance Unit, as well as with projects staff in some instances. The needs of long distance and endurance riders have to be taken into account. There is one promoted long distance horse trail in the county, the Sabrina Way. There is also a booklet, ‘The Cotswolds on Horseback’, which was produced as part of the British Horse Society’s Access and Rights of Way (AROW) project and which details a series of rides in the area. In our survey, equestrians felt that for the most part, bridleways in the county were easy to access and use, though choice of appropriate surfaces was an issue. Tarmac is considered to be too slippery. The safest surfaces are grass, sand and compacted earth. Very muddy bridleways, wide puddles and non-reinstated ploughed land were considered to be significant obstacles for horses. Other obstacles were slippery wooden bridges, barbed wire next to bridleways, electric fences and overhanging vegetation. There is scope for the county council and its partners to improve management of bridleways in some places. All gates need to be well hung, self closing and easily negotiated by horses. There should be at least three metres either side of the gate where practicable to enable the horse to turn and riders to shut or open it. Riders also felt that opportunities should be taken for the creation of new horseriding routes in the county to help overcome ‘missing links’ in the off road network. Options to do so could include the creation of permissive links by sympathetic landowners, as well as the provision of better maintained road verges. Equestrians also felt that there was a need for better promotional material on rides in the countryside. These materials could be in the form of leaflets and web pages. They would like to see more information about permissive routes for riders. Local riding for disabled centres, riding schools and stables would all benefit from improved safer links to the local public rights of way network. Road safety concerns were of utmost importance to local horse riders. 12.5 Walkers The public rights of way network in Gloucestershire is used mainly for walking, and 73% of a sample of local residents surveyed in autumn 2002 for the Best Value review said they used the Gloucestershire public rights of way network at least once a month. Some recent Countryside Agency national use and demand studies showed that in 48% of households, at least one member had walked in the countryside during the previous year. 47% of these households said they would walk more if there were better provision. Walkers are entitled to use all classes of local public rights of way. The Public Rights of Way Team began the process to assess the needs of walkers by carrying out an initial consultation in spring/summer 2004. This research followed extensive work carried out as part of the county council’s “Best Value Review of Public Rights of Way and Countryside Sites Service” that was concluded in spring 2003.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )54

It was found that local walkers felt that many improvements have certainly been made to the county’s public rights of way network in recent years and the positive attitude and enthusiasm of officers of the Public Rights of Way Team was well received. However, there clearly is much scope for further improvements and a number of needs were identified that are important for all categories of walkers in the county. All walkers need a network that is safe and easy to use with adequate clear waymarking on all routes. There should be fewer obstructions on paths caused by heavily overgrown vegetation and ploughing. Fewer obstructions created by farmers and land managers, that are sometimes seen as being aimed directly at walkers and dog walkers such as barbed wire around stiles. Much work has been done by the Public Rights of Way Team to develop good working relationships with landowners and managers to reduce the number of obstructions, but some walkers felt that more could be done. There should be continued replacement of stiles on the network with more easy to use kissing and wicket gates or gaps. There should be measures taken to address particularly muddy conditions on footpaths and bridleways. Walkers identified poor information provision as a problem, though not a high priority for improvement. However it is clear that there should be more readily available information on local walks and walks within Gloucestershire generally. The Internet will be a valuable resource for many individuals but other members of the public will require a range of information materials and points of access. More promoted short circular walks suitable for the less experienced casual walker and dog walkers could also be developed. More information on finger posts and waymarking to indicate destinations, proximity to facilities and the likely distances involved was felt to be a simple yet practical improvement that could be made. These more popular and well-used shorter circular routes, pub walks and other walks will always remain closer to the villages and other population centres. These local walks could be improved to meet the needs of less frequent, less confident and less experienced users, to a different standard than perhaps some of those less used routes in more remote areas. This would still leave plenty of opportunities for the more experienced and committed ramblers to walk without significant perceived intrusions on less frequently used paths in the wider countryside. It was felt by some walkers that there needs to be a balance between meeting the needs of people with restricted mobility and offering all people a natural environment in which to walk. The provision and promotion of a wide range of accessible routes in Gloucestershire suited to all people with restricted mobility will be vital to ensure that some form of balanced provision is achieved. There was a view amongst some stakeholders that more could be done to encourage those on low incomes, those with restricted mobility, black and other minority ethnic groups and young people to walk in the countryside. They felt that increased investment was required throughout Gloucestershire to enable these groups particularly those in urban areas to have greater accessibility to the wider countryside. Gloucestershire County Council also has to consider the extent to which public rights of way provide adequate access to land to which a right of access on foot is to be given under Part I of CROW Act 2000. At the time of writing the land identified as “access land” on the “provisional maps” prepared by the Countryside Agency in June 2004 is undergoing an appeals process for those people with land ownership rights or other legal interest. This process should be complete by early autumn 2005 when “conclusive maps” of access land are due to be published. A significant percentage of the “access land” identified in Gloucestershire on the draft and provisional maps already has some form of public access with links to the public rights of way

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )55

network. However, at some point there will be a need to assess the requirement for additional routes to be created to enable the public to reach access land to which it is currently difficult or impossible to get. 12.6 Motorised Users There was little in the consultation feedback that suggests that we should encourage motor vehicles to more widely use the public rights of way network. Where respondents did refer to motor vehicles they are seen principally as a means to get to the countryside. Public rights of way available for motorised vehicular users are often also important to walkers, horse riders, carriage drivers and cyclists. They can provide links in the network of other paths to complete networks and routes. Vehicular public rights of way can also be important to users with mobility problems. In making improvements for non-motorised users, authorities shouldn’t disadvantage legitimate motorised use. Proactive management to deal with the issues of proper recording of rights, maintenance and shared use can bring benefits to all users. In the consultation, some users said they felt routes should not be available to motorised users and there appears to be some concern over the presence of vehicles on roads used as public paths and other unsurfaced minor highways. However, there was also a call for better car parking facilities for car users at popular destinations, and particularly for less able bodied users. This is countered by a call by many consultees for better public transport facilities and provision to help avoid over-dependence on the car. 12.7 Network fragmentation The broad scope of the ROWIP based on the needs of users means that there is now a greater need for closer co-operation between council directorates as the plan is prepared and then implemented. The publication of Gloucestershire’s Provisional Local Transport Plan will include this Draft ROWIP attached as an appendix. In addition, there will be many other occasions where different directorates within the council will need to consider incorporating matters contained in the plan. It is important to ensure that the ROWIP takes into account the provisions made in Local Development Plans, Community Strategy, Waste and Minerals Plan and other strategic plans and proposals for the county. Gloucestershire County Council has a duty to consult each highway authority whose area adjoins theirs, and each parish council within their area. The neighbouring highway authorities are those of Monmouthshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Oxfordshire, Wiltshire and South Gloucestershire. The Cotswolds Conservation Board, the Wye Valley AONB and the Malverns AONB services will also be need to be consulted on the ROWIP as it affects their areas. As will the Severn Estuary Partnership, the Cotswold Water Park and the Cotswold Canals Trust. There are six district and borough councils in Gloucestershire, as follows: Gloucester City Council, Tewkesbury Borough Council, Cotswold District Council, Cheltenham Borough Council, Forest of Dean District Council and Stroud District Council. There are 266 parish and town councils and parish meetings in Gloucestershire. As the surveying authority for Gloucestershire, the county council holds the definitive map and statement, and has an overview of public rights of way within the entire county. However, the legal process that brought public rights of way into being did not ensure connectivity of the routes where they cross over administrative boundaries. The definitive map was drawn up using individual parish surveys, consequently there are instances of paths stopping completely at

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )56

parish boundaries. In particular, paths do not always share the same status where they cross parish boundaries. A similar issue also arises on the county boundary, albeit to a lesser degree simply because of the smaller number of paths involved. Such anomalies are meaningless to members of the public living near or visiting areas close to the county boundary. The landscape is seamless and users expect the public rights of way network to be similarly seamless. No systematic attempt has been made to ensure that paths between parishes within Gloucestershire or paths leaving Gloucestershire connect with paths of similar status in adjacent authority areas. It should be noted that work to overcome such anomalies would be time-consuming and could end up being counter-productive, since it would probably be based on an evidence-led modification order process. Dealing with these issues will be costly and time-consuming and should be considered carefully on the basis of a cost benefit analysis. For example, a modification order to deal with an apparent boundary anomaly may take many years to resolve and absorb much officer time, as well as possibly leading to an opposed modification order and the costs associated with a public inquiry. In 2002 the Institute of Civil Engineers reviewed the issues brought to the rural road and path network by increasing use by motor traffic. Their report for the Countryside Agency ‘Rural Routes and Networks’ recognised the down side of increased traffic - making life unpleasant and unsafe for non-motorised users of the roads, which in themselves provide a vital part of the network for walking, cycling, and horseriding. They identified that if walking and cycling are to become a safe alternative to car use, joining up networks needs to be a core policy objective for most local authorities. The report identified the following issues:

• 65% of users feel threatened by traffic “all or some of the time”; • 72% think that vulnerable users should be given priority on selected country lanes; • 100 horses are killed on our roads each year.

They suggest it is time for a rethink about existing practices, for example by using measures to make driving less attractive, and increase provision for walkers and riders, and by introducing a ‘net gain’ principle, i.e. that any newly built route or improved route for motorised traffic also benefits the non-motorised route network. (Source – Rural Routes and Networks, ICE (2002)).

12.8 Understanding present and future needs of different users - key issues identified

• The current network is largely seen as being relatively available for use. However, with only 61.7% classified as ‘easy to use’ in the 2003 BVPI surveys, considerable work is still required to bring the existing network up to an adequate standard for users. This basic work is seen as a priority by the majority of stakeholders.

• Users felt strongly that there should be better accessibility to the countryside and the public rights of way network for young people, those on low incomes, black and other minority ethnic groups and any other sections of socially excluded people.

• Users felt that better provision for people with disabilities should be a priority, along with more circular walks and rides.

• Consultees called for better car parking and public transport provision particularly at popular countryside sites.

• Where access for people with disabilities can be provided suitable car parking and in some cases toilets are essential.

• Many users understand that there is a need for some structures such as gates and stiles in the countryside, but they would like them only used where they are really essential. Horse riders and less able users also felt strongly that such structures must

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )57

be easy to use. Heavy or damaged gates can cause problems, especially for horse riders who find it hard or impossible to open them without dismounting and remounting. People with limited mobility have the greatest concerns about structures as they often prevent access to some routes. They can be especially difficult for people with pushchairs, older people, dog walkers and wheelchair users.

• There was also a feeling that improvements should be in harmony with the surrounding countryside, and that in some contexts the galvanised steel kissing gate whilst very practical in terms of stock control and user friendliness is not particularly attractive to look at, particularly when it is brand new and very shiny.

• To be successful, the ROWIP must take into account and work within strategies and policies associated with other departments and councils, and in turn influence and be adopted by such strategies and policies.

• Paths do not always connect across the county boundary • Paths often stop altogether or change status seemingly arbitrarily at parish boundaries

often as a result of historic ‘accidents’. • Seek to provide improved networks for walkers and riders whenever a significant

highway improvement scheme takes place.

12.9 Understanding present and future needs of different users – action proposals Action Proposal 1 Consultation suggests that GCC continues to focus resources on ensuring the basic existing network is brought up to a standard whereby it will pass the ‘ease of use’ test set by the government via the BVPI indicator. In other words, ensure that all of the existing path network reaches the “bronze standard”. Action Proposal 2 Where opportunities arise and resources are made available, make appropriate improvements to the network based on identifiable user needs. Action Proposal 3 Work with planners and developers on development proposals and highways engineers on road improvement schemes and other decision makers to better inform them and develop solutions to reduce network severance and to provide new and improved infrastructure for local users. Action Proposal 4 Ensure sufficient widths for all users, particularly horse riders, are made available in any future route creations, where this is practicable.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )58

SECTION 13. COMMUNITY SAFETY 13.1 Community safety – duties, powers and policies. Duties • To provide footways by carriageways where necessary or desirable for

the safety or accommodation of pedestrians, [HA 1980 section 66]. • To provide adequate grass or other margins by a carriageway where

necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of ridden horses [HA 1980 section71].

• To have regard to the needs of people with mobility problems when authorising stiles etc. [CROW 2000 section 69].

Powers

• To create footpaths and bridleways by agreement or order, with compensation [HA 1980 section 25/26].

• To improve highways [HA 1980 section 62]. • To provide on a footpath safety barriers for safeguarding persons using

the highway [HA80 section 66; amended CROW 2000 section70*]. • To designate a footpath as a cycle track [Cycle Tracks Act 1984, (CTA

1984) section 3]. • To provide safety barriers on a cycle track [CTA 1984 section 4]. • To serve notice on an owner of land to execute any necessary work or

protection, etc. to obviate a danger alongside a street, (HA 1980 section165). Note - power available to local authority, i.e. district council, in first instance.

• To make a special diversion order or extinguishment order for the purposes of crime prevention and school security, HA 1980 sections118B/C and119B/C as inserted by CROW 2000 Schedule 6.

• To make a Rail Crossing Order to divert or extinguish a public footpath or bridleway crossing a railway, HA 1980 section 118a & 119a, as amended.

• Local Government Act 2000 section 2(1). Every local authority has the power to do anything which they consider is likely to achieve any one or more of the following objects: (a) the promotion or improvement of the economic well-being of their area; (b) the promotion or improvement of the social well-being of their area, and; (c) the promotion or improvement of the environmental well-being of their area.

• Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 both the county council and landowners have a duty, as far as is reasonably practicable, that the public are not exposed to any risks to their health and safety.


• Social inclusion • Fairness and diversity


• A safer county • Thriving communities


Reduce the number and severity of road accidents; and improve personal security to reduce the fear or crime particularly for users of public transport, pedestrians and cyclists.

13.2 Corporate Community Safety Policy and Implementation Strategy 2004-07

Amongst a range of corporate goals, this Strategy aims to: • Provide safety related traffic management projects such as traffic calming, cycling and

pedestrian facilities, • Use the planning system to make sure that new housing estate layouts and other

developments are designed to minimise crime and disorder.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )59

13.3 Overview The county council works with others, particularly the police and district and borough councils to help create a safer county in which residents and visitors feel secure. Many of the county council’s activities contribute to ensuring safer communities, from school exclusions to youth service activity, road safety improvements through to supporting older people in the home. Community safety is an issue of major public concern. It is central to people’s quality of life and can make the difference between people wanting to live and work and stay in an area or not. Community safety is an outcome and not a problem or a service. It deals with more than crime and aims to prevent reduce or at least contain the things that are most disruptive to people’s quality of life. There is a need to work with and engage local communities in developing solutions and address what is directly relevant to people in their local setting. Abandoned cars and shopping trolleys, graffiti damage and litter are having a detrimental impact on local communities’ quality of life. Many in the community are becoming demoralised, unable to see how they can make changes and feel disillusioned and distant from the agencies that they feel should be helping. 13.4 Fly tipping and abandoned cars Consultation for this draft ROWIP showed concerns by some about illegal fly tipping and the dumping of cars on public paths. These issues are of course principally ones for the district councils and the Environment Agency and other statutory agencies such as the police. However, co-ordination between these organisations and other individuals and groups working in the community is clearly vital. For example, there is also a role for parish and town councils and officers of the PROW Team to act as “eyes and ears” on the ground and to pass on relevant information to the appropriate agencies. In addition there is also a need to increase awareness amongst some of the organisations responsible for clearing up fly tipping that whilst public rights of way cross private property the paths themselves are, in legal terms, “public places”, and should be looked after accordingly. Regarding abandoned cars, whilst there is a role for the district councils in removing them, there are also practical steps that may be taken by the county council to prevent illicit vehicular access to non-vehicular highways. 13.5 Unwelcoming paths People might not use paths if they are unwelcoming whether the problem is the condition of the route, lack of sign posting, poor lighting or fear of attack. Well-used routes, particularly surfaced routes in the urban fringe, will be perceived as being safer than those where people are seldom seen, and this, in turn, increases the confidence of local people in using them. Frequency of use can be increased, not just by creating or maintaining routes, but also by improving the quality and the attractiveness of their surroundings. 13.6 Road Safety It is critical that the development of the network takes into account the personal and road safety of users as these issues can form a barrier to access. This reflects earlier consultation within the ROWIP, which noted that people were concerned about crime along some paths and that vandalism is a problem in some areas. In terms of road safety, community consultation for the ROWIP identified a real desire on the part of users to see improved crossings over the major roads. 13.7 Crime concerns of land managers The impact of crime and issues that affect the quality of life in rural Gloucestershire are well documented. Current advice focuses on preventative measures, which could be adopted by land managers to reduce the risk of interference and vandalism. Measures include use of

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )60

physical barriers, erection of warning signs, closing barn and shed doors, managing machinery and equipment, monitoring of livestock, protection of haystacks and prevention of fly tipping. Wildlife crimes, such as hare coursing and poaching, are also noted as a key concern, and land managers are advised to contact the police wildlife liaison officer should these illegal activities arise. This advice helps to reduce land manager concerns, thereby reducing conflict between them and legitimate users of access. 13.8 Vandalism It is sometimes difficult to know whether some of the damage caused to path furniture, e.g. a stile handpost or a roadside signpost hit by a hedge flail, is accidental or deliberate, either way the effects are the same. In financial terms vandalism of path furniture creates a significant drain on resources. Land managers also suffer the effects of vandalism of their own property, e.g. broken down walls and damaged gates. Whoever it is caused by and who ever has to pick up the bill for remedying the problem it is clear that vandalism is wholly unacceptable. 13.9 Functional use of PROW Paths are not just for recreation. They can also be used to provide safe, traffic-free routes to schools, for shopping and commuting. There is a need for a safe integrated transport network throughout Gloucestershire linked to the wider public rights of way network. There should be greater efforts to promote the personal transport benefits of using the public rights of way network and rather than solely focus on recreational use. The Department of Transport document ‘Developing a Walking Strategy’ identified vehicle speed, increased traffic flow and fears for personal security as major deterrents to journeys on foot in built up areas. Paths can provide traffic-free routes for pedestrians. The presence of other users on these routes also contributes to a feeling of safety and security, which in turn leads to increased levels of usage. 13.10 Safe Routes to Schools Providing opportunities for children to walk or cycle to school safely provides an opportunity for exercise and can help to establish good habits which will be continued into later life. Children walking or cycling to school can also reduce the traffic pressures on the roads near to their school, with both safety and environmental benefits. There have already been ‘safe routes to school’ Initiatives in parts of Gloucestershire. An opportunity exists to develop the concept in other parts of the access network. 13.11 Integration of routes It is important that the pedestrian, cycle and horse riding routes are integrated with the road network. This means ensuring that the path network is cohesive and that where a route has to cross a busy road a safe crossing point is provided. It also means provision of well maintained verges for horse riders and walkers especially where this provides links between sections of the public rights o way network. The danger to pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders from traffic is very real and it is important to reduce the risks. Access needs to be considered in the context of the Local Transport Plan. Where new developments are planned with increased traffic implications, their impact on any existing paths or road crossing points should be considered Users felt that there is a need to reduce the negative effects of traffic on walkers, horse riders and cyclists throughout the county. For example, horse riders pointed out that riding schools and livery stables require safe access to the public rights of way network and wider countryside away from busy roads.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )61

13.12 Community safety and the new access rights To safeguard land management interests, the CROW Act 2000 allows land managers some latitude to manage when people exercise the right of access through restrictions on “open country” access land. People should not interfere with farming and forestry operations and it is anticipated that in most cases, there will not be a need for any action on the landowner’s part. But where it is important for people not to proceed, whilst an operation is underway, then landowners can advise people not to exercise their right of access by advertising the fact in advance and putting up signs and/or providing temporary diversions. This does not mean that for every farming or forestry operation, regardless of the place, landowners must inform the public or provide alternative routes. Generally, the higher the levels of access likely to be experienced or the more hazardous the operation, the more information should be provided to the public and the greater the need to make available alternative routes. Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 landowners have a duty, as far as is reasonably practicable, to ensure that the public are not exposed to any risks to their health and safety. This obligation does not change with the new rights of access arising from the CROW Act 2000. In undertaking risk assessments, landowners will need to identify what risks might arise by considering the nature of public access and how any operation they might be proposing might affect it. Health and Safety is a high priority for the county council and it is keen to be seen to comply with the requirements of health and safety legislation. It must be recognised that a sensible balance has to be struck between reducing unacceptable risks to officers and visitors, and managing those features of the public rights of way and access land network that make accessing the countryside enjoyable. 13.13 Community safety - key issues identified

• Paths are not just for recreation. They can also be used to provide safe, traffic-free routes to schools, for shopping and commuting.

• The Local Transport Plan aims to make it easier and safer to get around locally by walking.

• The Local Transport Plan aims to reduce the number of accidents in the county by implementing traffic calming initiatives.

• The Health and Safety Policy for the PROW Team needs to be reviewed. • Community safety is an issue of major public concern, it is central to people’s quality of

life. • Abandoned cars and fly tipping, dog waste and litter are having a detrimental impact on

local communities’ quality of life and the capacity of farmers and land managers to operate efficiently.

• Opportunities for certain types of crime may be reduced by intervention by various agencies, and there is wide scope for partnership working.

• The sheer scale of the public rights of way network and access land means that it cannot be constantly wardened or monitored.

• Crime and perceptions of crime can be deterrents to access. Well-used routes will be perceived as being safer.

• Fly tipping, off-road biking, and damage caused by off-road vehicles and speeding traffic are a real concern to residents and businesses in the county.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )62

13.14 Community safety - action proposals Action Proposal 1 Seek to ensure that planning authorities properly integrate and upgrade paths, using the principles of good design (e.g. wide paths, well lit with well maintained margins) that are affected by development thereby avoiding the creation of new opportunities for crime to take place. Action Proposal 2 User safety will continue to be a high priority in the management of public rights of way, but in the absence of significant additional resources the routine inspection of the entire 3400 miles network is not currently a realistic prospect. However, it is recognised that this limitation will need to periodically reviewed and resourcing opportunities sought to enable regular network inspections, for example 20% per annum, to be undertaken. Action Proposal 3 Work with other service providers, local communities and the police to deal with specific problem areas and define appropriate solutions. Action Proposal 4 Where resources are made available, work with schools to develop “Safer Routes to Schools” projects. Action Proposal 5 Ensure that user needs are taken into consideration when highway schemes impact on the public rights of way network, where necessary improving road crossing points, visibility splays etc. Action proposal 6 Encourage Network Rail to undertake safety audits of public rights of way crossing points on the railway network, and to prioritise any potential risk reduction measures, or where necessary utilise the powers that exist to divert or extinguish paths.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )63

SECTION 14. SOCIAL INCLUSION AND ACCESS FOR ALL 14.1 Social inclusion and access for all duties, powers and policies. Duties • To have regard to the needs of people with mobility problems when

authorising stiles, etc, [CROW 2000 section 69*]. (Not in force at time of printing – expected to be commenced in 2005).

• HA 1980 section147 to ensure that no undue interference is caused to users by the construction of a new stile gate or other work erected across a public footpath for certain reasons.

• To have regard to the needs of disabled and blind persons in executing street works, [HA 1980 section175A].

• Disability Discrimination Act 1995: As a service provider to have reasonable regard to the needs of disabled users when providing services.

• Race Relations Act 1976 section19B, (RRA76), as amended (1). It is unlawful for a public authority in carrying out any functions of the authority to do any act which constitutes discrimination.

• RRA 1976 section 71(1)(b). Every body shall, in carrying out its functions, have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups

Powers

• To improve highways, [HA 1980 section 62]. • To provide on a footpath safety barriers for safeguarding persons using

the highway [HA 1980 section 66; amended CROW 2000 section 70*]. • To widen highways [HA 1980 section72]. • Local Government Act 2000 section 2(1) Every local authority has the

power to do anything which they consider is likely to achieve any one or more of the following objects: (a) the promotion or improvement of the economic well-being of their area; (b) the promotion or improvement of the social well-being of their area, and; (c) the promotion or improvement of the environmental well-being of their area.


• Social inclusion • Fairness and diversity







• Maintenance and Improvement - Manage maintain and improve the transport network to meet local transport needs more effectively for all users.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )64

14.2 Legal duties with respect to people with mobility impairment and specific needs Section 69 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act places a duty on the authority to have regard to the needs of people with mobility problems when authorising the erection of barriers on footpaths or bridleways, under section 147 of the Highways Act 1980. It empowers the council to make agreements with owners, lessees and occupiers of land for works to replace or improve structures, such as stiles or gates, to make them safer or more convenient for people with mobility problems. This amendment to the Highways Act 1980 reflects the practice over recent years of many authorities, including Gloucestershire County Council. If you are a provider of goods, facilities or services you have duties under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), which makes it unlawful to discriminate against members of the public on the grounds of disability. These duties came into force from 2 December 1996 on a phased basis and apply to the county council in its provision of a range of facilities. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act specifically requires the county council to assess the needs of blind or partially sighted people and others with mobility problems. Local authorities also have duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. People with mobility problems can include the elderly, people with disabilities or those with young children and pushchairs. Family and friends who accompany people with mobility problems are also affected by the accessibility of the network.

14.3 DEFRA announced a Rural Strategy during 2004 which is intended to set the framework for the Government’s rural policy for the next 3-5 years. It states that the vision of a living, working, protected and vibrant countryside remains at the heart of rural policy. The Rural Strategy 2004 identifies three key priorities for rural policy:

• Economic and Social Regeneration • Social Justice for All • Enhancing the Value of our Countryside

Sustainable development underpins all of these policies and their delivery arrangements.

14.4 The Disability Discrimination Act places duties on all service providers to accommodate these aspirations. The Act does not require the county council to change the nature of its business but does require that we operate equitably and without discrimination against people with disabilities. Research indicates that one in five adults has some form of disability, while one in 20 children do. 14.5 The inclusion of this section within the improvement plan is as a result of a clear need to express specific intentions with regard to the provision of services for people with disabilities. There are five key reasons for this:

• Reversing exclusion: recognising the nature of previous exclusion from some services for many people with disabilities and adopting the social model of disability by seeing that it is the environment and its management that must accommodate their needs

• Raising expectations: for many people the countryside and heritage sites may have not been a choice due to a perception of natural barriers to access and without an understanding of the degree to which it has been, and continues to be, ‘managed’ for access and recreation

• Managing change: the inclusion of explicit statements on the improvements to accessibility will more clearly demonstrate to users, land managers and officers the recognition of barriers and the intention to remove them

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )65

• Accountability: published, explicit policies tell customers and partners about our intentions and provide a basis for measurement of delivery and success,

• Duty: legislation requires the justification of policy. Clearly understood policies which have been consulted upon provide evidence of reasonable and accountable action.

14.6 In the context of the above, what do we hope to achieve?

• Ensure disabled people have choices in where, and how, they will be able to enjoy the countryside and heritage

• Aim to offer integrated countryside and site access wherever possible • Ensure that we strive to assess, improve and re-promote access to sites and the wider

countryside.

14.7 Social exclusion is the result of a number of factors, which combine to prevent individuals from benefiting from the opportunities that most people take for granted. These factors include low income, poor health, inadequate housing, lack of education and training, difficulties in reaching services and no involvement in decisions, which affect their future. 14.8 Gloucestershire is a relatively wealthy county but has very significant areas of deprivation in parts of Gloucester and Cheltenham and the Forest of Dean. Pockets of deprivation can also be found right across the county sometimes hidden in rural villages, which might appear wealthy on the outside at first glance. More details of quality of life indicators and data on multiple deprivations can be found in the appendices of the Gloucestershire Community Strategy. 14.9 Working to enable social inclusion and ‘access for all’ is an important element of Gloucestershire County Council’s Corporate Plan and is incorporated as a key principle in the “Improving Customer Access” programme. The traditional barriers to enjoying the countryside, heritage and environment, including wildlife and nature, can be often seen as:

• Unemployment and poverty • Lack of private transport • Lack of information about what is available • Lack of public transport or lack of confidence in the services provided • Scared of the unknown • ‘Not for me’. • Cultural reasons

14.10 Historically the county council’s PROW team has had limited experience of developing positive programmes to address these issues although various initiatives are now taking place as a result of recommendations in the 2003 Best Value Review of PROW and Countryside Sites. These initiatives are important but cannot be seen as a ‘quick fix.’ Such initiatives need to be funded for a sustained period to give local people an opportunity to experience public rights of way and to develop confidence. The key issue here is one of access to resources, typically staff and finance. 14.11 It is also important to recognise recent research which shows that people do indeed value their local environment and use public rights of way, for walking to the corner shop, going to church, visiting the pub, enjoying nearby woods and local open spaces, which are neither designated nor special in a conventional sense. In developing policies for social inclusion, there is a need to find a way to understand what interests local people and determine what they really care for and value. 14.12 There is also a need to ensure a strategic approach, working with other local councils, Forest Enterprise, Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust, the National Trust and local community groups to map, assess and promote existing access and to assist in the process of identifying new access and finance for future improvements.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )66

14.13 Diversity DEFRA’s Rural White Paper ‘Our countryside: the future’ in 2000 promised a diversity review of how to encourage more people with disabilities, more people from the ethnic minorities, more people from the inner cities, and more young people to visit the countryside and participate in country activities. As a result, the Countryside Agency commissioned a report on the subject that led to the production of an evaluation framework and toolkit directed at countryside managers, (Countryside Agency CRN75/Feb 2004 and CRN90 Dec 2004). This was followed earlier in 2005 by a series of roadshows provided by the Countryside Agency to encourage the approaches to social inclusion set out in these documents. 14.14 Establishing liaison and networking arrangements Initial consultation with a range of stakeholders in the production of this draft Rights of Way Improvement Plan has identified a number of groups representing the interests of disabled people through out the county. The contact details of these groups have been recorded on a stakeholder’s database. Contacts have been made with Gloucestershire Lifestyles, a registered charity working to create opportunities for people with disabilities, and the Gloucestershire Arthritis Trust. Initial discussions suggest a strong desire to be involved in making positive contributions to the Improvement Plan. In addition, the county council is able to consult staff within the authority, other local authorities and agencies in the county. These include social services, disability information officers, disability access advisors, (employed by district planning authorities), local disability information and advice line, and the Council for Voluntary Services. The Gloucestershire Local Access Forum, as an independent advisory group, is also in a position to further explore access issues for people with disabilities. 14.15 Social inclusion and access for all - key issues identified

• Structures such as stiles and gates are the statutory responsibility of the landowner and as a consequence any improvement on public rights of way must be done with their consent. On all sites, but particularly publicly owned sites, consideration should always be given to the least restrictive option when replacing structures or reviewing accessibility.

• Roadside signarms should take into account the needs of the partially sighted user by being provided in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2003.

• When structures, e.g. ramps or flights of steps, are installed on paths the least restrictive option should always be the aim, but taking into account the type of path and surrounding land use and any relevant consents required.

• The type of structures installed on public rights of way and on access land should be reviewed when opportunities arise in order to ensure that where possible they are the most accessible options / designs available on the market.

• The landscape and character of open countryside and the public rights of way network can mean that some areas are remote and hilly, reducing (although not preventing) the number of people with mobility difficulties that can gain access.

• Impact of new central government policies and agendas regarding social inclusion where it is now being given high status.

• Lack of funding to support new inclusive approaches to facilitate wider use of public rights of way.

• Need for dedicated staff time and resources over a long period of time to sustain social inclusion efforts which funding sources do not always recognise.

• Make all our public rights of way resources such as information, routes and sites more accessible to the whole community.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )67

• Public rights of way by their very nature generally cross farmland. This is a working landscape and parts of the network are regularly affected by the weather and farming practices. Improvements to sites and public rights of way are constrained by the amount of funding available; funding must be targeted at areas of high need and demand.

• Very little is known, by either by the public or by access managers, about the quality of the existing access resource, both public rights of way and access land.

• Inadequate ‘access for all’ provision and limited or poor quality car parking is an issue for many users with disabilities.

• Accessibility information should be produced for promoted routes developed in the future, in order to ensure prospective users of the countryside have sufficient information, to inform their visit.

14.16 Social inclusion and access for all – action proposals Action Proposal 1 Ensure that all future works on public rights of way, access land and county council owned sites undertaken by the PROW team consider using the “least restrictive” structure, i.e. gap, gate, stile, and encourage landowners and land managers to do likewise. Action Proposal 2 As opportunities allow, work with representatives of local disability groups and access professionals to evaluate proposals and to carry out local access audits. Action Proposal 3 As resources allow, carry out a phased accessibility audit of access land and prepare action plans for improvement and promotion. Action Proposal 4 Work with partners to promote the accessibility of routes and sites to people with limited mobility. Action Proposal 6 As resources allow and opportunities arise, to review existing sites and public rights of way structures and promotional material, and develop specific programmes which address the needs of social inclusion.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )68

SECTION 15. HEALTH PROMOTION 15.1 The benefits of regular exercise to people are clear. Public rights of way and open spaces have an important part to play as a resource for people wanting to exercise through sport, play and recreation. Outdoor access provides excellent opportunities for people to be more active and so reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease, obesity and associated illnesses, which are costly to the health service. There is also evidence that public rights of way can relieve stress and contribute to a feeling of well-being and happiness. Informal use of public rights of way can play an important part in meeting the Department of Health “Game Plan” targets. New health initiatives might provide opportunities to try and secure alternative funding to improve routes for recuperative and preventative exercise and sport. 15.2 Health promotion – duties, powers and policies. Duties Powers












15.3 Problems associated with physical inactivity Physical inactivity is a major contributor to many forms of ill health. Inactive people have double the risk of coronary heart disease and up to three times the risk of stroke. Together, heart disease and stroke account for 35% of all deaths. The Department of Health in 1999 recognised “these diseases kill more commonly than any others, can strike within minutes and single out people in their prime as well as later life”. The National Audit Office has estimated that heart disease and stroke “cost the National Health Service £500 million and £1.6 billion per annum respectively”. The WHO (World Health Organisation) recommends regular walking to promote

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )69

“good health, fitness and mental well being”. 15.4 Choosing Health The Government has published a white paper on improving public health in England. Entitled ‘Choosing Health’, it aims to make it easier for people to change their lifestyle so they eat more healthily, exercise more and smoke less. While people in the southwest of England tend to be slightly healthier than the rest of England, the latest statistics highlight why it is so important to focus on improving people’s health and well-being:

• 27% of people smoke and 3300 will die each year due to smoking related disease in Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire;

• The proportion of obese children aged 6-15 years has doubled; • 41.7% of people in Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire are now classified as obese or

overweight. (source: NHS West Gloucestershire Primary Care Trust magazine “Look West” Issue 14 Dec 2004) 15.5 Healthy Walks Register A “Healthy Walks” register is one way of promoting easy access to the countryside for local people. Access land will offer additional opportunities for healthy walking and any healthy walks register should also provide information about the availability of such sites to the less able bodied in particular. 15.6 Health promotion - key issues identified

• A healthy walks initiative has to be well-resourced, but has the potential to save costs in terms of healthcare;

• Active lifestyles should be promoted especially to hard to reach groups where they live; • Health workers, community development officers and sports development officers can

play an important part in encouraging and supporting active life styles • A healthy walks register including information about opportunities for access to access

land should be produced where funding is available and made available to primary care trusts, doctor’s surgeries, etc. to help promote the initiative.

15.7 Health promotion – action proposals Action Proposal 1 Work with Primary Care Trusts to provide guidance and support to the annual Gloucestershire Strolling Festival. Action Proposal 2 As resources allow, work with GP practices, community development workers, social services and sports development officers to promote and support participation in active lifestyle initiatives, including continuing to support those who are developing and promoting new health walks across the county.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )70

SECTION 16. LAND MANAGER LIAISON 16.1 Gloucestershire’s countryside is a working dynamic place with the landscape enjoyed by many and the product of the efforts of many generations of landowners and managers. These landowners and managers have an important part to play in protecting and maintaining access to the countryside whether through the statutory path network or permissive access. 16.2 Land manager liaison – duties, powers and policies. Duties • Highway authority shall contribute towards the cost incurred by owners

in maintaining stiles and gates, (HA 1980, section 146(4). Powers












16.3 Land manager support Support of land managers is essential to facilitate any improvements that might arise from the ROWIP. Any future improvements to the public rights of way network will require the support and understanding of local landowners and managers and specific liaison will take place. Gloucestershire County Council will secure improvements to the public rights of way network by agreement wherever possible. There are now regular opportunities to talk to land management representatives about countryside access matters through their participation on the Gloucestershire Local Access Forum.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )71

Users are often keen to see landscape features protected, including those associated with public rights of way, such as old hedges and trees, hollow ways, wide verges and countryside furniture. 16.4 Permissive and statutory access Some users felt that more permissive access should be provided. Others felt that access should always be a legal right and that there should not be too great a reliance placed on permissive agreements. The CROW Act provides incentives to create new access land. Further, future changes in financial support and agri-environment schemes may encourage landowners to provide a range of new access opportunities. 16.5 Integrating agricultural management and public access Land managers are concerned about integrating cropping/cultivation and livestock management with public access on their land. Dog walkers felt that there was a need to inform users of the likely presence of livestock on a route well in advance so they could take appropriate control of their pets or possibly use an alternative route. Both horse riders and dog owners experienced conflicts with grazing horses where bridleways pass through paddocks. For some users these conflicts with livestock were more difficult to deal with than overgrown vegetation or obstructions. 16.6 The new countryside code The new Countryside Code launched in July 2004 is an important vehicle for working with landowners and users to resolve access conflicts. The new code has three key points for landowners and five for visitors; it promotes a sense of shared responsibility. 16.7 The county council’s rural estates A survey of the condition of public rights of way on the county council’s rural estates in spring 2004 found that a significant number of paths were not ‘easy to use’ and that work was needed to bring about improvements in the management of these paths. This aims to build on work done with the county council’s rural team in the mid 1990’s to raise awareness of public rights of way among new and existing tenant farmers. 16.8 Land manager liaison - key issues identified

• Need to promote landowners’ responsibilities through good quality information provision • Need for good liaison • Joint working to improve network • Encourage new access provision particularly to access land through permissive and

agri-environment schemes where opportunities arise 16.9 Land manager liaison – action proposals Action Proposal 1 Assist land managers with suitable signage to help manage existing access opportunities. (e.g. provision of ‘dogs under control’ signs). Action Proposal 2 Gloucestershire County Council as a significant rural estate owner will work closely with its tenant farmers in improving the public rights of way network on the council’s rural estate. Action Proposal 3

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )72

Raise landowner’s and land manager’s awareness of the importance of public rights of way and public access to land, and where opportunities and resources allow, work with them to develop new access schemes.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )73

SECTION 17. PARTNERSHIP WORKING AND SHARED PRIORITIES 17.1 Key strands The delivery of a final ROWIP process and any future implementation will be dependent on the county council working with others and developing effective partnerships at many levels. There is a need to recognise the importance of identifying shared priorities with a wide range of partners, including the Forestry Commission, the Cotswold Water Park, all three Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Sustrans, the Severn Estuary Partnership, the Cotswolds Canal Trust and many others. It is proposed that the final ROWIP will include a more comprehensive section on partnership working and shared priorities. 17.2 Partnership working – duties, powers and policies. Duties • To establish a Local Access Forum (CROW2000 s94)

Powers • Gloucestershire Corporate Strategy









• Safety - Reduce the number and severity of road accidents; and improve personal security to reduce the fear or crime particularly for users of public transport, pedestrians and cyclists.



�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )74

17.3 Working with other “environmental” organisations One of Gloucestershire’s strengths is the number of organisations interested in the environment. The county council already works in partnership with various groups, e.g. district and town and parish councils, the National Trust, Cotswold Water Park, Cotswold Canals Trust, Severn Estuary Partnership, Stroud Valleys Project, along with a range of local user bodies. They help deliver the council’s targeted outputs in a wide range of countryside activities, including developing recreational routes, managing and developing sites and access land, rural regeneration, tourism, promotion and conservation tasks. In addition to having local knowledge and skills, some of these organisations have access to funding streams unavailable to local authorities. It is essential that these organisations work together with the county council to maximise opportunities and effort. 17.4 Working with neighbouring authorities The Gloucestershire ROWIP actions will need to be linked to those of neighbouring authorities where appropriate since improvements have to be made across boundaries. Neighbouring highway authorities include: Monmouthshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Oxfordshire, Wiltshire, Swindon and South Gloucestershire. In addition in some cases, it will be appropriate to work with local authorities, government agencies and other organisations on a regional basis. 17.5 Working with local businesses There are considerable opportunities to work with local businesses in Gloucestershire to enhance, develop and improve access provision. There are mutual benefits and this could go some way to making a real contribution to the rural economy and improving the recreational experiences for many users. 17.6 Partnership working and shared priorities - key issues identified

• Partnerships can play an important role in deliver the county council’s objectives • Partners have a potentially important role in developing and implementing the final

ROWIP • There is a continuing need for co-ordinated action across local authority boundaries • There could be benefits in developing partnership working with businesses

17.7 Partnership working and shared priorities – action proposals Action Proposal 1 Help co-ordinate partnership working including fostering existing and developing new partnerships. Action Proposal 2 Work in partnership with neighbouring and other local authorities, agencies and organisations to ensure a co-ordinated approach and aid the delivery of shared priorities whether at a local or regional level Action Proposal 3 Work with partners and other council directorates to ensure the ROWIP is, where possible and appropriate, synchronised and incorporated with other appropriate strategies.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )75

SECTION 18. VOLUNTARY INVOLVEMENT AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 18.1 Key strands This aspect of the plan relates to establishing partnerships and developing links with, and supporting local communities. This can be broken down into: community schemes, such as parish and town council initiatives; countryside management projects; and voluntary organisations. Specific groups include the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, the Cotswolds Voluntary Wardens Service, the North Dean Rights of Way Association, the Newent Initiative, the Ramblers Association work parties, and Tewkesbury Walking Club. 18.2 Volunteer involvement and Community participation – duties, powers and policies. Duties • To establish a Local Access Forum [CROW 2000 section 94]. Powers • Gloucestershire Corporate Strategy











18.3 Value of local partnerships We see great value in entering into local partnerships, which can be an effective vehicle to achieve the enhancement of the local environment. They offer:

• A means to establish better communications with local people and engender goodwill • Access to funding sources • Ensure long term sustainability of the resource • Galvanise voluntary effort • Increase public awareness, commitment and action • Makes use of local skills, knowledge, expertise and contacts

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )76

• Gives people greater control over decisions about their environment and creates solutions, which reflect community need.

18.4 Parish Paths Partnership Examples of schemes that have been broadly successful over the last ten years include the Parish Paths Partnership, where we worked directly with local communities via town and parish councils. The Parish Paths Partnership operated from 1992 to 1998 and included 120 parish and town councils. It provided grants, training and support to voluntary parish groups to enable them to assist in the management of the public rights of way network (e.g. building stiles, waymarking, guided walks and leaflet preparation). 18.5 Environmental Groups The county council has worked closely over recent years with environmental groups, e.g. The British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust, and the Cotswold Voluntary Warden Service. All these groups can help deliver our shared priorities, provide expert advice and support and in some cases provide a direct link with the local community. 18.6 User Groups A number of specific user groups assist on a regular basis with practical path maintenance and improvement works. These groups include the North Dean Rights of Way Association, the Ramblers Association work party’s, and Tewkesbury Walking Club. 18.7 General Community Support An important part of the community role of the county council is to provide technical information, guidance and other support with funding applications e.g. LHI grants coupled with, where appropriate, grants, match funding and training. This can enhance the knowledge, skills and capacity of local communities in taking forward access improvement projects in their localities. At the moment, much of this support is ‘passive’ through directing people to sources of information and advice, other bodies and examples of good practice. The people of Gloucestershire must be kept well informed on the progress of the ROWIP process and be given opportunities to make their own inputs through the subsequent consultation process. Information must be made available through websites and other appropriate public information points. 18.8 Voluntary involvement and community participation - key issues identified

• Improve communication with Parish Councils • Seek adequate resources • Encourage, support and celebrate the work of volunteers through publicity, activities,

events and grants • Partnership working to achieve mutual goals • Parish Council groups can play an important part in the development of local/community

access improvements.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )77

18.9 Voluntary involvement and community participation – action proposals Action Proposal 1 Encourage, support and celebrate the work of volunteers through provision of tools and training, activities, and grants. Action Proposal 2 Support community groups in accessing funds and developing projects, which accord with shared priorities.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )78

SECTION 19. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND REGENERATION 19.1 Public rights of ray can be seen as an integral part of economic development in Gloucestershire. Outdoor access opportunities which are linked to local communities are usually more sustainable as these are used by both local people and visitors. Public rights of way opportunities linked to economic development should be well integrated with sustainable transport networks to make them more accessible. This in turn works towards tackling unemployment and fighting poverty as direct spending by public rights of way users results in spending multipliers, which filter through the local economy in many ways. Ultimately improved public rights of way could result in increased inward investment in the county. 19.2 Economic development and regeneration – duties, powers and policies. Duties • Powers

• Local Government Act 2000 section 2(1). Every local authority has the power to do anything which they consider is likely to achieve any one or more of the following objects: the promotion or improvement of the economic well-being of their area, (etc)








• Environment - Reduce air and noise pollution and the harmful physical impacts of transport on both the natural and built environment.



19.3 Gloucestershire First Gloucestershire First is a countywide economic partnership established to maintain a sustainable environment in which businesses can flourish and grow. The Gloucestershire First Strategy states the following: Gloucestershire has a strong overall economy and it is already a very attractive and popular inward investment location, especially for the following key sectors (in alphabetical order): Advanced Engineering, Aerospace, Biotech and Environmental Engineering, Finance and Business Services, Food Supply Chain, Leisure and Tourism, Marine Engineering. Gloucestershire’s local authorities have identified the following sectors as being the most important to the county as a whole (in rank order): Leisure and Tourism; Aerospace; Finance and Business Services, (including ICT); Advanced Engineering.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )79

Each individual local authority has targeted key investment sectors: Cheltenham: Aerospace, finance and business services, leisure and tourism Cotswolds: Finance and business services, leisure and tourism Forest of Dean: Aerospace, advanced engineering, leisure and tourism Gloucester: Aerospace, advanced engineering, biotech and environmental engineering, finance and business services, leisure and tourism Stroud: Aerospace, advanced engineering, biotech and environmental engineering, leisure and tourism Tewkesbury: Aerospace, advanced engineering, finance and business services, leisure and tourism, food supply chain Gloucestershire First is the public and private sector marketing partnership charged with attracting these targeted inward investment sectors to Gloucestershire. 19.4 Sustainable tourism initiatives The impact of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in 2001 resulted in a realisation by government that the rural economy was facing many challenges. Many organisations, national, regional and local are now working to develop tourism opportunities to help revitalise the rural economy. The challenge is to increase the amount of money being spent in rural Gloucestershire and then to ensure that this income is recycled locally. Particularly on those locally sourced supplies and services by local businesses. Sustainable tourism initiatives are being developed which conserve and promote the value of the landscape features, which are enjoyed by visitors. These features make up the local distinctiveness, which attracts visitors and enables the attractions and landscape to be branded. Through sustainable tourism, efforts are being made to reduce car use, encourage the development of green businesses and promote quiet recreational opportunities, which are appropriate to the area. The three national trails that pass through Gloucestershire, and in particular the Cotswold Way, can have a positive effect on the rural economy and bring economic benefits to local communities along the route. Wide economic benefits can be generated through more investment in walking networks. In addition the quality of recreational access in the three AONBs, the Cotswold Water Park, the Forest of Dean and along the Stroudwater and Cotswold Canals all have a very significant, but probably largely unquantifiable effect on the local economy. It is vital to make appropriate links with the many organisations involved with developing and marketing Gloucestershire’s varied countryside and promote local public rights of way as a key asset for informal outdoor recreation and tourism in the county. In September 2003, the Ramblers Association published the report of Mike Christie and Jon Matthews on “The economic and social value of walking in England”. Their report based on available existing research from sources such as the Audit Commission, National Public Rights of Way Condition Survey and the UK Day Visitors survey found that over 527 million estimated walking trips were made annually in England with associated spending valued at over £6.14 billion. The income generated by this spending is estimated to be between £1.4 billion and £2.7 billion and supports between 180,559 and 245,560 full time equivalent jobs. 19.5 Economic development and regeneration - key issues identified

• Promote Gloucestershire as a desirable destination in its own right for visitors.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )80

• Local authorities in Gloucestershire have all identified leisure and tourism as key areas for investment.

• Need to retain and recycle visitor spending in the Gloucestershire rural economy • Development of the Cotswold Way National Trail corridor to stimulate rural economic

development. • Shortage of overnight accommodation for visitors in some parts of Gloucestershire • Caravan and campsites aimed at tourers are in short supply in the county. • There has to be a better provision of suitable low cost accommodation for young people

using the countryside such as campsites, bunk barns and hostels. • There should be more sustainable tourism initiatives linked to public rights of way in

Gloucestershire. • Rural businesses should be developed and supported which are better matched to

current and possible future user needs. • Tourism as a whole in the county could certainly benefit from better links to more public

rights of way to increase the diversity of recreational experiences available to users. • Need for more practical help such as increased financial support, advice, training or

grant schemes for landowners wishing to diversify their businesses and offer new opportunities to increase outdoor access for all.

• More support from local authorities throughout the county for landowners and rural businesses wishing to diversify into providing additional countryside access and recreation opportunities.

• Need to provide a range of basic facilities for walkers, cyclists, horse riders, carriage drivers and their horses plus motorised vehicle users near to pubs, shops, cafés or overnight accommodation in the countryside.

19.6 Economic development and regeneration – action proposals Action Proposal 1 Work with Gloucestershire First and local businesses to develop sustainable tourism opportunities. Action Proposal 2 Use a range of promotional and marketing tools to carry the Gloucestershire brand identity Action Proposal 3 Use public rights of way network signage where resources are identified, and associated promotional material to direct visitors to rural tourist destinations. Action Proposal 4 Support the promotion of rural businesses through the Gloucestershire First network close to main promoted walking and riding/cycling routes. Develop mutual marketing opportunities. Action Proposal 5 Support work to identify existing and new funding streams which could be used to offer financial incentives for land managers to provide improved access on their land Action Proposal 6 Gloucestershire local authorities to be encouraged to develop policies and practices which recognise the value of access and recreation to the rural economy and enable landowners to maximise their business opportunities.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )81

SECTION 20. PERMISSIVE COUNTRYSIDE ACCESS 20.1 Permissive access in the countryside - duties, powers and policies. Duties • None Powers

• The Public Health and Open Spaces Act 1906 enabled local authorities to purchase any land as public open space.

• CA1968 section 7 allows local authorities to purchase and provide country parks.

• District councils were given a role in respect of the provision of such amenities, (NPACA 1949 section 76).

• District authorities may also provide and manage car parks and picnic sites, (CA 1968 section10), and may be involved in managing registered commons

• Commons with no registered owner may be ‘protected against unlawful interference’ by any local authority, in effect acting as a substitute for a landowner.




• Learning and opportunity for all • Living life to the full • A better environment • Thriving communities






20.2 Permissive access on county council managed sites The county council manages a suite of five countryside sites ranging from the largest, Crickley Hill Country Park, that attracts in excess of 750,000 people a year, to the picnic areas at Kilkenny and Coaley Peak. They represent an important and very high profile part of the wider county estate. These sites have been acquired over a period of 40 years for a variety of reasons which includes protection of important, rare and threatened species and habitats, protection of historic sites and to provide public access to, and experience and enjoyment of, wildlife, heritage and countryside. Similar to other local authority managed sites within the county, these areas play an important role in demonstrating integrated environmental management in practice, protecting and conserving the heritage and ecology, as well as providing good public access. The 2002 PROW and Countryside Sites Best Value Review reviewed the management of the county council sites and consideration was given to seeing whether any other organisations would be better placed to manage these areas of land for public access. However, of the potential candidates identified none felt they were in a position to take on all the associated

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )82

liabilities. The review also recommended considering passing the responsibility for the management of these sites to the PROW team. However, at the present time this has not been taken forward. 20.3 Other permissive access in the county Permissive area access is also a feature of a large number of other sites across the county. Environmental landowners and managers, including the Forestry Commission, Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust, the National Trust and the Woodland Trust, have substantial holdings that they make available to the public, with varying levels of statutory and permissive access. In the case of the Forestry Commission, (by far the largest owner of land available for public access in the county), their current intention is to dedicate much of their holding as access land. There are a significant range of specific sites throughout the county, including by way of example: Woodchester House and Park managed by the National Trust; areas of woodland at Kings Stanley, along the Wye Valley west of Newland, and near Coberley owned and managed by the Woodland Trust; Robinswood Hill Country Park and parts of Alney Island and Richards Wood managed by Gloucester City Council; the linear park in Cinderford managed by the Forest of Dean District Council; Leckhampton Hill owned and managed by Cheltenham Borough Council; Highbury Woods near Redbrook managed by English Nature along with several sites looked after principally with conservation interests in mind; Coombe Hill Canal managed by the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust; and Highnam Woods managed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. 20.4 DEFRA schemes DEFRA also engages with local landowners to provide permissive access on a smaller scale through its Countryside Stewardship Scheme. Some 120 areas of land are made available to walkers and/or riders through this initiative. DEFRA is introducing a new scheme, the Environmental Stewardship Scheme as part of its Single Farm Payments initiative which also aims to combine additional public access with environmental improvements. 20.5 Permissive access in the countryside - key issues identified

• The overall suite of countryside and heritage sites within the county is an important asset that influences health and well being, businesses, house prices, tourism and the wider rural economy.

• It is important that the resources are found to develop and manage them to the highest possible standard, that were possible they are provided where they are required to meet market demand, and that they are accessible to as wide a range of the population as is practicable.

20.6 Permissive access in the countryside – action proposals Action Proposal 1 Undertake a strategic review of sites with permissive access and look to disseminate information about permissive access opportunities and levels of accessibility within specific sites.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )83

SECTION 21. SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT 21.1 Key strands Linking town and countryside; public rights of way and local transport; safe routes to schools; parking provision for users; such as encouraging dual use where appropriate, e.g. village hall car parks; producing walking/cycling leaflets that encourage use of public transport rather than car use. 21.2 Overview Gloucestershire lies at the hub of a number of nationally important transport routes between the South West and the Midlands, with the M5 corridor being heavily used, along with the A40 between Gloucester and Cheltenham and Oxford, and the A417/A419 trunk road linking the M5 at Gloucester with the M4 at Swindon. 21.3 The Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan (LTP) The LTP sets out the integrated transport strategy for Gloucestershire and was first prepared in 2001 following publication of the Government's White Paper on Transport, "A New Deal for Transport - Better for Everyone". The Plan covers the period to 2005/06 and considers all modes of transport for the whole of Gloucestershire. In Gloucestershire, transport issues are discussed under the themes of the Central Severn Vale, (stretching between Quedgeley in the south to Bishops Cleeve in the north and taking in the two main urban areas of Cheltenham and Gloucester), the Market Towns and the rural areas. The LTP promotes sustainable transport accessible to all. This means having a transport system which helps provide more prosperity and jobs, tackles social exclusion; and one that doesn't harm people's health and supports a better quality of life, and provides safe and integrated transport networks, which encourages people to choose public transport, to walk and cycle because it becomes more convenient and safer to do so. The ROWIP process has raised an expectation that relevant enhancements to the public rights of way network could be funded via the LTP spending programme. The current intention is that the second LTP will include the final ROWIP as an appendix; there will therefore be a need to ensure that the ROWIP compliments the main aims set out in the LTP. The second LTP will need to incorporate a clearly focussed rural transport strategy. In addition and supporting this approach, the second LTP will be required to demonstrate how the County Council will develop accessibility planning to address social exclusion issues. The aim is to identify where the LTP can improve access to work, school, health facilities and shops on foot, by bike and by public transport. This has clear implications for rural areas and to a degree the role of the public rights of way network. Improvements are being made through greater extent of continuous cycle route networks, creating more enhanced walking routes and conditions, the ability to contribute to developing further bus “quality” partnerships, higher quality safety and management schemes with greater attention to environmental enhancements. The contribution the public rights of way network makes to the sustainable and integrated transport agenda is gaining wider acceptance in Gloucestershire. There is also the need to realise the opportunities that public rights of way can make to providing alternative routes to school and work. The county council operates a number of schemes including ‘Safer Routes to School’ and ‘School and Workplace Travel Plans’. These are designed to encourage a more sustainable approach to accommodate user needs through the current Local Transport Plan. These schemes could benefit from greater use of local public rights of way network.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )84

21.4 Sustainable transport - key issues identified

• There is a need for sustainable transport accessible to all • There is a link to be made between rural transport and public rights of way • Sustainable transport in rural areas can help with economic development and

regeneration • A desire for more public transport which enables people to enjoy linear rather than

circular routes

21.5 Sustainable transport – action proposals Action Proposal 1 Work with LTP team to identify urban links to the PROW network and take advantage of opportunities to improve public rights of way that form part of the wider functional network. Action Proposal 2 Where undertaking or assisting with publicising the PROW network, take up opportunities to encourage people to use more sustainable transport. Action Proposal 3 Work with LTP team where funding streams are identified to create safer routes to school and work. Action Proposal 4 Identify linear routes that can make use of existing public transport and where opportunities arise and resources permit develop and promote them.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )85

SECTION 22. GLOUCESTERSHIRE LOCAL ACCESS FORUM 22.1 Involvement with the ROWIP Gloucestershire County Council is involving the Gloucestershire Local Access Forum (GLAF) in the review of this draft ROWIP. Forum members were first introduced to the ROWIP process in 2003 and were consulted prior to this draft document being put together. Forum members focussed again on the ROWIP at their awareness briefing and associated site visits in September 2004 and were taken to locations around the Cotswold Water Park to look at some of the ongoing improvements that were taking place on the ground and to explore some of the types of issues arising in the context of the ROWIP. However, it should be noted that Forum members have not been given an opportunity to review this draft document prior to it being published. 22.2 Gloucestershire Local Access Forum – the legal framework Duties • Appointing authority (Gloucestershire County Council) to

establish a Local Access Forum [CROW 2000 section 94(1)]. • It is the function of the LAF to advise the appointing authority

(GCC) and the relevant authority, (the Countryside Agency and the Forestry Commission), as to the improvement of public access to land in the area for the purposes of open-air recreation and the enjoyment of the area, and as to other matters as may be prescribed, (CROW 2000 section 94(4)).

• Before giving a direction under section 24, 25 or 26, (to exclude or restrict access to access land), the relevant authority, (i.e. the Countryside Agency or Forestry Commission), shall consult the LAF, (CROW 2000 section 27(1)).

• Access authority to consult the LAF before making bylaws regarding access land, (CROW 2000 section 17(3)).

• Access authority to consult with LAF before appointing persons to act as wardens for access land, (CROW 2000 section18(2)).

• Before preparing or reviewing a ROWIP the access authority shall consult the LAF for the area, (CROW 2000 section 61(e)).

Powers • Gloucestershire Corporate Strategy








�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )86




22.3 The Gloucestershire Local Access Forum assists with dialogue on ROWIP matters through their network of contacts with many national, regional and local organisations. They will continue to inform the information gathering exercise on the extent to which local public rights of way meet the present and likely future needs of the public through their ongoing work. Through their diversity of experience and interests, they provide practical advice on how the network could be improved for different types of users and in the interests of land management. The Forum will also be available to consider issues of access to “open” countryside areas possibly through the creation of new permissive linear routes. They will be there to advise on many other issues in the future which are likely to have an impact on public rights of way in Gloucestershire. The Forum will be a useful sounding board for the county council to use when setting priorities for implementation of the ROWIP and monitoring reviewing progress. They will comment on the published draft ROWIP and they also have a role in the resolution of any conflicts between different representations when the ROWIP is issued for consultation. 22.4 Gloucestershire Local Access Forum - key issues identified

• It is essential that the GLAF “adds value” to the work of the various authorities it advises through its experience of countryside access and land management and user issues.

• The GLAF is well connected on countryside access issues through their extensive network of contacts.

• The GLAF members through their wider networks are able to gain information on current and future user needs and the impacts these could have on land managers.

• The GLAF has much to offer to the development of the ROWIP as it represents a wide range of interests and experiences of access in Gloucestershire.

• The GLAF will be consulted on and advise on issues regarding the new access rights. • The GLAF can use its range of interests and experience to advise on public rights of

way issues. • The GLAF as an independent advisor will be involved in setting priorities and monitoring

implementation of the ROWIP. • The GLAF is an independent advisor and has a potentially important role in resolving

conflicts between different groups. 22.5 Gloucestershire Local Access Forum – action proposals Action Proposal 1 The Public Rights of way team to work closely with the Gloucestershire Local Access Forum on ROWIP matters through their network of contacts with many national, regional and local organisations.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )87

Action Proposal 2 GLAF will continue to inform the information gathering exercise on the extent to which local Public Rights of Way meet the present and likely future needs of the public. Action Proposal 3 To take advantage of practical and strategic advice offered by the GLAF through their diversity of experience and interests on how the network may be improved for different types of users and in the interests of land management. Action Proposal 4 Involve the GLAF in the consideration of issues of access to “open countryside” such as temporary restriction applications. Action Proposal 5 Use the GLAF as a useful sounding board for the Council to use when setting priorities for implementation of the ROWIP and monitoring and reviewing progress. Action Proposal 7 Take note of the advice from the GLAF on the published draft ROWIP and allow it a role in the resolution of any conflicts between different representations. Action Proposal 8 Ensure GLAF is kept up to date with progress on meeting the targets set out in the final ROWIP.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )88

SECTION 23. PLANNING 23.1 Key strands: development opportunities; section106 gain; minerals; public rights of way as part of wider planning process, e.g. the proposed Gloucester Parkway Station; other specific areas subject to major developments, e.g. the Cotswold Water Park. 23.2 Planning – duties, powers and policies Duties • To survey new paths agreed by a planning authority [Highways Act 1980

(HA 1980) section 27]. Powers

• To stop up or divert footpaths or bridleways if satisfied it is necessary to enable development to be carried out, [Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) section 257].

• To stop up or divert footpaths or bridleways temporarily if satisfied it is necessary to enable minerals to be worked and can be restored [TCPA 1990 section 261].










• Safety - Reduce the number and severity of road accidents; and improve personal security to reduce the fear or crime particularly for users of public transport, pedestrians and cyclists.




23.3 Structure Plan The long-term land use and transport policies for the county are set out in Gloucestershire County Council Structure Plan. The county council adopted a Structure Plan in 1999, covering the period to 2011. In 2001, the Council commenced an alteration to a number of policies to

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )89

update this plan, and to extend its life until 2016. The development of this third “alteration” involved extensive consultation with the community of Gloucestershire. A key feature was the ability to accommodate housing growth up to 2016, without the need for Greenbelt intrusion. The Structure Plan provides the framework for the more detailed and site-specific policies in Local Plans, which in turn have a significant impact on the ROWIP. The Structure Plan will be replaced by the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy, (RSS), expected to be finalised in 2007. The county council are, at the time of writing, advising on the Joint Study Area work, which will feed into the Regional Spatial Strategy 23.4 Local Transport Plan The Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan sets out the integrated transport strategy for Gloucestershire and was first prepared in 2001 following publication of the Government's White Paper on Transport "A New Deal for Transport - Better for Everyone". It covers the period from 2001/02 to 2005/06. The LTP replaces the previous TPP (Transport Policies and Programme) and considers a much wider range of issues such as social exclusion, air pollution and new fiscal measures relating to road users. The LTP promotes sustainable transport accessible to all. This means having a transport system which helps provide more prosperity and jobs, tackles social exclusion; and one that doesn't harm people's health and supports a better quality of life, and provide safe and integrated transport networks, which encourage people to choose public transport, to walk and cycle because it becomes more convenient and safer to do so. The county council has set out its approach towards the functional walking and cycling network within the LTP and this will be re-emphasised in the revised LTP. The objectives outlined in the LTP include the following: to control the growth of traffic and encourage the use of non-car modes, while improving transport safety and making the best use of the transport network to assist economic development. In order to measure our progress towards these objectives the LTP includes 26 targets and indicators that will be monitored over the period covered by the plan, and are reported on annually in the Annual Progress Reports (APRs).

With the government linking the LTP and the ROWIP together, it has raised an expectation that significant enhancements to the public rights of way network may be funded via the LTP spending programme. Through the ROWIP the second LTP will reflect the contribution of the public rights of way network in its strategy and scheme programme. The second LTP will need to incorporate a clearly focussed rural transport strategy. In addition and supporting this approach, the second LTP will be required to demonstrate how the county council will develop accessibility planning to address social exclusion issues. The aim is to identify where the LTP can improve access to work, school, health facilities and food shops on foot, by bike and by public transport. This has clear implications for rural areas and the role of the public rights of way network. 23.5 Minerals and Waste Plans (check with Terry Smith and Tony Childs) Gloucestershire County Council, as Mineral Planning Authority (MPA) for Gloucestershire, has prepared a Minerals Local Plan (MLP), which provides the detailed policies to control and guide all current and future mineral development in the County. The MLP was adopted in April 2003 following three draft consultation stages, a Public Local Inquiry in 2000 and subsequent modifications.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )90

In addition, as the Waste Planning Authority (WPA), Gloucestershire County Council is statutorily responsible for preparing a Waste Local Plan. The Waste Local Plan was adopted in October 2004 following three draft consultation stages, a Public Local Inquiry in 2002/3 and two rounds of subsequent modifications. These plans are eventually to be replaced under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. In the first instance a minerals core strategy and a waste core strategy will be prepared. 23.6 Planning – key issues identified • All types of development provide opportunities for network improvement.

• The county council has the chance to maximise the benefit to both local users for provision

of functional routes, e.g. better routes to school and work, and for recreational use where the affected network of public rights of way may be moulded to better serve the needs of both local users and visitors alike.

• The Local Transport Plan process allows for the provision of funding for improved routes to and from workplaces and school, where modal shift can be encouraged as a result.

23.7 Planning – action proposals Action Proposal 1 Take advantage of development to maximise the opportunities for an improved functional and recreational path and cycle track network Action Proposal 2 Take advantage of funding opportunities provided by the Local Transport Plan to improve the condition of the functional public rights of way network. Action Proposal 3 Take advantage of the minerals and waste planning process to improve the network of recreational routes in affected areas for the benefit of all lawful users.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )91

SECTION 24. BIODIVERSITY 24.1 Biodiversity – duties, powers and policies. Duties • To take reasonable steps to further conservation and enhancement of

the defining features of an SSSI, where exercise of its functions is likely to affect those features. CROW 2000 Schedule 9 Para. 28G.

• To notify English Nature before carrying out, or granting permission for the carrying out of operations likely to damage such features; and to comply with certain requirements if it then intends to act otherwise than in accordance with their wishes. CROW 2000 Sch. 9 Para. 28H and 28I.

Powers • To make a diversion order, on application by English Nature, to prevent damage to the defining features of an SSSI. Highways Act 1980 s. 119D, inserted by CROW 2000 Sch. 6 Para 11.

• Local Government Act 2000 section 2(1). Every local authority has the power to do anything which they consider is likely to achieve any one or more of the following objectives: the promotion or improvement of the environmental well-being of their area.












24.2 Biodiversity Action Plan The Gloucestershire Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), produced in partnership with over 200 stakeholders, identified the actions to be taken to improve the future for Gloucestershire's biodiversity. The BAP has obvious links to the ROWIP given the public use and enjoyment of the natural environment. The BAP framework makes use of strong partnerships and shared priorities that already exist and which have the potential to make a positive difference.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )92

Agriculture is the predominant land use in Gloucestershire, and farming practices have a significant effect on biodiversity and countryside access. There are a number of established schemes, for example Countryside Stewardship, that work with the farming community to promote and support wildlife sensitive practices and encourage public access. With the advent of the single-farm payment it appears that environmental aims will continue to take on an even greater priority. New developments planned in the county will place further pressures on existing habitats and access opportunities, but they also provide key opportunities for securing significant areas of habitat for improving biodiversity, which in turn can be enjoyed by members of the public. Both wildlife habitats and the public rights of way network need active management as neglect or poor management can rapidly lead to the loss of biodiversity value and reduce ease of use. 'Wild' areas that benefit biodiversity also enhance our everyday quality of life, providing important leisure and educational resources that are enjoyed by many members of the public. Often when such areas are made accessible for all to enjoy this increases public interest in their future and appreciation of their worth. However, such areas must be managed carefully to avoid negative impacts on their biodiversity. 24.3 Biodiversity – key issues identified • Consultees see conserving the biodiversity of the county as an important issue.

• Biodiversity issues may confer significant constraints on the county council when

considering the improvement of public access along rights of way and to access land. The PROW team must work through the agreed framework to overcome obstacles to progress.

24.4 Biodiversity – action proposals Action Proposal 1 The PROW team will seek to fully meet their responsibilities under the Highways Maintenance Unit Biodiversity Action Plan. Action Proposal 2 The PROW team will work closely with English Nature and the county ecologist on schemes that significantly impact on SSSIs.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )93

SECTION 25. THE STATEMENT OF ACTIONS 25.1 What is the statement of actions? The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 requires every highway authority to “prepare a statement of the actions they propose to take for the management of local public rights of way and for securing an improved network of local public rights of way, with particular regard to the matters dealt with in the assessment”. The statement of actions is in fact a ten-year action plan based upon the assessment of local rights of way and user needs throughout the county. This will be incorporated into the PROW section of the annual Highways Maintenance Unit business plan. The business plan identifies and sets out the key component tasks required delivering the main actions for the better management and improvement of the public rights of way network on an annual basis. The business plan provides the basis for yearly work programmes, and could include options and bids for other resources. This annual business plan will include timetabled targets to deliver the ROWIP. The business plan will need to be a flexible, working document and regularly updated. An annual business plan summary will be made available for public inspection. 25.2 Summary statement of action proposals

The individual action proposals are listed at the end of each of the theme headings, (see sections 5 to 24). The sum total of all these action proposals makes up the statement of actions. 25.3 Integration with Local Transport Plan This Draft Rights of Way Improvement Plan currently forms an appendix of the Draft Provisional Local Transport Plan. Based on current government advice it is anticipated that through the LTP, bids for resources to spend on local transport projects, which in turn make real improvements to the public rights of way network and meet the needs of users can be realised. The planned implementation programme for public rights of way improvements arising from the ROWIP “statement of actions” will be reflected in the second LTP over time.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )94

SECTION 26. RESOURCES 26.1 Local Highway Authorities already have duties under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Highways Act 1980 to keep the definitive map and statement of public rights of way up to date and to ensure that ways are adequately signposted, maintained and free from obstruction. Rights of Way Improvement Plans are intended to build upon this work and not conflict with these existing core duties or reduce the effectiveness with which they are carried out. 26.2 The duty to prepare improvement plans is a new duty. Additional funding will be needed to ensure that there is no need for a reduction in the execution by local highway authorities of their existing duties in relation to public rights of way, although the preparation of improvement plans may highlight the need to strengthen the resources allocated by authorities and government to these duties. 26.3 Securing external funding for public rights of way improvement is challenging, with some external funders appearing reluctant to fund local authority proposed public rights of way works, perhaps because they see such activity as already “fully resourced” by the tax payer. Further, there is probably a misconception that improvement works are statutory, when in fact they are not, and partly due to the cost implications of public rights of way projects. The distinction between public rights of way ‘maintenance’, which is a statutory requirement, and public rights of way ‘improvement’, which is not a statutory requirement, needs to be made more forcibly. 26.4 There exist potential areas of missed opportunity such as section 106 agreements, made with developers, where significant infrastructure improvements could be secured. In practice, much of what is achieved is either replacing what has been lost through development, or putting in place the bare minimum network in a new development. There is a great deal of scope for working closely with developers and planners in a proactive way to secure tangible improvements to the network. 26.5 The Local Transport Plan is emerging as a major potential funding stream for specific public rights of way improvements. The significance of this funding may increase further in the future or alternatively the expectation that has been raised might turn out to be misplaced. It is essential that this resource is used strategically to maximise benefits, particularly in terms of its value as match funding for larger bids. 26.6 The National Lottery has not been a significant funder of public rights of way improvements in Gloucestershire to date, though funding to the tune of £25,000 was gained for a millennium project to improve the Gloucestershire Way long distance route. 26.7 The Countryside Agency have been a significant funder, specifically in relation to the establishment of three national trails which pass through Gloucestershire, namely the Offa’s Dyke Path, the Thames Path and the Cotswold Way. In relation to the latter, the Countryside Agency will have made available over £2 million in around 9 years, equating to approximately £220,000 per annum, for the establishment of this 100 mile route, (75% of the route is in Gloucestershire) by the time the route is launched in 2007. In some respects this puts into fairly stark contrast the relatively low funding for the remainder of Gloucestershire’s 3300 miles path network. 26.8 In part, the key to successful funding bids is accurate user data to demonstrate levels of use and need. Unfortunately, current monitoring of public rights of way usage in Gloucestershire is almost non-existent. Addressing this shortfall will be a considerable challenge.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )95

SECTION 27. PUBLICISING THE DRAFT ROWIP 27.1 The draft ROWIP – The intention is to publish a notice in two or more local newspapers circulating in the county that will explain how the draft ROWIP can be inspected or obtained and how representations on it can be made. We also intend to keep copies available for inspection free of charge at all reasonable times at Shire Hall and main libraries; and supply a copy to any person who requests one, on payment of a charge of £15 which covers copying and binding costs. We will actively seek representations from neighbouring authorities and local councils, AONBs and other national and local organisations representing users, land managers, businesses, tourism and others as appropriate for the county. We will make this draft ROWIP as widely available to the public as possible. This includes publishing the draft ROWIP on the council’s website. 27.2 Allowing time for representations The draft ROWIP and any notices inviting representations will state clearly where comments should be sent and by when. A minimum of 12 weeks is allowed for any representations. This should give sufficient time for local people and organisations to get their comments and feedback to the county council. 27.3 Dealing with representations We will consider any representations made in accordance with the notice of “how representations on the draft ROWIP can be made”. If there are major objections to the ROWIP, the Gloucestershire Local Access Forum will be invited to advise on how these can be best resolved. Consultation on the draft ROWIP will not replace the need for consultation and negotiation as and when specific proposals for action are taken forward. The publication of the draft ROWIP, or for that matter any subsequent final ROWIP, will not affect people’s right to make representations or objections to public path orders that may be made in the light of plans, nor the opportunity to have those representations or objections heard. 27.4 Publication of the final ROWIP The current intention is that the final ROWIP will serve a number of roles, for example: as a strategic plan identifying agreed priorities; as a bidding document for resources; and as the basis for developing future work programmes. But it will also be a means of engaging with local communities and other partners on public rights of way and countryside access issues. We will try to ensure the final ROWIP is presented in a way that is accessible to a wide audience. A clear and well-structured plan should help readers understand what can, in some cases, be quite complicated issues. The ROWIP will, as far as possible, make use of plain language, and include appropriate maps, diagrams and other illustrations to make the content easier to understand and contents more attractive. The current intention is that there will one summary document aimed at the public and a second full document for partner organisations, including other local authorities, and as well as public rights of way practitioners and others. Ultimately design and layout may well be influenced by any requirements regarding the production of the Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan. Once the draft ROWIP has been amended and the final ROWIP formally agreed by Gloucestershire County Council it will then be published.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )96

The Council is required to keep copies of the final ROWIP available for inspection free of charge at all reasonable times at their principal offices and supply a copy to any person who requests one, either free of charge or on payment of a reasonable charge. We will consider accessibility issues such as the needs of disabled people and use of other languages when producing and publicising the final ROWIP.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )97

SECTION 28. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING 28.1 Implementation of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan Once it has prepared and published the ROWIP under the provisions of Part II of the CROW 2000 Act, Gloucestershire County Council will be expected to implement the “statement of actions”. The plan will be a working document informing the annual business plan and associated work programmes. Both capital and revenue funding will be required to put any improvements into practice and to ensure their long-term maintenance. The Prow team will have to be innovative in sourcing funds to support the improvements. We will consider seeking funds from lottery bodies, the local transport plan, European schemes, agri-environment schemes and some charitable trusts, subject to staff time being available to do so. In order to be successful in developing these new funding partnerships, we anticipate they will need to demonstrate that they are making improvements to the public right of way network for reasons which link into much broader policy objectives, such as health, reducing dependence on motor cars, tourism, economic development, safe routes to school or work and accessibility for those with limited or restricted mobility and for those who are socially excluded. 28.2 Involvement of landowners in improvements to the network Any future improvements to the public rights of way network will require the support and understanding of local landowners over which these rights exist. There are now regular opportunities to talk to landowners about ROWIP matters through their representation on the Gloucestershire Local Access Forum. We will secure improvements to the public rights of way network by agreement wherever possible. In the rare occasions when it intends to attempt to create a new public right of way, it will seek to negotiate the creation of routes or the addition of higher rights to existing routes by agreement with landowners using their powers under section 25 of the Highways Act 1980 before considering use of s26 (Creation Orders). We will adopt a constructive approach to these negotiations and will be prepared to consider changes to the network that landowners might seek as corollaries to agreements, provided they meet the criteria set out in sections 118 and 119 of the Highways Act 1980. A reasonable time limit within which these agreements are reached has to be established. When making any of these improvements to the existing public rights of way network we will liaise with local landowners and managers prior to carrying out the work in order to gain their co-operation or participation and to inform them of what is about to take place. Landowners and managers will also be able to provide local knowledge that will be useful in carrying out many improvements. We would normally take the lead organisational role in working up and implementing the proposals for action in the ROWIP, though this does not always have to be the case. A variety of partnership arrangements already exist with local councils, significant landowners, and other agencies which all work to deliver ROWIP actions.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )98

SECTION 29. ANNEXES Contents Annex A: The text of sections 60/61 of the CROW Act 2000 Annex B: Analysis of results of initial ROWIP consultation Annex C: Walking and riding routes in Gloucestershire Annex D: Priority guidelines for path orders Annex E: Digitisation and consolidation of the Definitive Map Annex F: Priority guidelines for managing the new access rights Annex G: Priority guidelines for the maintenance and enforcement of public rights of way

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )99

Annex A: The text of sections 60/61 of the CROW Act 2000 A.1 Countryside and Right of Way Act 2000 Rights of Way improvement plans. 60. - (1) Every local highway authority other than an inner London authority shall, within five years after the commencement of this section, prepare and publish a plan, to be known as a Rights of Way Improvement Plan, containing- (a) the authority's assessment of the matters specified in subsection (2), (b) a statement of the action they propose to take for the management of local Public Rights of Way, and for securing an improved network of local Public Rights of Way, with particular regard to the matters dealt with in the assessment, and (c) such other material as the Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) may direct. (2) The matters referred tin subsection (1)(a) are- (a) the extent to which local Public Rights of Way meet the present and likely future needs of the public, (b) the opportunities provided by local Public Rights of Way (and in particular by those within paragraph (a) of the definition in subsection (5)) for exercise and other forms of open-air recreation and the enjoyment of the authority's area, (c) the accessibility of local Public Rights of Way to blind or partially sighted persons and others with mobility problems, and (d) such other matters relating to local Public Rights of Way as the Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) may direct. (3) An authority by whom a Rights of Way Improvement Plan is published shall, not more than ten years after first publishing it and subsequently at intervals of not more than ten years- (a) make a new assessment of the matters specified in subsection (2), and (b) review the plan and decide whether to amend it. (4) On such a review the authority shall- (a) if they decide to amend the plan, publish it as amended, and (b) if they decide to make no amendments to it, publish a report of their decision and of their reasons for it. (5) In this section- "cycle track"- (a) means a way over which the public have the following, but no other, Public Rights of Way, that is to say, a right of way on pedal cycles (other than pedal cycles which are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1988) with or without a right of way on foot; but (b) does not include a way in or by the side of a highway consisting of or comprising a made-up carriageway (within the meaning of the 1980 Act); "inner London authority" means Transport for London, the council of an inner London borough or the Common Council of the City of London; "local highway authority" has the same meaning as in the 1980 Act; "local Public Rights of Way" in relation to a local highway authority, means- (a) the footpaths, cycle tracks, bridleways and restricted byways within the authority's area, and (b) the ways within the authority's area which are shown in a definitive map and statement as restricted byways or byways open to all traffic. (6) In subsection (5) the definition of "local Public Rights of Way" has effect until the commencement of section 47 with the substitution for the references to restricted byways and to ways shown in a definitive map and statement as restricted byways of a reference to ways shown in a definitive map and statement as roads used as public paths. Rights of Way improvement plans: supplemental. 61. - (1) Before preparing or reviewing a Rights of Way Improvement Plan, and in particular in making any assessment under section 60(1)(a) or (3)(a), a local highway authority shall consult- (a) each local highway authority whose area adjoins their area; (b) each district council, and each parish or community council, whose area is within their area; (c) the National Park authority for a National Park any part of which is within their area;

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )100

(d) where any part of the Broads is within their area, the Broads Authority; (e) any local access forum established for their area or any part of it; (f) the Countryside Agency or the Countryside Council for Wales (as appropriate); (g) such persons as the Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) may by regulations prescribe in relation to the local highway authority's area; and (h) such other persons as the local highway authority may consider appropriate. (2) In preparing or amending a Rights of Way Improvement Plan, a local highway authority shall- (a) publish a draft of the plan or of the plan as amended, (b) publish, in two or more local newspapers circulating in their area, notice of how a copy of the draft can be inspected or obtained and how representations on it can be made to them, and (c) consider any representations made in accordance with the notice. (3) As regards their Rights of Way Improvement Plan, any draft plan on which representations may be made and any report under section 60(4)(b), a local highway authority shall- (a) keep a copy available for inspection free of charge at all reasonable times at their principal offices, and (b) supply a copy to any person who requests one, either free of charge or on payment of a reasonable charge determined by the authority. (4) Local highway authorities shall, in carrying out their functions under section 60 and this section, have regard to such guidance as may from time to time be given to them by the Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales). (5) A local highway authority may make arrangements with- (a) Any district council whose area is within their area, or (b) the National Park authority for a National Park any part of which is within their area, for the functions of the local highway authority under section 60 and this section so far as relating to the area of that council or to the part of the Park within the local highway authority's area, to be discharged jointly by the local highway authority and by that council or National Park authority. (6) Regulations under subsection (1)(g) shall be made by statutory instrument, and a statutory instrument containing such regulations made by the Secretary of State shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. (7) In this section- "local highway authority" has the same meaning as in the 1980 Act; (etc).

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )101

Annex B: Analysis of results of initial ROWIP consultation Overall 173 responses were received of 373 consultation letters submitted, an overall response rate of 46% Question 1 – The existing public rights of way service Overall 62% (108) of respondents were “fairly or very” satisfied with the overall service provided by the rights of way team, whereas 10% (18) were fairly or very dissatisfied. Looking at the five identified “sub-areas” of working, satisfaction and dissatisfaction levels were as follows:-

Work Area Fairly/Very Satisfied Fairly/Very Dissatisfied Definition 62% (107) 6% (11) Protection 43% (74) 13% (22) Maintenance 53% (92) 20% (35) Improvement 25% (44) 25% (44) Promotion 28% (48) 25% (44) We also asked which of the above “sub-areas” were considered to be first, second and third most important.

• Maintenance was considered the most important by 55% (97) of respondents and was considered second most important by 40 respondents and third by 23 - therefore 160 (92%) placed maintenance in the first, second or third places.

• Definition was considered second in the most important area and Protection the third

• Whilst we scored low on the satisfaction level regarding Promotion, only seven respondents (4%) placed this area in any of the importance areas.

Question 2 – Future challenges Question two asked respondents to indicate an “importance” rating on 11 areas falling within the three categories of: access land; definition issues; and other challenges.

Challenge Very/Fairly Important Fairly/Very Unimportant Access land Mapping Access Land 84% (147) 5% (8) Access Rights 76% (133) 7% (13) Managing Access Land 63% (110) 11% (19) Paths to Island Sites 51% (90) 19% (33) DDeeffiinniittiioonn IIssssuueess Lost Ways 71% (124) 12% (21) Missing Links 74% (130) 6% (11) Other Challenges Quiet lanes 78% (136) 5% (8) Access for Less Mobile 71% (125) 5% (9) Standards of Information 67% (118) 8% (14) Recreational Routes 69% (121) 7% (13) Restricted Byways 65% (113) 6% (11) We also asked which of the above “areas” were considered to be first, second and third most important.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )102

• The mapping of access land was considered the most important, placed first by 34% (59) of respondents, and with 50% (86) placing it within the three most important. The prominence of the access land mapping is likely to reflect the fact that at the time of the survey the Countryside Agency had begun their mapping process and had published the draft map of common land and open country for our area.

• Second most important was the “Lost Ways” project.

• Third most important was the provision of access for “less mobile users”.

Question 3 – “Related Areas” Question three asked respondents to indicate an importance rating on nine “strategic areas” impacted upon by the public rights of way network.

Strategic Area Very/Fairly Important Fairly/Very Unimportant Economic Development 60% (105) 3% (22) Biodiversity 82% (143) 2% (4) Social Inclusion 47% (83) 13% (22) Crime Reduction 59% (103) 7% (12) Sustainable Transport 73% (127) 11% (19) Disability Access 73% (127) 5% (8) Integrated transport 65% (113) 7% (12) Education 69% (120) 7% (13) Partnerships 54% (95) 13% (23)

• Biodiversity was considered the most important, placed first by 22% (38) of respondents, and with 51% (89) placing it within the 3 most important.

• Second most important was Sustainable Transport.

• Third most important was Economic Development. Apart from the “tick-box questionnaire” respondents were asked to provide feedback regarding: needs; priorities; vision; and any further issues. Some 248 individual comments were received which we have sub-divided into the following common “themes”: access; conservation; information; maintenance and enforcement; management; network; resources; signing; and transport. Access - 20 comments were received relating to general “access” issues. - Better access for “all abilities, elderly, disabled, buggies and pushchairs” - Co-ordinated countryside access and tourism – health benefits of access Conservation - four comments were received relating to “conservation” issues. - Management of access consistent with protection of the wildlife resource and regard to landowners/local residents Information - 28 comments were received relating to “information” issues - Better, more “attractive and informative mapping” guides, pamphlets, leaflets, website information - Information as to where you can go with confidence - Education

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )103

- As to the “needs” of the Countryside – litter/dogs/shutting gates – country code, responsible use of footpaths - Promotion of Walks – tourism initiatives Maintenance and enforcement - 37 comments received regarding “maintenance” issues. - Clearance - Stiles and Kissing Gates - Prompt removal of obstructions - Paths checked on a regular basis Management - 29 comments were received regarding “management” issues. - Adoption of “making the best of byways” - Better liaison - Rationalisation of footpaths - Co-ordinated tourism initiatives - Formulation and adoption of landowner/walker “codes of practice” - Fast track complaints system - Reintroduction of initiatives such as Parish paths partnership Network - 61 comments were received regarding “network” issues. - Links between paths to create circular routes/ better connectivity - Closing of “pointless” paths that go nowhere/consolidation of existing routes - Creation of a network of bridleways - Extension of cycle routes - Green-space availability close to areas of residence/ rural fringe facilities - Control of access by motorised users - Identification and reopening of historic paths not on definitive map Resources - 10 comments were received regarding “resourcing” issues. - Better funding for maintenance/repair - Better/fairer distribution of resources Signage - 26 comments were received regarding “signage” issues. - Improved / Clear Signposting - Better Waymarking (clear and consistent) Transport - 34 comments were received regarding “transport” issues - Adequate and secure car parking facilities at/near PROW network sites - Better public transport to rural areas - Park and ride facilities for walkers - Integrated transport policy to encompass PROW network to minimise dependency on cars Vision - the questionnaire also asked if the organisation had a “Vision” for improved access to the Countryside in Gloucestershire, examples provided include: “Sensible linked off road routes for walkers, cyclists and horseriders” “Cycle and bridleways free from motorised traffic”

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )104

“All routes to be open and available with an increase in disabled access” “A comprehensive network of off-road cycle tracks” “Significant development of the effective ROW network for equestrians” “Well signed, well maintained public footpaths/bridleways supported by effective public transport” “It is vital that improved access does not lead to destruction and erosion of a valuable part of rural life” “Access that is balanced to ensure that the countryside we all want to enjoy remains a pleasant place to be and isn’t destroyed by over-use” “More people enjoying countryside walking which would promote better health and wider interest in communities” “People using PROW as “normally” as they do urban pavements” “Increased provision of public transport at weekends to country areas” “Safe parking for vehicles at places where walks are popular” “Improved cooperation with landowners” “Access for all with sight or mobility problems” “Steps to overcome the severance of safe riding routes currently created by busy A roads” “More community involvement and encouragement to manage smaller open spaces” “More resources for the Council to maintain footpaths” “To get local people, especially the young to realise and appreciate the wonderful asset they have nearby” “An integrated network of Paths” “A countryside that is open and accessible along clearly defined routes and that is a shared responsibility between owners, users and the Highway Authority” “Community development through walking, access to go to work, safe access for all ages and abilities” “Access for all – spreading out from places of interest linking villages to the countryside and to towns – reducing the need/use of motor vehicles”” “A better understanding between landowners and ramblers of their respective responsibilities” “The ROW network should contribute more to the local economy by working with the tourist industry and local organisations” Draft ROWIP consultation analysis, 11.5.04

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )105

Annex C: Walking and riding routes in Gloucestershire

National Trails

Cotswold Way, 100 miles – A national trail currently under development, following the scarp edge of the Cotswolds between Chipping Campden and Bath. The way passes prehistoric sites and picturesque villages and offers breathtaking views.

Offa's Dyke Path, 177 miles – A national trail and walking route following the line of the great earthwork built by Offa, King of Mercia 757-96 from near Chepstow to Prestatyn to mark the boundary of his kingdom.

Thames Path, 184 miles – A national trail meandering alongside the River Thames from its source near Kemble, through peaceful water meadows, past historic towns and villages, into the City of London, and ending at the Thames Barrier at Greenwich.

Regional Routes

Gloucestershire Way, 100 miles - The walk is a memorable journey through the diverse areas of the Forest of Dean, the Severn Vale and Cotswold. The route is well signposted and waymarked and based on a theme of "Forest and Vale and High Blue Hill" from a poem by F.W.Harvey.

Heart of England Way, 96 miles - A long distance footpath linking the Cotswold Way with the Staffordshire Way. The waymarked path travels from Milford via Lichfield, Henley-in-Arden, Alcester and Chipping Campden to Bourton-on-the-Water where it joins the Oxfordshire Way.

Macmillan Way, 290 miles - A long distance walk through rolling English countryside from Boston in Lincolnshire to Abbotsbury in Dorset, crossing the Cotswolds via Adlestrop, Lower Slaughter, Cold Aston, Turkdean, Chedworth, Sapperton, Tarlton, Cherington, Avening and Westonbirt.

Monarch's Way, 610 miles - A long distance walk following the escape route of King Charles II after his defeat at the battle of Worcester in 1651, across the Cotswolds to the south coast.

Oxfordshire Way, 65 miles - A medium distance path which runs from Bourton-on-the-Water in east Gloucestershire, across rural Oxfordshire to Henley-on-Thames. Sabrina Way, 200 miles - The Gloucestershire section was opened by Princess Anne in 2002. It is a horseriding route developed by the BHS and Ride UK (http://www.ride-uk.org.uk/extent/natreg/sabrina.htm) that runs 44 miles east to west through the county from Stow to Forthampton, near Tewkesbury, and which will form part of a longer distance route when complete. A set of leaflets covering the route, and an accommodation list, are available from The British Horse Society in return for £2 and a donation to the Ride UK project. Each leaflet covers the route in a single county. The Sabrina Way is a new addition to the National Bridleroute Network, developed by Brenda Wickham for the British Horse Society and partner local authorities. It runs from the Claude Duval Bridleroute at Great Barrington on the county boundary with Oxfordshire through five counties to Derbyshire, and will provide a link between the Ridgeway and the Pennine Bridleway.

Severn Way, 210 miles - A long distance path tracing the route of Britain's longest river along the entire Severn Valley from it's source to the sea. The way passes through meadows and orchards, past wetlands and marshes and runs near to Gloucester Docks.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )106

Wychavon Way, 41 miles - A medium distance route which leads from the Cotswold Way at Winchcombe, over Bredon Hill and on through Worcestershire.

Wye Valley Walk, 107 miles - Long distance footpath following the meandering route of the River Wye through steep stone gorges, dense woodland and open countryside between Chepstow and Rhayader.

Wysis Way, 55 miles - A medium distance route linking the Rivers Wye, Severn and Thames and the national trails of Offa's Dyke Path and the Thames Path. It travels from the Wye Valley via the Forest of Dean, May Hill, Leadon Valley, Robinswood Hill, Bisley and the Frome Valley to Thameshead.

Longer circular walks.

Cheltenham Circular Footpath, 26 miles - A waymarked, circular walk which completely encircles Cheltenham, devised by Cheltenham Borough Council, the Ramblers' Association and the Cotswold Voluntary Wardens, working in partnership with Gloucestershire County Council.

Daffodil Way, 10 miles - A circular walk from Dymock through the wild daffodil country within the Windcross parishes in north-west Gloucestershire. Offers a wealth of woods and orchards, ponds and streams, meadows and fields. The best time to walk this route is in the early spring when the wild daffodils are in bloom.

Glevum Way, 27 miles - Circular walk around the outskirts of the city of Gloucester, originally devised by Mike Loach. The walk was completed and waymarked by the Gloucester Ramblers' Association as part of the RA's 60th anniversary celebrations in 1995.

North Cotswold Diamond Way, 60 miles - A circular walk through the beautiful North Cotswolds devised by members of the North Cotswold Group of the Ramblers' Association to celebrate 60 years of working for walkers, 1935 - 1995.

Poets' Paths I and II, 8 miles - Two circular walks from Dymock, taking in places of interest associated with the Dymock poets; Abercrombie, Brooke, Drinkwater, Gibson, Thomas and Frost. Wardens Way/ Windrush Way, 13 miles each - Two linear routes which link Bourton-on-the-Water and Winchcombe. Together they form a circular route passing through the Slaughters, Guitings, Hawling and Aylworth

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )107

Annex D - Priority guidelines for path orders D.1 Background The PROW Team has a finite resource level to process path order applications, both modification orders and public path orders. The volume of applications received within the PROW Team is growing. The tables below indicate the current trends for new applications:

Modification Orders Applications received from 1st January each year:

Year Quantity 2000 8 2001 8 (note: Foot and Mouth Disease year) 2002 11 2003 11 2004 20

Public Path Orders Applications received from 1st January each year:

Year Quantity 2000 40 2001 30 (note: Foot and Mouth Disease year) 2002 57 2003 70 2004 66

Work in progress at January 2005:

Modification Orders: 86 Public Path Orders: 110

(Applications received in any year are processed alongside existing applications as resource allows.)

The GCC Public Rights of Way Milestones Statement (1996) estimated the average staff time per application as 23 days. This is due to the statutory process that has to be followed. For modification orders, the time taken to process an application is growing, due to both the increasing complexity of case law, and the depth of research required due to heightened awareness by stakeholders of their rights. It is not unreasonable to increase this figure to an average of 30 days per application, or 1.5 man months of effort. This extension to the time taken adds to the backlog of unfinished orders. Consequently, the cost of processing an application is rising. The team already has a significant volume of applications in progress, some of which go back fifteen years. Further, on the horizon is the Countryside Agency “Lost Ways” project, which has already raisied user expectations, and which will potentially add a significant volume of applications. D.1 (i) The “Lost Ways” Project The CROW Act 2000 introduces a cut-off date of 1 January 2026 when all footpaths and bridleways that were in existence prior to 1949 and that are not at that date on the definitive map will be extinguished and public rights removed. Consequently, the Countryside Agency has set up a research project to identify and assimilate potential claims for these “lost ways”. The exact date at which this project will reach Gloucestershire is unknown, but is likely to be no

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )108

later than 2010. A conservative estimate is that the project could add 500 paths to the existing Gloucestershire network of 11,000, and each will require a modification order. If the average effort per modification order for “lost ways” reduces to one man-month each, this would still require 500 man-months, or 50 man-years, of resource. To achieve any measure of success with the project, the “lost ways” would need to be prioritised so that those of a higher priority take precedence. D.1 (ii) Path Anomalies A path anomaly is something that creates a problem normally for the users of a path due to an inconsistency created when the path was put on the definitive map and statement. An example of an anomaly is a path that changes its status at a parish boundary e.g. from bridleway to footpath. The authority will potentially be instigating a number of path orders to correct major anomalies on the path network. A number of these anomalies are being identified as the path network is being digitised onto a computer-based mapping system. Where the anomaly forms a considerable hindrance on the network e.g. change of path status at a parish boundary, the authority will consider instigating its own applications to resolve the anomaly. At this stage, the exact number is unknown, but if there is one anomaly per parish, this would add a further 262 instigated evidential modification orders, equivalent to a further 39 man-years of resource. D.1 (iii) DEFRA proposals regarding use of mechanically propelled vehicles on PROW There is a view that claims for vehicular rights will surge if Parliament introduces new legislation introducing a cut-off date for these. If there is a surge in these claims, it will be necessary to have a mechanism in place to ensure that they take an appropriate priority in the queue. This would add a further unknown resource demand. D.1 (iv) Other factors that may increase the number of applications There is a range of other factors that may have a significant upward impact on the volume of applications received. Among these are the: blanket reclassification of roads used as public paths to restricted byways; provisions under the CROW Act 2000 to use path orders to address specific crime prevention and school security issues; and provisions enabling owners and occupiers of land used for agriculture, forestry and the breeding and keeping of horses to seek path orders. D.2 Legal perspective on prioritisation The following paragraphs provide a viewpoint on prioritisation from a legal perspective. Alex Lewis, LL.B., writing for The Rights of Way Law Review (June 2004)*, makes the following statements about prioritisation: “Most surveying authorities have, and for some time will continue to have, a backlog of definitive map work. The order in which, (surveying authorities), address this work reflects (their) priorities. A “Statement of Priorities” is simply advance notice of the relative importance (they) attach to these different pressures”, and “a statement of priorities for definitive map work is an essential management tool. It is a measure of performance, a shield against impatient claimants, a defence against applications to the Secretary of State, and a means of moulding public demand and expectation”. “It is likely that most authorities will have a statement of priorities, which sets out how the competing demands on the authority’s resources will be addressed”.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )109

“Experience shows that the Secretary of State is unlikely to direct an authority to determine a Schedule 14 application if it deals with them in accordance with a properly implemented statement of priorities”. “Any statement of priorities should reflect what its authors want to achieve in terms of rights of way. In future this will be dictated by Rights of Way Improvement Plans. The priority given to the different types of definitive map work should reflect and/or address the issues identified by these plans. If a lack of safe riding routes is identified as an important issue, for example, then orders that provide such routes should be given the appropriate priority”. “A strategy, whereby Schedule 14 claims are dealt with in chronological order of receipt, is easy to implement and hard to challenge. Statements of Priority based on the value of the resulting order to the public, or the access network, introduce an element of subjectivity into the process and are much harder to draft than those based on a set of criteria about which there can be no dispute. Who is to say that a footpath to the school is of greater benefit than a bridleway avoiding a busy road crossing, or that a new byway claim is such a bad thing? Nonetheless, provided that the relevant aims and objectives are clearly defined and consistently applied, a set of priorities addressing current and future needs, not merely following a safe and convenient formula regardless of the value of the outcome, has to be the way forward”. * Source: Rights of Way Law Review, The Closure of the Definitive Map, A training course held at Wolfson College, Oxford on Wednesday 30 June 2004. Alex Lewis is a non-practicing solicitor, and Senior Rights of Way Officer at Hampshire County Council. D.3 Existing priority system Since 2002, Gloucestershire have operated a simple priority system for processing path orders. The majority of orders have been processed in a strict chronological order, except where there has been an exceptional reason to take an application out of order. An example of an exceptional reason would be an existing application for planning permission affecting land crossed by a claimed path. The then Commons and Rights of Way Panel were aware of the priority system. At the time of writing the majority of applications continue to be processed in strict chronological sequence. D.4 Towards an updated priority system for Gloucestershire It is suggested that the system should follow these key principles:

• Adheres to Gloucestershire’s stated vision, aims and priorities • The priority assigned can be explained to the applicant. • Balances landowner interests alongside user interests • Balances public applications alongside authority instigated applications • Considers anomalies within the network

This prioritisation system will be a points-based system. The number of points awarded to an application will enable it to be positioned within the log of applications received. D.5 Balancing modification orders against path orders Currently, there are two streams of work, one stream for modification orders, and a separate stream for public path orders. These two streams make the best use of staff resource at this time. These proposals will assign a given number of points to an order to allow it to be given an appropriate position within its stream. Where more than one order in the stream achieves the same number of points, these orders will be processed in chronological sequence, oldest first, within the priority level assigned.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )110

D.6 Managing the existing volume of applications As at January 2005, there were 86 Modification Orders and 110 Public Path Orders underway as “work-in-progress”, a total close to 200 applications. This begs the question: “Is it reasonable to change the potential date by which an applicant will know the outcome when that person’s application is already underway?” The answer to this question can only be yes. It will be a potentially tough decision to implement and we may face some criticism from interested parties. If we wait until we have cleared the current “work in progress” applications and only apply the new priorities to fresh applications, it will be some years before a new priority system would be implemented. If we wait, the position will only deteriorate, as we will be faced with our existing “order book”, plus authority-instigated applications to resolve anomalies, plus “lost ways” applications arising from the work of the Countryside Agency. Where there are applications that have been sat for a considerable length of time without any external activity, provided these are of a low priority, they will be archived. Consequently, there may be a number of existing applications that will never be processed to a formal conclusion. D.7 Managing the introduction After any required refinement following feedback from stakeholders, it is anticipated that the new priority system will be up and running at some point in 2006, when it is anticipated the final ROWIP will be published. Existing applications will be prioritised as well as new applications. Existing applicants will receive a letter explaining the new system, and the priority awarded to their application. They may also be given an indication of where their application resides within the queue. It is recognised that that the introduction of the new system to existing applicants may generate considerable dialogue with them, and this will have to be managed accordingly. It will be important to have the support from our key stakeholder groups in this regard. For new applicants, an information sheet will be included within the application pack, and information will also be posted onto the Public Rights of Way website. For modification order applications, the applicant can make a representation to the Secretary of State for him to direct the authority to determine an application. For public path orders, an applicant can make a representation to the Secretary of State for him to exercise powers of making public path extinguishment and diversion orders, (under S120 of the Highways Act 1980). In the absence of any directive from the Secretary of State, the application will be processed according to its assigned priority.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )111

D.8 Priority Guidelines for Evidential Modification Order Applications

CRITERIA Points awarded

Where the order could result in a significant positive impact on the network. Positive impact is interpreted as improvement to the coherence of the path network, e.g. adding a missing link to complete a network of bridleways, or to complete a through route.

3

A route that provides a high benefit to users, e.g. proximity to amenities, which is supported by a high volume of evidence that suggests the route is well-used.

3

An order which assists landowner/s or manager/s, including those occupying residential properties, by providing certainty regarding the existence or not of the claimed route.

3

A claimed route, which was in regular use, that has become obstructed and no alternative nearby route exists

2

The claimed route significantly adds or improves accessibility to an area of access land.

2

Substantial evidence that a path has been incorrectly recorded on the definitive map and it is expedient to modify the map and statement e.g. upgrades, downgrades, re-alignments

2

Application is unopposed by all consultee parties 1 Others, e.g. spurious, vexatious, supported by little evidence, only adds a limitation to the definitive statement, provides little benefit to the public

0

Important explanatory notes

1. One application may accrue points from one or more of the factors listed. 2. An application will take precedence in the queue if it scores more highly than other

applications already in the queue. For example, a new application with 12 points will take priority over an old application with a score of 3 points.

3. The order of the queue is likely to be subject to constant change, as new applications of high priority take precedence over old applications of a low priority.

4. Where more than one application is allotted the same number of points, these applications will be processed in chronological sequence, oldest first, based upon the date a fully-completed application is received.

5. In the absence of any points, an application will be processed in chronological sequence, oldest first, based upon the date a fully-completed application is received.

6. An application for a route that poses a significant risk to health and safety of potential users will be given the lowest priority, and will not be awarded points from the priority system.

7. Potentially, some applications may never be processed, (unless resource levels are increased, or the statutory process is simplified).

8. The priority awarded should reflect the potential benefit of the application to the wider public, and seek to provide best use of limited staff resource. Exceptional circumstances may require a priority to be set using factors outside of those above.

9. Applicants can make a representation to the Secretary of State to direct the county council to determine an application.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )112

D.9 Priority guidelines for public path order applications

Criteria Points awarded

Applications that offer a significant improvement in public safety. 3 Applications that provide a significant benefit to the public upon completion. Examples include an improvement to the coherence of the path network, or the removal of circumstances that inhibit the public use of a path.

3

Applications addressing Crime Prevention and School Security as defined by the CRoW Act 2000

3

Applications as part of a local authority sponsored scheme, or that are a component of a larger scheme, or relate to a strategic project. Examples are paths affected by major building developments, cycletrack schemes, or a National Trail path.

3

Applications for diversions and extinguishments that address path problems such as erosion.

3

Applications that offer a sizeable potential reduction in highway authority liabilities, either financial or legal.

3

Town and Country Planning Act applications which are the responsibility of the County Council, i.e. for minerals and waste.

3

Applications that offer significant benefit to the landowner(s), but no significant benefit to the public e.g. CRoW Act provisions for owners and occupiers of land used for agriculture, forestry and the breeding and keeping of horses.

2

Applications generated by the highway authority seeking to address path deficiency reports.

2

Applications that address significant biodiversity or archaeological concerns 2 Applications to overcome definitive map anomalies, that because of the circumstances involved, it is expedient to process.

2

An application that removes the need for a modification order, that because of the circumstances involved, it is expedient to process.

1

All other applications will be judged on their merits, but it is unlikely they will be processed unless there are significant extenuating circumstances.

-

Important Explanatory Notes 1. One application may accrue points from one or more of the factors listed. 2. An application will take precedence in the queue if it scores more highly than other

applications already in the queue. For example, a new application with 12 points will take priority over an old application with a score of 3 points.

3. The order of the queue is likely to be subject to constant change, as new applications of high priority take precedence over old applications of a low priority.

4. Where more than one application is allotted the same number of points, these applications will be processed in chronological sequence, oldest first, based upon the date a fully-completed application is received.

5. In the absence of any points, an application will be processed in chronological sequence, oldest first, based upon the date a fully completed application is received.

6. An application for a route that poses a significant risk to the health and safety of potential users will be given a lower priority, unless there are clearly identified opportunities to overcome the health and safety issues.

7. Potentially, some applications may never be processed, (unless resource levels are increased, or the statutory process is simplified).

8. The priority awarded should reflect the potential benefit of the application to the wider public, and seek to provide best use of limited staff resource. Exceptional circumstances may require a priority to be set using factors outside of those above.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )113

9. Exceptionally, applications may be partially or wholly funded by the authority where resources permit and where it is determined appropriate and expedient to do so, e.g. there is a significant public benefit.

10. Applicants can make a representation to the Secretary of State for him to exercise powers of making public path extinguishment and diversion orders (under S120 of the Highways Act 1980).

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )114

Annex E: Digitisation and Consolidation of the Definitive Map

E.1 Management Summary

This annex considers the requirements for the digitisation and consolidation of the definitive map of public rights of way. However, it does not consider the requirements for access land, as the Countryside Agency rather than the county council are the mapping authority. In any case at the time of writing the conclusive map covering Gloucestershire has not yet been published. This annex reviews the legal background to the definitive map, and national standards. The conclusions drawn include i) the digitised definitive map must be reproduced onto hardcopy to perform its role as a legal document, and ii) currently there are no national standards for the definitive map, and these are unlikely to be available in the foreseeable future. The annex also reviews the work previously undertaken on consolidation of the definitive map. It also critically reviews the estimates provided in the Milestones Statement 1996 for consolidation, and provides a broad-brush update to these estimates. These estimates have been reduced from 10 man-years to 6 man-years, despite a 20% increase in the number of confirmed path orders since 1996. This reduction is based upon a combination of consolidation work already undertaken, and improved computer applications. The detail behind the consolidation methodology has yet to be drafted, with the consolidation exercise commencing thereafter. After one major consolidation, there will be an on-going consolidation programme, the exact processes yet to be defined. This annex establishes that digitisation of the definitive map, and its consolidation, must run as parallel projects. This is because the digitised map base within Glosmap GIS contains paths that are not yet consolidated into the definitive map, therefore consolidation must happen in order to release a digitised definitive map. Likewise, digitisation effort is required to bring the existing PROW layer up to a standard where a PROW layer can be released with confidence as the digitised definitive map. There will be significant resource required to produce a digitised path layer that is of sufficient quality that it can be used as the base for a digitised definitive map. To enable a digitised but non-definitive map to be issued to the public to meet eGovernment targets, we are currently carrying out a data cleansing exercise of the paths against the definitive and network maps, including addressing the effects of the Ordnance Survey Positional Accuracy Improvement (PAI) programme. This will be a two phase project. Phase one will deliver 73% of the County’s maps by end May 2005. Phase two is dependent upon future release dates for OS PAI in Gloucestershire during 2005/2006, and funding from the Improving Customer Access (ICA) project. It is anticipated that a digitised map of paths for Gloucestershire could be made available to the public by end 2005, though the exact date is dependent upon the rollout of Glosmap Phase Two by Corporate ICT. This digitised map would show paths from the definitive map, plus all digitised path orders at that date, but cannot be considered as the definitive map. To provide a high confidence level in the quality of the digitised path layer, and to enable a digitised definitive map to be released to the public, a further detailed checking phase to verify routes will be required. Precise costs and timescales for this are not known at this time, but for example, additional verification is likely to be required where there has been considerable development of the land since publication of the original definitive map. Longer term, these proposals recommend that Gloucestershire follows the lead of a number of other authorities, and publishes a digitised definitive map on loose-leaf A1 sheets within ring-

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )115

binders. The map base would be the latest available from Ordnance Survey in their MasterMap series, providing immediate benefits to the public and all users. The map scale of 1:10,000 is likely to be retained, unless resource can be found to undertake a significant route verification exercise to publish the map at a larger scale, which would require verification back to original source documents such as the 1923 maps. Each map sheet would be sealed by the County Solicitor, and only made available to the public upon request. The paper identifies that, eventually, the maintenance of the digitised PROW layer will be done from within EXOR, but can be displayed within Glosmap. EXOR will also support future consolidation exercises. Both digitisation and consolidation will be on-going processes, directly linked to the sequence and volume of confirmed orders. E.2 The Definitive Map and Statement E.2 (i) The Definitive Map A definitive map is a map prepared by a surveying authority which is a legal record of the public’s rights of way. If a way is shown on the map, then that is legal and conclusive evidence that the public had those rights along the way at the relevant date of the map. The surveying authority under the WLC Act 1981 has a duty to keep the definitive map under continuous review. This means using modification orders as necessary to keep the map and statement up-to-date as an accurate record of the public’s rights. E.2 (ii) A paper, acetate, or electronic map? The “acid test” is what is acceptable in a court of law? We understand that only a “hard” paper copy of the definitive map can be regarded as the definitive map, and any other electronic map base does not qualify as the definitive map. Consequently, whilst the definitive map can be stored electronically in a GIS, the definitive map itself must be printed off onto paper. E.2 (iii) The Definitive Statement The definitive statement describes each right of way in greater or lesser detail, and ideally defines the position or width of a right of way shown on the definitive map. However, there is no legal “depth of definition” defined for the statement within the various statutes, and consequently the format of the statement varies considerably between surveying authorities. The definitive statement is intended to provide a clear definition of a path at a specific point in time. That point in time is the “relevant date” of the definitive map. The relevant date is significant because it indicates that there is evidence on the map that public rights existed at that date. The City of York, and Bedfordshire have adopted a format of printing a single statement for one path. Bedfordshire do not provide an audit trail within the statement. However, City of York provide a column of “Notes”, in which they list the legal orders that have affected the path over the years. It is recommended that we move someway towards the approach of a single sheet per path statement, with notes to show the audit trail of path changes, but recognising that we have something like 11,000 individual definitive path statements.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )116

E.2 (iv) National Standards for the definitive map and statement The Countryside Agency commissioned a report from the Geodata Institute, University of Southampton, in 2003 on “Electronic definitive maps of Rights of Way and Protected Areas: Technical and Legal issues”. We contacted the Countryside Agency in September 2004 regarding this study, and they stated that neither the standards for digitising definitive maps, nor the proposed National Access Database have been taken forward since November 2003. However, the Countryside Agency forwarded the key findings from the Geodata study. In the study, questionnaires were sent to local authorities via the Institute of Public Rights of Way Officers and the County Surveyors Society. The 112 responses came from more than half of all local authorities responsible for rights of way in England and Wales. Among the key findings from the study are:

• a ‘new’ base map of 1:5,000 could provide more consistent mapping between rural and urban areas and different local authorities;

• four local authorities are publishing their electronic definitive maps at a scale of 1:5,000;

• a number of authorities are beginning to use 1:5,000 scale mapping as a convenient bridge between 1:10,000 and 1:1,250 or 1:2,500.

The study concluded that whilst there are no major insurmountable obstacles, either legal or technical, in place to prevent creation of a national standard, “the biggest challenge may rest in securing adequate funding, especially given significant backlogs in getting current definitive maps up to date”. E.2 (v) Safeguarding the existing definitive map and statement There are both short-term and long-term plans for Gloucestershire. In the short term, the existing maps will be secured against further deterioration by placing each map in a polyester pocket. New covers will be sourced for the definitive map books. The public and other map users will be encouraged to use a set of Network Maps that have been placed in the map room. Notices drawing attention to the definitive maps will be removed, and instead the public will be directed towards the Network Maps as the first port of call. The definitive maps will remain in the map room in the short-term. It is anticipated that the revised Shire Hall Reception arrangements for visitors may see the closure of the Environment Reception, and consequently access to the maps will be arranged via the main Shire Hall Reception desk, increasing the level of security for the maps. In the longer term, it is proposed that the Conclusive definitive maps will be removed and held at the Gloucestershire Records Office, along with the Draft Maps. Subject to sufficient budget being available, these will be renovated and conserved because they provide a key milestone in the legal records of PROW. A new definitive map will be printed from the GIS system, once sufficient validation has been done against the source documents to ensure the digitised paths reflect the original definitive map accurately, and show all confirmed and consolidated legal orders, this new map will be sealed by the County Solicitor. The new definitive map will be printed using the latest base map from the OS Master Map series, probably at a scale of 1:10,000 but possibly at a larger scale of 1:5,000 if resource can be found to verify routes against original source documents such as the 1923 maps. The (current) transparent overlay will be dispensed with, and replaced with a set of “working copy” maps. These working copies will also be printed from the GIS, but will show all confirmed orders, both consolidated and unconsolidated. As this will be a working copy only, there will be no need to seal the maps, and each sheet can be reprinted whenever a legal order is added to that tile within the GIS. Both the definitive maps and the working copies will be printed at A1 size (60 x 80 cm), placed in polyester pockets for protection, and held in large ring-binders.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )117

E.3 Consolidation of the Definitive Map E.3 (i) Recording of Legal Events on the definitive map There are two types of legal events recorded on the definitive map – these are Evidential Modification Orders (EMO), and Public Path Orders (PPO), known collectively as legal events. This includes a variety of orders such as Rail Crossing Orders & Side Road Orders. No legal event is drawn directly onto the definitive map. Rather, the translucent definitive map overlay is used to record legal events. For an EMO, the order is recorded on the overlay as soon as it is “made”, and is updated when “confirmed”. A PPO is only shown on the overlay when it is “confirmed”. Currently, both the Network Maps and the GIS system are only updated once an EMO or PPO is confirmed. E.3 (ii) Previous consolidation of the definitive map and statement There have been two previous exercises undertaken to consolidate the DM&S. In both cases, neither were completed. E.3 (iii) The 1980s Exercise The first exercise took place in the 1980s. In summary, legal event modification orders (LEMO) were prepared for three districts – Cotswolds, Stroud and Tewkesbury. Of these, some were sealed, but never advertised in the press. Effectively, this means the definitive map was not consolidated. Legal Services has confirmed that the sealed LEMOs can be superseded by new LEMOs provided there have been no physical changes to the definitive maps arising from the consolidation exercise E.3 (iv) The 1990s Exercise The second exercise took place in the late 1990s. In summary, this was a data collation exercise that began to pull together the base data for the legal orders to be included in consolidation. Associated legal event modification orders were not produced as part of this exercise. E.3 (v) Summary of prior exercises These two exercises have collated many of the legal orders to be included in the consolidation exercise. None of the orders have been effectively legally consolidated at this time. Further work is required to identify a comprehensive list of orders for the consolidation exercise, but much of the data is already available, though largely in paper format. E.3 (vi) The consolidation exercise and the county split The definitive map for Gloucestershire is currently divided into historical rural and urban districts. For the consolidation exercise, it may be possible to move away from this split of the county, though this will be subject to further investigation. Other county councils will be consulted, and also Gloucestershire’s Legal Services team. E.3 (vii) The consolidation exercise and the data available Legal Orders - there should be a copy available of every legal order that has been confirmed since the original definitive maps were published within the authority. These are held by Legal

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )118

Services. Additionally, there should be a copy of the order in the Parish files held within the PROW Unit, although it is not clear how comprehensive these are. Procedures are now in place to ensure that the PROW Unit receives an electronic copy of every order created in recent years, certainly since the year 2000. Unfortunately, at this time, it will only be the text document stored electronically; the map will not be available. This will benefit a consolidation exercise because the required text from the order can be copied directly into the required legal documentation, (the Legal Event modification order), without risk of transcription errors, offering a major time saving. Databases - in addition to the legal orders, there are a number of databases that have been created over the years to support a consolidation exercise. There are two key databases:

• Legal Event Modification Order file which provides a list of all orders that have impacted the definitive map

• Definitive Statement file which provides data on changes to the definitive statement for each path.

There are also a number of other paper-based databases, for example, the “Index of Orders and Events Recorded on the Definitive Map Overlay”. These mostly hold duplicate information, but may also hold some key items not held elsewhere. E.3 (viii) The task size The Milestones Statement 1996, Appendix 8, estimated the size of the consolidation exercise at approximately ten man-years. If this estimate was correct, then the exercise theoretically could take at least this length of time because there is an additional eight elapsed years of legal orders (approximately 525 or +20%) that have occurred since the Milestones Statement was published. The Legal Event Modification Order file database currently holds just over 3000 records. There is one record per legal order, but there are also a small number of records that are “memo” type information rather than legal orders. There are possibly 300 “memo” records, leaving a balance of 2700 orders. The two previous uncompleted consolidation exercises have collated a great deal of factual information, both indexes of orders and copies of orders. Unfortunately, the drawback is that the majority of this information is held as hard copy, and will therefore be time-consuming to merge and consolidate into one or more new LEMO orders. The Milestones Statement 1996 estimates (below) have been revised to reflect both the additional confirmed orders, and improved working methods. At this stage, without detailed investigation and trial, these are given as a “best guess”: Step Description Original

estimate (man days)

Revised estimate

(man days) 1 Research to locate all “Legal Events” 60 20 2 Time to complete twenty LEMOs 1600 ) 730

(2) Time to revise forty LEMOs 120 ) 3 Time to draw acetate maps 200 200 4 Time to revise entire Definitive Statement 400 92 5 Preparation to publish new Definitive Map 60 15 Totals: 2440 1057

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )119

The revised estimate is 1057 man days, or 6.0 man-years (based upon 4 effective man days per week). This is very “broad brush”, and assumes that a) improved desktop computer applications will speed up the process, and b) a considerable amount of data collation has already been done during the 1980s and 1990s exercises. With reference to the above table, specifically: • Step1: effort should be reduced, as the 1990s exercise has logged much of the required

data, and electronic copies of some of the legal orders are now available from Legal Services.

• Step 2: the revised total number of man days for 2700 path orders is based upon 2 hours per order, and 7.4 hours per day. The exact number of required LEMOs is unknown, and may differ to that suggested in the table.

• Step 3: the need to maintain an acetate for the definitive map may be removed by using the Glosmap GIS as the base for the consolidated definitive map. However, to bring the GIS path layer to a confidence level suitable from which to print a definitive map will require at least this input of man days, and probably considerably more.

• Step 4: this is based upon 2700 path orders, at 0.25 hours per order. (The effort in step 2 includes collating the data for the statement). There is an electronic version of the statements available (to be validated for accuracy), and these will form the base for the statements update. Some work needs to be done to agree the format of the statement. However, the statement itself should not change in many cases, particularly where the start and end point of the path remains unaltered.

• Step 5: “publication” of the consolidated definitive map involves publication of notices in the press, and printing off copies of the map from the GIS. This is an administrative process, unlikely to be dependent upon the number of LEMOs.

E.3 (ix) Next steps The following have been identified as key “next steps”:

1. discussion with other authorities to establish how they format the definitive statement upon consolidation. A request has been made to participants at the November 2004 CSS Legal Sub-Group to supply example statements.

2. agreement with Legal Services on the legal requirements for consolidation.

3. production of an agreed written specification of requirements for the consolidation process, along with firmer projected resource requirements and timescales.

E.4 Production of an Electronic Definitive Map E.4 (i) Legal background to an electronic Definitive Map The following agencies and publications have been consulted. Rights of Way Law Review Section 8.1 Recording of Highways has been reviewed. There are no specific references to an electronic definitive map in this review. Apart from a general discussion about the use of computers in Rights of Way work, the only other references are to the National Land & Property Gazetteer (NLPG), and the National Street Gazetteer (NSG). The NSG is being co-ordinated by the Ordnance Survey. The NSG includes provisions for the List of Streets and British Standard BS7666 Part 4. BS7666 provides guidelines as to how PROW are to be recorded in the NSG. Rights of Way Law and Practice, (the Blue Book).

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )120

There are no specific references to an electronic definitive map in the Blue Book. The only direct references relevant to this area are the Wildlife and Countryside (Definitive Maps and Statements) Regulations 1993, which refer to map scale and notation. Map scale is discussed below. Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, (DEFRA) The rights of way policy section at DEFRA, has been consulted. See the section “Map base and scale for an electronic definitive map” below. Countryside Agency The Countryside Agency has been consulted. See the section “National Standards for the definitive map and statement” above. E.4 (ii) The audit trail for an electronic definitive map Great care will have to be exercised to produce a GIS layer of paths of a sufficient confidence level that it can be used as the base from which to print an electronic consolidated definitive map. By way of example of the size of the task, Bedfordshire employed a cartographer to undertake a seven-year project to verify its GIS path layer against the definitive map, which is only 50% of Gloucestershire’s path network. (The work to be undertaken to produce a digitised map of Gloucestershire’s paths available to the public to view over the county council website to meet eGovernment targets will not produce sufficient accuracy to provide a confidence level for a definitive map base. Additional work will be required to bring it to the required standard). The original definitive maps will be the main source of information for an electronic definitive map. This will be achieved through an auditable process, as follows: the Network Maps were reproduced from the Definitive Map, using 1:10,000 scale updated paper maps. The path information has then been transferred to the GIS system using both of these maps. The information transferred has or will be quality assured. For any path that is not clearly shown, the correct location and route will be revealed by a system of checking using the original legal order papers, and/ or the 1923 County Series maps. It is anticipated that this will be a major, time-consuming exercise, requiring reference back to the original source documents for many paths. E.4 (iii) Maintaining authenticity When the definitive map and statement is printed from a GIS, to ensure that the paper copy will stand up in a court of law, it is recommended that the map sheets are sealed and signed by the County Solicitor. This is already done by a number of other authorities, including Bedfordshire, Worcestershire and City of York. E.4 (iv) Map base and scale for an electronic definitive map The definitive map is printed on Ordnance Survey 1952-54 map sheets at a scale of 1:10,560. This is a relatively small scale, and it can be difficult to clearly identify the exact route of a path at this scale. DEFRA was informally consulted in February 2004. They were asked about any statutory restrictions on the chosen map base and scale for use with the definitive map. DEFRA have confirmed that: a) There is no requirement to use original definitive maps as the base maps; an authority may use any map providing that it is at the correct scale, and b) The definitive map must be at a scale not less than 1:25,000 (that is, it must not be smaller than this in scale). Bedfordshire publish their definitive map using a scale of 1:5,000. The map base that they use is the most recent map base they have received from the Ordnance Survey, currently shown on an OS MasterMap base.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )121

Wiltshire took counsel’s opinion on their map base, as they moved away from the OS 1:10,560 base, who advised that the 1:10,560 based maps are the definitive map, and any later versions using a different map base or scale are working copies. At this time, we propose to produce a digitised definitive map at a scale of 1:10,000 using the latest OS MasterMap base. We would only publish at a map scale of 1:5,000 after taking informed legal advice, and if sufficient confidence is gained in the digitised routes of paths at this larger scale. To achieve this would be a major undertaking, and resource may not become available. However, this would allow greater detail to be provided to the public, but at a considerable investment in resources. E.4 (v) The electronic definitive map and consolidation When an order is confirmed, its effect is recorded on the PROW map layer within the GIS system. The PROW layer is kept up to date, with confirmed orders added to the GIS normally within three months of confirmation. This GIS PROW layer will become the base for an electronic definitive map. Under the current method of GIS updates, the electronic definitive map cannot be made available from the GIS until all of the inclusive confirmed orders have been consolidated. Otherwise, the electronic map will show unconsolidated path orders that have taken effect on the ground but which by definition are not on the definitive map. The current digitised PROW network reflects both consolidated and unconsolidated legal orders. It will be impossible to release a digitised definitive map until either:

a) the unconsolidated orders in the GIS are separated from the consolidated orders (a largely unrealistic option), or

b) all unconsolidated orders in the GIS are consolidated by a legal event modification order.

It is proposed that the 30 September 2004 is used as the cut off date for a first consolidation exercise. From this date, all confirmed orders will be kept separate from those to be consolidated within the GIS. At this time, it is difficult to differentiate between unconsolidated and consolidated legal orders within the GIS. Consequently, consolidation of the definitive map, and production of an electronic definitive map are closely linked. Two digitised path layers will need to be maintained within the GIS: the first layer to be used for consolidation, and a second layer to show both consolidated and unconsolidated confirmed orders, as further orders are confirmed. E.4 (vi) Positional Accuracy Improvement (PAI) PAI affects the electronic GIS based maps, excluding the raster maps. PAI has had an impact on Gloucestershire’s map base since September 2002. The current schedule from Ordnance Survey provides a completion date sometime in 2006 for the PAI of Gloucestershire. We understand that PAI is not an issue for data that has been mapped from a starting scale of 1:10,000. This is because there will be an inherent inaccuracy of at least +/- 2.5 metres within the digitised paths when digitising from a starting scale as small as 1:10,560. However, as users of the GIS are able to zoom in to a scale larger than 1:10,560, PAI does become an issue for the users of maps at a larger scale.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )122

E.4 (vii) Anomalies, and current GIS mapping inaccuracies Added to the problem of PAI is the large number of known inaccuracies within the path network shown on the GIS. These inaccuracies may be due to a number of reasons, including: 1) PAI, 2) digitised paths from the original exercise that have never been checked for accuracy, 3) paths recently digitised but digitised inaccurately, or 4) replication of anomalies from the definitive maps. E.4 (viii) Improving Customer Access (ICA) Funding and the data cleansing exercise ICA funding was secured for the 2004/05 financial year for a data cleansing exercise to be undertaken by TerraQuest plc. TerraQuest are known to the Council, as they have already undertaken a number of exercises. TerraQuest also have an established working relationship with the Ordnance Survey, and ESRI, the supplier of our GIS system. In summary, TerraQuest were engaged to undertake a data cleansing exercise of 108 map tiles out of a total of 149 map tiles that cover the County, (73% of the total). These are the map tiles that either a) have never been thoroughly checked since the original digitising exercise, or b) have been subject to the effects of Positional Accuracy Improvement due to the release of PAI updates into the GIS system. TerraQuest will be supplied with copies of the definitive maps and network maps against which to check and correct the path routes. It is envisaged that there will be a Phase 2. This will commence and finish in the 2005/06 financial year, and will require the checking and correcting of the remaining tiles that will be subject to PAI during this period. Phase 2 covers 41 map tiles, (or 27%). On completion of the data cleansing exercise, the path network displayed in the GIS should be of sufficient accuracy to allow the path network to be made available to the public through the council’s public rights of way website, (95% level of confidence for accuracy at a scale of 1:10,000). This map will only be indicative of path routes in Gloucestershire, and will not be an electronic definitive map. The data cleansing exercise will require careful management of the path network data during the duration of the exercise. This is because path changes will still be occurring whilst our path data may well be offsite. Similarly, it will be necessary to work closely with Vivista to understand the sequence in which further PAI updates are to be released into the GIS system, so that the work undertaken is not compromised. E.5 Mapping Development and Maintenance E.5 (i) The electronic definitive map and Glosmap In the future, the county council’s GIS system, known as Glosmap, will have two layers to represent the path network. The first layer will be the base for the electronic definitive map once the orders included up to 30 September 2004 have been consolidated into the map, and further verification of path routes has been undertaken. This layer will effectively be frozen for the duration of the consolidation exercise. The second layer will be a copy of the first layer, but additionally will include all path changes that occur from 30 September 2004 onwards. This will effectively become the “working copy” for an electronic definitive map for both the PROW team and other units within GCC. With each subsequent future consolidation exercise, there will be both a definitive map layer, and a “working copy” layer within the GIS.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )123

E.5 (ii) The respective roles of EXOR and Glosmap GIS EXOR is the name of the data management system being written for the public rights of way team. Until PROW are live on the EXOR system, the path network will be maintained within Glosmap. The EXOR PROW module will be loaded with the path sections from Glosmap at the point that the team go live with EXOR PRoW. Once live on EXOR, all editing and maintenance of the electronic definitive map and working copy will be done in EXOR. Layers can be turned on and off in EXOR in a similar way to that of Glosmap, to allow the user to see what he or she requires. E.5 (iii) A future public website for the digitised maps The ESRI software from which Glosmap has been built will provide the platform for a future public website giving access to the electronic map of Gloucestershire’s paths. External web access to Glosmap is Phase 2 of the Glosmap implementation. Exact timescales for this have yet to be confirmed by Corporate ICT. E.6 Conclusions The following conclusions have been drawn from the investigations, discussions and background reading undertaken: E.6 (i) Consolidation

1) Consolidation and digitisation of the definitive map are closely linked, and should run as parallel projects.

2) The electronic definitive map cannot be made available until a) all legal orders have been consolidated into the map, and b) a comprehensive verification exercise has been undertaken to verify the route of paths, undoubtedly above and beyond the data cleansing exercise.

3) A digitised map of Gloucestershire’s paths can be made available before consolidation of the map is completed, but this will not be the definitive map. It will be the PROW layer from Glosmap after completion of the data cleansing exercise.

E.6 (ii) Digitisation

1) There are no nationally agreed standards for production of a digitised definitive map, and the Countryside Agency are unable to provide a time frame for the issue of a national standard. The standards applied for definitive maps vary from authority to authority. At least four authorities have moved away from the 1:10,560 base to one of 1:5,000.

2) The data cleanse will bring the quality of the digitised paths up to a level where they reflect the path network published on the definitive and network maps.

3) After the data cleanse exercise is completed, and before additional path changes are digitised, the GIS PROW layer will be copied. This copy will become the layer that is to be used for consolidation of the definitive map.

4) The majority of the impact of OS PAI will be managed through the data cleansing exercise.

5) The electronic maps of Gloucestershire’s paths, and eventually the digitised definitive map, will be maintained in the EXOR Data Management System once this system is live.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )124

E.7 Recommendations These recommendations are made following the investigations, discussions and background reading undertaken: E.7 (i) Consolidation

1) The 30 September 2004 is used as the cut-off date for the initial, major consolidation exercise. This is the date of implementation of the new county council GIS.

2) An agreed written specification of requirements for the consolidation process is prepared. Timescales are dependent upon the available resource.

3) Future consolidation exercises will be done at a frequency that has yet to be determined. However, it is probable that we will follow the lead of other authorities and consolidate the definitive map on a periodic basis, area by area. It is not possible to provide a definitive view on this until the specification for the first consolidation exercise is completed.

4) The definitive statement is replaced with a loose-leaf file with one or more paths per page. The legal definitive statement will also be sealed by the County Solicitor.

5) The definitive statement will have an additional section added to list the legal events that have affected the path.

6) Longer term, as well as a working copy of the definitive map, there will be a working copy of the definitive statement, which will include unconsolidated path descriptions.

E.7 (ii) Digitisation

7) TerraQuest are used for Phase 1 and Phase 2 to data cleanse the existing PROW network, to remove inaccuracies arising from either the original digitisation, or the known effects of OS PAI.

8) In the short to medium term, an electronic map of Gloucestershire’s paths is made available to the public using the county council website. This will not be an electronic definitive map.

9) Longer term, the electronic definitive map is printed using the latest OS Master Map base.

10) The electronic definitive map is printed at a scale of 1:10,000, unless longer term resource can be found to verify every path against source documents e.g. Parish Submissions, to release the map at a maximum scale of 1:5,000.

11) The electronic definitive map is printed as a “hard” copy onto A1 sheets. This “hard” copy of the definitive map is then sealed by the County Solicitor.

12) The sealed sheets are then held in loose bound ringbinders, away from members of the public.

13) For the general public, there will also be a working copy of the electronic definitive map, available electronically via a website, and as hard copy within Shire Hall. This will show both consolidated and unconsolidated legal orders.

E.7 (iii) Protection and Restoration

14) the current paper definitive map is safeguarded against further deterioration by the acquisition of polyester pockets for each map sheet, and new map covers. These maps will remain available to the public until the electronic definitive map is available, though possibly on a request basis.

15) when the electronic definitive map is available, the current definitive map will be restored and sent to the Records Office for safe keeping.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )125

Annex F: Priority guidelines for managing new access rights Following the Gloucestershire Local Access Forum, “Access Land Awareness Day” in May 2005 a questionnaire was distributed to members of the forum seeking their views on a variety of issues. One of the questions, number 11, sought views on a proposed “priority system” for managing the new access rights, as follows: 11. If GCC takes up the access authority powers, would you endorse the adoption of the following priority system? CATEGORY 1 Sites - “High demand sites with significant parking facilities” CATEGORY 2 Sites - “Medium demand sites with limited parking facilities” CATEGORY 3 Sites - “ Low demand, isolated sites with no parking facilities” CATEGORY 4 Sites - “Island Sites, and other sites with no existing public access” (The adoption of the above Category system will enable the authority to target resources in the early years and will be subject to review and/or update as circumstances change) If the above category system is not adopted, how should GCC prioritise which sites/issues it initially focuses on and how should the various factors be “scored” to reach an overall assessment of the sites “importance” For example - Visitor Numbers, Car parking facilities, other facilities, “Urban” proximity, size, “Designation” (SSSI, Nature Conservation etc). Following completion of the questionnaire a summary of forum member responses was put together, as follows: 80% supported the adoption of a categorisation system as set out above, with the “caveats” that we should score within categories on visitor numbers, urban proximity, SSSI, that disability access should be centered on a few key sites, that consideration needs to be given to each category according to potential environmental and ecological damage, that all new sites require surveying or that we need to produce a more “sophisticated” decision “tree.” One respondent highlighted the benefit of creating a database and gathering more detailed information before prioritisation.

Taking into account forum member’s support for the initial outline priority system but noting their comments and suggestions, the priority system was further refined, and is set out below.

It is intended that if and when any new resources are made available to the access authority to assist with the planning, introduction and management of the new access rights, they will initially be used for database and information gathering, including a more detailed audit of access land sites. However, for the time being it is intended that the access authority adopt the priority system set out overleaf. These guidelines will probably need to be reviewed at a future point when a clearer pattern of access issues and demands have emerged. The purpose of the hierarchy set out below is to outline the guiding principles that will be considered by the authority when access issues are prioritised. It should be noted that the “category level” at which the access authority intervenes will be dependent upon the resources available.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )126

CATEGORY 1 Sites which have one or more of the following characteristics:

• Access sites that are available for public use and are identified as having health and safety issues that are likely to subject users to an unacceptably high level of risk, particularly where the danger is not readily apparent and the consequences are potentially serious.

• Large access sites that have a high recreational value and that receive or are expected to receive a relatively high number of visitors. Such sites will usually have significant parking facilities and be in close proximity to the main urban areas.

• Access sites where English Nature and GCC agree that the ecology is highly sensitive to visitor pressures and where consideration needs to be given to the introduction of appropriate management measures or access restrictions.

CATEGORY 2 Sites which have the following characteristics:

• Medium sized access sites that have a recognised recreational value and that receive or are expected to receive a moderate number of visitors; such sites will usually have some parking facilities and/or be in close proximity to a small town or large village.

CATEGORY 3 Sites - which have the following characteristics:

• Access sites that receive or are expected to receive a relatively low number of visitors; such sites will be characterised by having limited or no parking facilities and/or are relatively isolated from concentrated residential areas.

CATEGORY 4 Sites - which have either of the following characteristics:

• Access sites, which even though they might have some potential recreational value, are currently “island sites” and other access sites or parts of sites with no existing legally defined public access.

• Very small areas of registered common, which have very little or no recreational value, e.g. areas of roadside verge.

In addition to the above, it is intended that where opportunities arise to respond to positive access initiatives, (e.g. an offer by a land manager to establish a public right of way or a permissive route to an access site, or a request to install a pedestrian gate in the boundary of an access parcel to facilitate public access), the access authority will look to do so if resources permit. Finally it should be noted that all access sites or parts of sites which fall into the category of “Section 15” land, as set out in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, will for the time being be excluded from the above priority system as the access authority has no specific statutory jurisdiction for managing public access to them.*

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )127

Annex G: Priority guidelines for public rights of way maintenance and enforcement The priority guidelines contained in this annex are those used for determining the response to “reports about deficiencies” and “requests for action” received from the public regarding the maintenance and protection of the path network. They have been based on the guidelines contained in the existing Milestones Statement. Because of the different criteria that can be used to determine the priority that should be attributed to any particular “Deficiency Report” or “Request for Action”, for example, level of usage, statutory duty, likelihood of an accident, resource availability, type of obstruction, nature of maintenance requirement and so on, it would be inappropriate and misleading to create a single hierarchical "league table". The following priority guidelines should be seen as an equation made up of different criteria, all of which need to be taken into account in order to reach a final decision as to what urgency a complaint or request for action should be accorded. The components of the equation are as follows:

Part G.1 - Accidents/Claims Part G.2 - Obstructions and Nuisances Part G.3 - Maintenance and Improvement Part G.4 - Nature and Level of Usage Part G.5 - Requests for Authorisation and Advice

Part G.1 - Accidents/Claims In carrying out Statutory Duties to safeguard and maintain public rights of way the following is taken into account: a. Accidents and/or claims against the County Council

• In those cases where an accident has occurred, resulting in personal injury, there

should be an immediate response from the Public Rights of Way Unit. • The public right of way in question should be inspected and measures taken to alleviate

any danger. • If it is not possible to make the public right of way reasonably safe for public use it

should be closed, fenced if necessary, and appropriate signs erected. • The Public Rights of Way Operations Officer should be informed. If considered

necessary a ‘Temporary Closure Order’ should be requested from the Definitive Map Section.

b. Presence of danger likely to cause injury to the public

It is acknowledged that determining whether or not there is an actual danger to members of the public can be very difficult from initial reports received. In many cases dangers are more perceived than real. Conversely, some individuals make light of potentially serious problems.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )128

Part G.2 - Obstructions and Nuisances In determining what priority the removal of any particular type of obstruction should

warrant the following is taken into account:

• The degree to which passage is impeded. Can users pass around the obstruction without trespassing on another landowner’s property? Alternatively, can they remove sufficient in order to get by without causing damage?

• Has the obstruction been wilfully erected? • Is the person who is responsible for the obstruction a persistent offender or is it a

‘first offence’? a. Obstructions - order of priority

• Permanent Development, whether residential or agricultural • Ditches, excavation works, pollution • Hedges, fences, barbed wire, permanent electric fences across PROW • Barriers to prevent entry, such as rubble mounds, farm machinery, & ditches • Felled timber • Locked gates • Ploughing or other disturbance relating to Rights of Way Act 1990 • Stiles or gates out of repair • Pheasant pens, feeders • Encroachment on width — temporary low priority/permanent higher priority • Outdoor agricultural storage — straw bales, manure heaps, silage • Temporary electric fences

b. Nuisances — order of priority

• Dangerous animals — specifically unlawful bulls as per the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 section 59 and dangerous dogs referred to in the Dangerous Dogs Act, 1989.

• Unauthorised motor events • Shooting • Other leisure pursuits, for example golf or “war games” • Misleading Notices likely to deter users

Part G.3 - Maintenance and Improvement a. The exact extent to which public rights of way should be maintained is not set out in detail in any Act of Parliament. However, the courts have considered the question. It is held that the highway authority is under a duty to put a highway in such repair as to be reasonably passable for the ordinary traffic of the neighbourhood at all seasons of the year. The aim is therefore to maintain public rights of way in such a state “as to be safe and fit for ordinary public traffic”. It should be borne in mind that the type of maintenance required will vary from path to path. The aim should be to maintain a surface which is in keeping with the surroundings, thus paths and tracks through pasture, woodland, or arable crops will usually be maintained differently to those beside canals, through churchyards or along urban alleyways. b. Other questions which need to be asked include:

• Does the path cross a Scheduled Ancient Monument?

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )129

• Does it pass through a National Nature Reserve, Site of Special Scientific Interest or other designated conservation area?

• Does it affect a badger set, bats or other protected species? • Appropriate consent should be obtained if any of the above apply. • Care is taken not to increase the county council’s maintenance liabilities, for example by

installing steps or hand rails where none previously existed. c. Maintenance order of priority - in those cases where the surface of the public right of way or any part of its structure is publicly maintainable

• Maintain and erect bridges - Highways Act, 1980 Section 328 (2). • Ensure the surface is adequately drained - Highways Act, 1980 Section 100. • Maintain the surface so that it is reasonably level, and compact, (tarmac is only applied in

exceptional circumstances). Plus maintain existing flights of steps. • Maintain and erect signposts and waymarks. • Clearance of natural vegetation growing from the surface of public rights of way. When

appropriate, as in the case of headland paths, the aim should be to promote the growth of short vegetation, principally grass/herb layer, to provide a reasonably convenient surface for users.

• Maintain revetting walls below and retaining walls above the surface, where they are the responsibility of the highway authority. (In practice many revetting and retaining walls are privately maintainable.)

Part G.4 - Nature and level of usage a. Functional routes

Routes in daily use for access to local facilities, for example, shops, schools, places of work or residential properties.

b. Recreational routes

(i) International trails

None at present.

(ii) National trails Cotswold Way, Offa’s Dyke, Thames Path.

(iii) Regional routes * Severn Way, Heart of England Way, Wye Valley Walk, Oxfordshire Way, Wychavon Way, Gloucestershire Way

(iv) Publicised local walks and rides

Very numerous, some 300 - 350 in Gloucestershire. Ranging from national publications produced by the Ordnance Survey to circular walk leaflets produced by Parish Councils and user bodies.

(v) Parish public rights of way

All other public footpaths, bridleways, “RUPPs” and byways which go to make up the remainder of the network.

(vi) ‘Dead-end’ public rights of way

Usually given a low priority unless they provide access to a specific location, such as a viewpoint or where they join an “unclaimed” highway, for example, the “Forest Paths”.

*To gain “regional” status a route should meet highway authority criteria including publication of an approved route guide.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )130

Part G.5 - Requests for Authorisation and Advice When appropriate and lawful the highway authority gives applicants consent to:-

• disturb the surface of a PROW — so that utilities may be installed, for example.

• install new stiles or gates across PROW where none previously existed

• enclose public rights of way

• allow events, trials, fairs, displays

• allow private vehicular use Whenever possible the Highway Authority gives advice:-

• concerning the location or line of public rights of way

• about legal rights and responsibilities

• on works or structure specifications

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )131

Consultation Response Form We welcome your comments. In addition, please state the importance to you of each theme identified in this draft. Please rate importance like this: 1=high, 2=medium, 3=low.

Section Importance (1,2 or 3)

Your Comments

Definitive map and statement

Maintenance

Enforcement and prosecution

Condition of the public rights of way network

Promoted walks and rides

New access rights

Education and awareness

Understanding present and future needs of different users

Community safety

Social inclusion and access for all

Health promotion

Land manager liaison

Partnership working and shared priorities

Voluntary involvement and community participation

Economic development and regeneration

Permissive access in the countryside

Sustainable transport

Gloucestershire Local Access Forum

Planning

Biodiversity

Name Address Organisation (if any) E mail

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )132

Do you think that anything is missing from the Draft Rights of Way Improvement Plan?

Are there any areas that have been included that you feel are not relevant?

Any other comments?

Please put further comments on an additional sheet and return it to: Public Rights of Way Team, Gloucestershire County Council, Environment Department, Shire Hall, Gloucester GL1 2TH.

�� ! ��"#��$ �%�&' ��' ��

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((��

�� )133

For any other enquiries, CONTACT US @ Email: [email protected] Telephone: 01452 425577 Fax: 01452 425674 Postal address: Public Rights of Way Team, Highways Maintenance Unit, Environment Department, Gloucestershire County Council, Shire Hall, Gloucester GL1 2TH

Documents

ˇˆ ˘˙˙ ˝ ˛˚˜ ! # $ %&’ ’ · 2009. 6. 9. · been informed by consultations undertaken as part of the Best Value Review of Public Rights of Way and Countryside Sites during