APPENDICES TO THE MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
APPENDIX 1
Supplementary Memorandum submitted by
the Ramblers' Association (R1a)
1. LOCAL AUTHORITY
SPENDING ON
DUTIES IN
RELATION TO
EXISTING DUTIES
ON RIGHTS
OF WAY
Local authorities have had duties to protect
and assert the public's rights to enjoy rights of way for many
years, but evidence shows that they are failing to spend enough
to meet these existing rights of way duties.
For example, local authorities' Best Value performance
indicators for 2001/2 for the "ease of use of rights of way"
(BV178) show that only 69% of England's rights of way are in the
condition required by law. In addition, the Countryside Agency's
("the Agency") "Rights of Way Condition Survey
2000" found that walkers can expect to come across a serious
problem every 2km. In the light of this survey, the Agency estimated
that an investment of £69.2 million (or £366 per km
of path) was needed to make definitive rights of way easy to use,
yet local authorities are spending far less than this.
In 1999-2000, the CSS (formerly the County Surveyors
Society) surveyed local authority expenditure on rights of way
in England. From that research, the CSS estimated that local authorities
were spending £32.6 million on their rights of way duties;
and it found that the average expenditure on maintaining the network
stood at £108 per km. (Source: "Resources for Public
Rights of Way 1999/2000", CSS, January 2001.)
Many authorities do not see the link between
a good rights of way network and health, the economy and sustainable
transport. This is despite the fact that the economic importance
of paths was shown so graphically by their closure during the
foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. A report commissioned by the
Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber found that "the
closure of footpaths is the single largest factor impacting on
rural tourism", with the estimated loss of £34.8 million
to the tourist industry in the Yorkshire region alone between
March and May 2001. The Ramblers' Association believes that local
authorities should invest more in their rights of way network.
It needs to be recognised as a valuable resource, which is relatively
cheap to maintain. Some local authorities are increasingly recognising
the value of their networks, and are including a rights of way
target in their Local Public Service Agreement. We would like
to see more authorities selecting rights of way targets in this
and the next round of LPSAs.
In addition to this local authorities should
spend existing resources more wisely. For example, they should
take enforcement action. This is where a landowner who obstructs
a path is required by the local authority to remove the obstruction,
and if he or she doesn't, the authority removes it and bills the
landowner. This ensures the speedy re-opening of paths and is
much cheaper than the "tip-toe" tactics of negotiating
with the landowner, sometimes for several years. The Ramblers'
Association is also concerned that many authorities spend public
money diverting public rights of way, solely for the benefit of
the landowner, with no benefit to the public.
We think it would be tremendously helpful for
DEFRA to issue guidance to local authorities highlighting the
benefits rights of way bring, urging authorities to invest properly
in the networks and in the training of their rights of way staff,
and pointing them to evidence of good rights of way practice (such
as the Good Practice Guide issued by the Agency, the CSS, the
Institute of Public Rights of Way Officers, and the LGA).
2. LOCAL AUTHORITY
SPENDING ON
NEW DUTIES
AND POWERS
UNDER CROW.
Local authorities will have several new duties
and new powers under CROW. These are summarised as follows:
Powers
— Making/enforcing bylaws relating
to access land.
— Appointing wardens for access land.
— Erecting notices indicating boundaries
of access land and excepted land.
— Entering into agreements to provide
means of access to access land.
— Providing access in absence of agreement
with land owner.
— Removing obstructions to access land.
— To make combined legal event and
definitive map modification orders; and to prepare consolidated
definitive maps.
— Ordering removal of overhanging branches
from bridleways.
— Making Traffic Regulation Orders
for conserving natural beauty and SSSIs.
— Creating, stopping-up and diversion
of rights of way for crime prevention etc.
Duties
— To establish local access forum by
August 2003.
— To publicise effect of redesignation
of RUPPs.
— To keep for public inspection registers
of applications for definitive map modification orders; to keep
for public inspection registers of declarations as to the existence
of highways made under section 31(6) of the Highways Act 1980;
to keep for public inspection a register of applications for diversion
and extinguishment orders made by landowners.
— To prepare a rights of way improvement
plan within five years.
— To deal with notices served on them
relating to removal of obstructions.
— To have regard to needs of people
with mobility problems when authorising the erection of stiles
or gates.
— To publish reports on delivery of
rights of way functions.
— To make decisions on landowner applications
for diversion and extinguishment orders within four months.
A number of these will be essential to the effective
implementation and smooth operation of the CROW provisions on
the ground. In addition to these new duties and powers, local
authorities will also have to cope with the implications of the
"cut-off" date for the addition of historic public rights
of way to the definitive map. Whatever arrangements are made by
DEFRA and the Agency for the researching of these routes, the
task of making the orders and taking them through to confirmation
will rest with local authorities.
The Ramblers' Association has carried out a
survey to find out what funds local authorities have allocated
for the implementation of CROW (in relation to all Parts of the
Act) for the financial year 2002-3. A copy of the results of this
survey is enclosed and shows that many authorities have allocated
little or no money to this area of work.
In the light of this evidence and in view of
our experience with local authorities in relation to their existing
duties on rights of way (as described above), we have concerns
that authorities may not allocate sufficient resources to carry
out their new responsibilities under CROW.
The Ramblers' Association believes that the
money which will be allocated to local authorities for carrying
out their new powers under CROW should be controlled by the Agency
and distributed to authorities through a grant scheme, rather
than allocated through the SSA directly to local authorities.
We accept that this system may not need to be permanent but should
be in place for at least for the first five years of the commencement
of the new rights coming into being to allow for the new infrastructure
to be set up. This should ensure that the money is spent on the
purpose intended and will allow the Agency to monitor the work
done and allocate funds based on both need and performance.
In addition to this, local authorities should
be issued with guidance that explains the importance of their
new powers under CROW in terms of health and the economy and sets
out clearly what they are required to do.
In relation to the money allocated to local
authorities through the SSA for carrying out their statutory duties
under CROW, the Ramblers' Association believes that the amount
allocated to each individual authority should be a matter of public
knowledge as it is in Wales.
In addition to this we think it would help to
ensure that the money is spent on the purpose intended if local
authorities were issued with guidance to ensure that they are
made fully aware of the money's existence within the SSA in relation
to their new duties under CROW, and to set out the importance
of the new right of access and rights of way in terms of health
and the economy.
3. RETROSPECTIVE
CHANGE TO
MAPPING METHODOLOGY
On 17 April 2002 the Agency announced a retrospective
change in the mapping methodology in reference to the discretion
allowed to the Agency to omit land that qualifies as open country
but is less than five hectares and which they consider to serve
no useful purpose. Originally, land could only be omitted under
this discretion if it met all of the following criteria:
— There was other access land nearby.
— The land did not provide a route
to other access land.
— There was no nearby parcel of land
which had the potential to be linked with the parcel to form a
larger unit.
— The land did not contain any feature
of special interest to the public.
— The land was not close to any settlement,
visitor attraction, right of way or public road.
Under the amended methodology the Agency were
only required to bear these criteria in mind when making a decision.
In addition, the methodology was applied retrospectively to Regions
1 and 2, thereby removing land without its removal being subject
to public consultation.
The original methodology had been agreed following
public consultation. The new methodology dealing with areas less
than five hectares was announced after the process was already
underway. It was not consulted upon and was applied retrospectively.
In addition to this, we have concerns about the way the discretion
relating to areas less than five hectares is being applied by
the Agency (see 5. below).
4. PRE-DRAFT
MAP INFORMATION
The Agency has invited any person to submit
existing data from surveys or "other local information"
to it in advance of the publication of draft maps in each region.
In some cases the Ramblers' Association has been able to submit
local information based on knowledge of the land. However, the
deadlines for pre-draft submissions in Regions 7 and 8 were both
brought forward by approximately three months (though this decision
was not consulted upon or advertised). This meant that the Regional
Partners Seminars for Regions 7 and 8 are being held after the
date for partners to submit pre-draft map data and makes it very
difficult for our members to submit information in time. At best,
this suggests a lack of communication between the Agency and their
contractor, Binnie, Black and Veatch, which in turn leads one
to question whether the mapping contract is being properly managed
by Agency.
5. CONCERNS ABOUT
THE APPLICATION
OF THE
MAPPING METHODOLOGY
We have compiled a list of examples given to
us by our members of land that has not been included on the provisional
map in Regions 1 and 2, where we consider the methodology to have
been inconsistently applied. Examples include land parcels that
appear identical to adjacent or surrounding land parcels that
have been mapped. We are concerned that this will cause confusion
for walkers who will not be able to distinguish between what does
and does not qualify. These examples have been submitted to the
Agency for comment.
We also have concerns about the way in which
the Agency has applied its discretion to exclude areas of open
country of less than five hectares if it thinks the area serves
"no useful purpose". Not only has the Agency altered
the methodology to widen this discretion, we also have examples
of it being applied in ways we would wish to question. For example,
it appears to have been applied to two or more adjacent parcels
that together have an area of more than five hectares and to areas
adjacent to large. Again, examples of decisions that concern us
have been submitted to the Agency for comment. The Agency has
stated that as a rule it is minded to leave on the map parcels
of five hectares or less that are contiguous with other areas
of open countryside and registered common land. However, we understand
that the Agency has admitted that it was wrong to leave one such
parcel (parcel P20180) off the provisional map for the lower northwest
and has stated that it has no powers to undo a "no useful
purpose" decision.
If it appears that errors have been made, the
Ramblers' Association would like to see a provision in the regulations
on the correction of provisional and conclusive maps (not yet
published) to allow for errors where land has been left off the
map to be corrected or, failing this, an assurance that an early
review of the map will be carried out at the first available opportunity.
6. LOCAL ACCESS
FORUMS
The Ramblers' Association believes that local
access forums will be useful bodies in providing advice to local
authorities and national parks about how the new right of access
will work locally and also about the improvement of public access
to land in that area in general. It is important that members
of local access forums work constructively to achieve this end
but also that local authorities and national parks take their
advice seriously and provide the money necessary to implement
their proposals.
The Ramblers' Association is concerned about
the process that some authorities are using in appointing members
to local access forums. For example, in the Yorkshire Dales National
Park the two members who conducted the interviews with potential
members of the local access forum are also the National Park representatives
on that forum. Similarly, in Oxfordshire, the member who conducted
interviews for the Oxfordshire local access forum is also the
Oxfordshire County Council member on that forum. The Ramblers'
Association would like to see much clearer guidance issued to
local authorities and national parks setting out how appointments
to local access forums should be made.
7. RESTRICTIONS
SYSTEM
The Ramblers' Association looks forward to the
publication of regulations on restrictions and closures, which
are due to be published this month. We support the principle that
the "least restrictive option" necessary to deal with
any individual situation should be applied. The restrictions system
must be transparent so that users can understand and respect it.
It will be dependent on good information on the ground in order
to work. This information must be standardised and consistently
applied across England and Wales. Users must be given adequate
notice of any closure and there should be public consultation
on long-term closures or restrictions. It is essential that the
system be adequately funded.
14 February 2003
| 
