Agenda item

Report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport.

6.1       The Team Manager, Rights of Way & Countryside, introduced the report and gave a short presentation on the services provided by the Rights of Way (RoW) and Countryside Team. The Committee discussed the contents of the presentation and report. A summary of the comments and questions raised by the Committee is given below.

Footpath Diversions

6.2       The Committee asked about footpath diversions for major developments and what powers existed to ensure paths are reinstated. The Team Manager, Rights of Way & Countryside responded that footpath diversions for developments under the Town and Countryside Planning Act should be part of the planning process and are processed by planning authorities, in consultation with the RoW Team. Developers do have the right to apply to temporarily close footpaths for 6-18 months, but if they do not reopen them the Team can serve a notice and taken enforcement action as well as the Planning Authority being able act if the developer breaches planning conditions.

Stile replacement and footpath accessibility

6.3       The Committee asked about the criteria for replacing stiles on footpaths with gates to improve accessibility and wheelchair accessible routes. The Team Manager, Rights of Way & Countryside outlined that the Team had undertaken a mapping exercise to see where it would be possible to reduce the number of stiles and where they are a danger to use. The Team also responds to requests to remove stiles. Work to replace stiles has mainly been on village edge routes and not so much on urban routes where they are less of an issue.

6.4       The Team does develop and promote wheelchair accessible routes when external funding is available. This work tends to be with the South Downs National Park Authority and the District and Borough councils. The Team does not have maps of wheelchair accessible routes but would like to look at developing this if there is external funding available.

6.5       The Committee asked if the Council can encourage landowners to replace stiles with gates. The Team Manager, Rights of Way & Countryside responded that existing stiles and gates are authorised structures, and it can take time to persuade landowners to change the stiles they are responsible for. If landowners do not want to change stiles to gates, the RoW Team cannot compel them to replace stiles. The Team is replacing stiles with gates as part of an externally funded project with the High Weald AONB. The project is replacing around 10% of stiles in particular areas of the High Weald.

6.6       It was clarified that if stiles and gates are not repaired or replaced when they are damaged or not fit for purpose, the process is to send a letter to the landowner first requesting that they take action. After 28 days the Team will contact the landowner if no action has been taken and can then serve a notice. Once a notice has been served, if no action has been taken within 28 days, the Team can take enforcement action to remedy the problem and recharge costs to the landowner.

Volunteers

6.7       The Committee asked about the work the Team does to support volunteers and work with groups such as the Ramblers and Sustrans. The Team Manager, Rights of Way & Countryside responded that working with volunteers effectively requires adequate support and the Team has one Volunteer Officer when there used to be three. The Team does work with the Ramblers from time to time and with Parish Councils but has limited capacity. He added that he would provide feedback to the Volunteer Officer on approaching Parish Councils about volunteer work.

6.8       The Team would be happy to work with Sustrans and the Ramblers to open up less used paths which have encroaching vegetation. However, the Team does have limited capacity to work with volunteers. If brambles or encroaching vegetation needs to be cleared it can be reported to the Team and they can programme works.

Income, Resources and the impact of inflation

6.9       The Committee asked where the income comes from that the Team is able to generate. The Team Manager, Rights of Way & Countryside outlined that most of the income of around £100,000 comes from property searches and the Team is able to charge landowners for footpath diversion work which can be around £2,500 for each diversion. There are also depositions to protect land from a right of way being created.

6.10     The Committee noted the effect of inflation on budgets and asked what level of funding would be needed to counter the impact of inflation on the amount of work that could be undertaken. The Committee also asked what difference an extra full-time post would have on the Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) backlog. The Team Manager, Rights of Way & Countryside responded that he could provide a figure to catch up with the effect of inflation after the meeting and would speak to the Team about the resources needed for DMMOs. Having more resources would definitely help and this is also a national issue.

Cattle and farm tracks

6.11     The Committee noted that there have been issues with cattle in fields with footpaths that run through them and the cattle injuring people. The Committee asked how the RoW Team deal with these issues. The Team Manager, Rights of Way & Countryside responded that the responsibility for dealing with incidents lies with the farmer and the Heath and Safety Executive. There are around 2-3 significant incidents per year. Once an incident is reported to the Team, the Teams’ main duty is to gather all the relevant information from the farmer and the person affected. The Team do write to farmers where an incident has been reported to them.

6.12     The Committee asked what proportion of footpaths follow farm tracks. The Team Manager, Rights of Way & Countryside estimated that around 10% of Rights of Way are shared with farm tracks and other private access routes. This can sometimes cause conflict between the different users.

Definitive Map

6.13     The Committee asked if the Team had information on the widths of Rights of Way and whether encroachment into the width of paths is a problem. The Team Manager, Rights of Way & Countryside outlined that the widths of Rights of Way should be recorded in the Definitive Map Statement. If not, the Team can look at historical or site information to determine the width of a footpath or other RoW. The Team can investigate encroachment from landowners, but it would need to meet the test of ‘significant’ encroachment for action to be taken.

Projects and External Funding

6.14     The Committee asked if the Team had a list of projects ready to be taken forward when funding becomes available, for example, Active Travel funding. The Team Manager, Rights of Way & Countryside responded that since 2010 the team have been surveying the whole network and have a list of works that they would like to undertake such as surfacing work and work on bridges. For surfacing work, if the Team uses Section 106 Planning Agreement, Community Infrastructure Levey (CIL) or Active Travel funding and if the work is on private land, the landowners’ permission is still required. If Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) or Active Travel projects coincide with routes the Team would like to upgrade, this can work well, and the Team can take projects forward.

King Charles III – South-East England Coast Path

6.15     The Committee asked if additional funding is available for the work on the new national trail. The Team Manager, Rights of Way & Countryside confirmed that Natural England fully fund the implementation and management of the King Charles III South-East England Coat Path and the project officer hosted as part of the Team. There have been no major issues with landowners concerning the new national trail and any objections would be dealt with by the Secretary of State.

Vegetation Management and Disposal

6.16     The Committee asked if the team are able to remove encroaching vegetation and whether its is possible to remove arisings from site as leaving them in situ is not popular with residents, particularly in urban areas. The Team Manager, Rights of Way & Countryside acknowledged that vegetation disposal is an issue due to the cost and not having a disposal site. The Team tries to dispose of cleared vegetation on site if possible as this is the most cost-effective solution. Keeping a path unobstructed by side vegetation is the landowner’s responsibility. Surface vegetation is the County Council’s responsibility. The Team have access to Land Registry information, so they are able to identify landowners if necessary. If there are multiple reports of encroaching vegetation blocking a path, then the Teams can prioritise this for clearance work.

6.17     The Committee asked if there was any conflict between those people who wanted to leave vegetation to thrive for nature conservation purposes and those who wanted to have it cut back. The Team Manager, Rights of Way & Countryside responded the Team had not had many issues with this and they do try to leave a wildlife strip or verge. Many of the rangers have an ecological background and do bear in mind nature conservation requirements when carrying out their work.

Tourism and Active Travel

6.18     The Committee asked how the Council promotes Rights of Way (RoW) in the Tourism offer and where there might be value for money in looking at RoW as part of Active Travel work. The Team Manager, Rights of Way & Countryside acknowledged that most of the Team’s focus is on maintenance, enforcement work and nature conservation work. Work on the new coastal path has more emphasis on tourism and there may be an opportunity to promote the circular walks that are already online more widely.

6.19     Work on the LCWIP may allow RoW schemes, which have the potential to provide more value for the money, compared with highways schemes which tend to be more expensive. It was clarified that it can be difficult and a long process to change the status of a footpath to allow its use for cycling (e.g. by upgrading to a bridleway) and the Team has limited staff capacity to do this type of work. This is mainly due to needing landowner permission to upgrade paths. The Team would need more staff and money to undertake Active Travel projects, but there is an opportunity to build a business case to look at how the RoW Team can contribute to Active Travel.

Links to Planning and Infrastructure contributions (Section 106, CIL)

6.20     The Committee asked if there are links to planning authorities for funding RoW work and the potential impacts on existing Rights of Way by developers. The Team Manager, Rights of Way & Countryside outlined that the planning authorities will flag up any impacts on existing RoW network from new developments and the Teams are consulted on 200-400 planning applications a year. For new developments this is mostly concerning the status of existing RoW rather than new routes within the development. More often Section 106 and CIL funding is used to link the development to existing routes or upgrade existing routes. It was clarified that ESCC maintains the portion of the Cuckoo trail which it owns, which is around one third of the trail, and Wealden District Council maintains the other two thirds.

6.21     The Committee RESOLVED to note the activities undertaken by the Rights of Way & Countryside Team and be aware of current work, challenges, and future priorities for the service.