WELSH ASSEMBLY GOVERNMENT
COUNTRYSIDE AND RIGHTS OF WAY ACT 2000
RIGHTS OF WAY IMPROVEMENT PLANS (ROWIPs)
DRAFT GUIDANCE TO LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES IN WALES
   
  RESPONSE FROM THE OPEN SPACES SOCIETY,
AUGUST 2002
   
1. The Open Spaces Society, founded in 1865, is Britain’s oldest national conservation body. A registered charity, we campaign to create and conserve common land, village greens, open spaces, and rights of public access, in town and country, in England and Wales. We have 2,330 members consisting of individuals, organisations and local authorities.
   
2. We are the leading pressure group concerned with the protection, management and public enjoyment of common land, village greens and open spaces, and we are consulted by the National Assembly for Wales and DEFRA on all applications for works on common land made under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925, section 23 of the National Trust Act 1971 and similar legislation.
   
  1. INTRODUCTION
   
3. Para 1.2: all highway authorities need to improve the management of their existing network (not ‘many’).
   
4. Para 1.4, 1st blob should include ‘maintenance and keeping clear of obstructions’.
   
5. Para 1.4, 2nd blob: additions are much more important than changes in the ROWIPs so this should be amended to ‘additions and possibly changes to the rights-of-way network’.
   
  2. THE CONTEXT AND SCOPE OF RIGHTS OF WAY IMPROVEMENT PLANS
   
  The duty on local highway authorities
   
6. The top priority for highway authorities is to get all rights of way in good order and the definitive map up to date. At present nearly half the paths in Wales are difficult or impossible to use and thousands of highways are not shown on the definitive maps. The ROWIPs must be geared to help achieve these vital objectives.
   
7. Para 2.1: A sentence should be added: ‘For many people, rights of way are also a vital part of the transport system.’ Also ‘local rights of way’ must be defined.
   
8. Para 2.2: ROWIPs should also include a statement of the action local highway authorities propose to take for the maintenance of rights of way and for keeping them clear of obstructions.
   
9. Para 2.3: Amend ‘hopes’ to ‘expects’. The Welsh Assembly Government must also press highway authorities to implement the plans.
   
  Funding
   
10. Para 2.6: We welcome the recognition of the importance of the existing duties of getting all paths in order and definitive maps up to date. An addition should be made at the end ‘and authorities must respond positively to this need’.
   
11. The National Assembly for Wales must ensure that the additional funding provided to local authorities for the CROW Act is spent on that.
   
  Links to other plans
   
12. Para 2.7 and 2.8: We are concerned that the hard-pressed rights-of-way staff in local authorities will be deflected to having to check other plans, produce business plans etc. Whatever system is adopted, it must not take staff off the top priority task of getting the exiting network in good order.
   
  Other statutory duties and responsibilities
   
13. Para 2.11. The guidance will need to explain what this paragraph means.
   
  Monitoring
   
14. Para 2.12. We welcome the requirement for local highway authorities to publish reports on performance of their functions. These should show targets and progress each year in opening the existing network as well as in ROWIPs.
   
  Q1 How should ROWIP relate to local transport plans, and existing and/or proposed walking and cycling strategies?
   
15. Ideally, local transport plans should have already identified the contribution that walking can make to transport needs. ROWIPs should then identify the role of rights-of-way within this framework. (If LTPs have not addressed the issue of walking as a means of transport, then ROWIPs will also need to address this deficiency.)
   
  Q2 Are the links to other plans sufficiently explored?
   
16. Yes, but see our comments above.
   
  Q3 Are there any other plans that are likely to be relevant to ROWIP that should be identified in the guidance?
   
17. Yes. (i) The rights-of-way survey currently being conducted by CCW will provide an estimate of the cost of putting rights of way into good order in Wales as a whole and in each local authority, (ii) maps of open access land under the CROW Act, (iii) parish path surveys under the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of any areas subsequently excluded by the Secretary of State: where these surveys were completed before exclusion was granted, they could provide useful information on the status of paths. All of these should be added to the list in para 3.3.1.
   
  Q4 What requirements should the Welsh Assembly Government make for reporting on the progress in developing and implementing the ROWIP?
   
18. The Welsh Assembly Government should ensure that local authorities are spending on rights of way all of the funds notionally intended for this purpose. If this proves inadequate for implementing ROWIPs, the Welsh Assembly Government will need to consider how the problem can be overcome.
   
  3. PREPARING A RIGHTS OF WAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
   
  Introduction
   
19. Para 3.1.3, 4th blob:  This will require a full survey of paths not yet on the definitive map, since it would be wrong and a waste of money to make a creation order and have to pay compensation when a route is already a highway but not yet shown as such (or shown with insufficient rights).  Also, the phrase 'both in terms of distance and financial cost' could be added. 
   
  The assessments
   
  The definitive map and statement and related documents
   
20. Para 3.3.4: This is of great importance since, until the authority knows which routes are highways, it cannot begin to prepare the ROWIP. So it should be done first. We consider that the problem of identifying ‘lost ways’ is not adequately addressed. For instance, it would be wrong (blob 1) to include undecided cases - precisely because they are undecided. More important, an assessment needs to be made by the local authority of the scale of the work necessary to identify all the lost ways.
   
21. Para 3.3.5 is of course totally unsatisfactory. It would be better for the authority to sort out the definitive map first.
   
22. Para 3.3.6: We consider that staff should not spend much time on this as it is more important to get all the paths in good order. In addition para 3.3.6 refers to ‘those rights-of-way which may be effectively unusable … because ….. [of] ….. heavily trafficked roads’. This is a serious problem, but it is never addressed. It would be helpful to add, in para 3.3.11, an additional blob: ‘the need for routes to link with existing rights of way which have become isolated and effectively unusable because of heavily trafficked roads’.
   
23. A blob should be added ‘quiet routes made quieter by traffic calming’.
   
  The condition of the rights of way network
   
24. Para 3.3.7: is great importance.
   
  Management and enforcement of rights of way
   
25. Para 3.3.9 does not read very well. Blob 3 should read ‘enforce and protect…’.
   
26. Blob 4 refers to changes rather than additions and should be amended to ‘identify the additions required….’.
   
  Assessing the needs of different classes of users
   
27. We welcome this though, again, it is more important to get existing rights of way in order first.
   
28. Para 3.3.11 also needs to make it clear that there must be no upgrading of footpaths or bridleways or conversion of cycle tracks. The needs of riders and cyclists should be catered for by creating new bridleways, cycle tracks and restricted byways.
   
  Rights of way improvement plans and partnership working
   
29. Para 3.4.6 advocates the involvement of other interests. While the interests of land managers and others may be taken into account, they certainly should not be given undue weight.
   
  Q5 Should the guidance specify a requirement for authorities to publish an outline of how they will produce their ROWIP?
   
30. No comment.
   
  Q6 Are the assessments proposed in the draft guidance sufficient to produce a ROWIP? Are there any specific omissions?
   
31. In general yes, they are sufficient, but see our comments above, especially regarding the need to get paths in order and the definitive map up to date.
   
  Q7 Is the guidance on the matters that local highway authorities should address in assessing the needs of different classes of users sufficient?
   
32. See our comments above.
   
  Q8 Should there be more direct involvement of local access forums in the preparation of rights of way improvement plans? If so, how could this be best achieved?
   
33. The involvement of LAFs , as set out in para 3.4.8 and 3.4.9, seems adequate. However, the distinction between ‘involve’ in 3.4.8 and ‘expected to consult’ in 3.4.9 is unclear: why not combine these two paragraphs into one, with the same requirements throughout? The requirement could be worded ‘the local authority must consult with the LAF, take account of its comments and explain its reasons if it takes a different view from the LAF.’
   
34. Para 3.4.5 (f) we submit that the Welsh Assembly should prescribe that local authorities must consult all statutory consultees on rights of way as stated in Welsh Office circular 5/93. Failing that, para 3.4.7 should state that it is essential that local authorities consult these organisations.
   
  Q9 Should local highway authorities be required to publish their assessment reports before they start preparing their statements of action?
   
35. No - this would cause even further delay to an already slow timetable. Note also that the summary timetable on p11 makes no reference to para 2.2 which asks local authorities to give the task priority to do better than the timetable. It needs to be stated clearly on p11 that the timetable is therefore a worst scenario, not a target.
   
  4. PREPARING THE STATEMENT OF ACTION
   
  Q10 Is the information that local highway authorities will be asked to produce in their statements of action sufficient? Are there any gaps?
   
36. Para 4.3: although presumably the blobs are not in priority order, it would be helpful to put the most important, blob 3 (enforcement and protection of local rights of way), at the top, followed by a blobs 1 and 2. A further blob should be added below existing blob 2 ‘identify and register lost ways’.
   
37. Furthermore, the phrase ‘ legal changes’ in blob 2 is not clear. Presumably this refers to legal event orders in relation to the definitive map.
   
38. Para 4.5: the business plan must give top priority to getting existing public rights of way open and explaining how this will be done and the funding required.
   
39. Para 4.6 must make it clear that ROWIPs are about path additions, not diversions or extinguishments.
   
40. Para 46: any new routes must be public rights of way and not permissive routes which are uncertain and do not have legal protection.
   
  Q11 Would further guidance in this area be helpful?
   
41. No comment
   
  5. PUBLICISING AND PUBLISHING THE DRAFT PLAN
   
  Q12 Is 12 weeks sufficient time for representations to be made on draft plans?
   
42. Yes, provided it does not span major holiday periods.
   
  Q13 How much publicity should be given to the draft plans?
   
43. No comment
   
  Q14 Are the proposals for dealing with representation on published draft rights of way improvement plans adequate?
   
44. No comment
   
  Q15 Are the proposals for the publication of the ROWIP sufficient?
   
45. No comment
   
  6. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING
   
  Q16 What other information would be helpful to local authorities in taking forward their plans?
   
46. Sections 6.3-6.6 on landowner involvement make no reference to problems caused by obstructions for which the landowner is responsible. Advice from Welsh Assembly Government on how to deal with such problems would be helpful to local authorities.
   
  Q17 Does the guidance strike the right balance between improving the existing rights of way network and developing new links?
   
47. Given the low proportion of rights of way that are in satisfactory condition in Wales, it is right to give priority to opening these rather than to creations. However, this does not mean that no creations are necessary: in the longer term they certainly are, and some will be necessary in the short term too.
   
  Q18 Is there any further comment that you would like to make with regard to the guidance?
   
48. Para 6.3: we strongly oppose the inclusion of the sentence ‘local highway authorities should approach such negotiations constructively and be prepared to consider changes to the network that landowners might seek as corollaries to agreements …’. This is just what ROWIPs are not about, doing deals in order to secure improvements. These are time consuming and costly for the authority and unlikely to provide any benefit to the public. Improvements must be achieved through genuine creations not swaps. The last two sentences of para 6.3 must be deleted.