CMS INQUIRY

DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD & RURAL AFFAIRS

CRIME PREVENTION ON RIGHTS OF WAY

PUBLIC CONSULTATION PAPER ON THE DESIGNATION OF AREAS AND OTHER PROCEDURAL MATTERS

RESPONSE FROM THE OPEN SPACES SOCIETY, SEPTEMBER 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.

2.	We have long argued that the crime provisions of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act are not necessary and we maintain that view. Therefore the comments we make here are without prejudice to that view.

	Overview

3.	It will be apparent from our response below that there is much in the overview with which we do not agree. However, since the points are made in our response to the draft guidance, we mention them only briefly here.

4.	Para 6 makes sweeping statements, that back alleys can be particularly attractive to criminals, and ‘"alleygating" has been shown to make a significant difference to the quality of life’. However these statements are not backed up by evidence.

5.	Para 13. The first designation order should be reviewed one year from commencement.

6.	Para 15. We disagree with the government’s view that this should be implemented ahead of the other provisions. There is no evidence it is needed urgently, if at all.

	Section 1: Scope and status of guidance

	Designation of areas – general

	A	Bearing in mind the legislation provides for the exercise of the Secretary of State’s discretion to select designated areas, is a policy guidance note (directed at highway authorities and copied to housing authorities and the police) the most appropriate means to identify potential areas? If not, what method should be used? (paras 1.1 – 1.2)

7.	We agree that a policy guidance note directed at highway authorities and copied to housing authorities and the police is the most appropriate means to identify potential areas, but it must also be copied to statutory consultees on rights-of-way changes.

8.	The guidance must warn about the disadvantages of designation. For example, any areas which are designated for this purpose will suffer severely just through the act of designation. They will be seen as sinks, property prices will plummet and people will not wish to live there. Indeed, the existing residents are likely to be strongly opposed to their patch being so designated once they understand what the implications are. So the guidance must clearly spell out these implications and make it clear what local authorities are letting themselves in for if they propose an area for designation.
	Section 3: Context of new provisions

9.	Para 3.1. We strongly agree that rights of way do not cause or facilitate crime. This sentence, which is excellent, conflicts with paragraph 6 of the overview which must therefore be amended.

10.	Para 3.1. We strongly object to the last sentence of this paragraph. The closure of unused alleys is no less controversial than of used alleys. They are not used because of lack of lighting, or they are unwelcoming, or have other adverse features which could be put right. If they are well lit and welcoming they will be used.

11.	Para 3.2. This should recognise that the existence of alleyways which are used by the public are a safeguard against crime.

12.	Para 3.3. The last sentence is not based on evidence. How do highway authorities know that back alleys are facilitating a high level of crime? They are very unlikely to have any evidence.

13.	Para 3.5 should emphasise that the powers should be used only as a last resort, after cleaning and clearing the way and possibly lighting it.

14.	Para 3.6. We strongly oppose the reference to New Deal etc. It is not for DEFRA to suggest where the designated areas might be. Areas which are getting public and private money for neighbourhood renewal should be using that money to make paths welcoming and well lit so that the communities who live there can benefit from them. If New Deal means path closures then it is a Raw Deal.

	Section 4: Approach to designating areas

15.	Para 4.3 (a) The highway authority must be able to demonstrate that rights of way are, beyond all doubt, causes of a persistent crime problem. It is not sufficient for them to be ‘plausible causes of a persistent crime problem’. The highway authority must also be able to show that, beyond all doubt, rights of way do not contribute to a reduction in crime.

	Geographical extent of designated areas

	B	Do wards provide the appropriate geographic area/level of targeting? If not, how should the geographic area be defined? (para 4.5)

16.	Para 4.5. We consider ward level to be too large a unit for designation, although if the government does decide on this, the criteria for designation must be required to apply throughout the ward for that area to be eligible. We would prefer ‘neighbourhood’ or ‘locality’, as is used for registering land as town or village greens.

	Section 5: Procedure

	Formulating a submission

	(A) Overview: assessing the need

17.	Para 5.2. Highway authorities will need hard evidence that the crime is caused by rights of way. They cannot just accept the word of the police who are clearly biased because, for instance, a reduced number of highways means fewer areas to patrol. The authority will need to test such claims fully. They will need to assess whether crime levels would have been higher if there had been no rights of way, since rights of way provide eyes and ears and are therefore a defence against crime. They will also need to assess whether the routes which are allegedly the cause of the problem are welcoming and well lit. If they are not, the authority must require the routes to be made welcoming and well lit to see whether there is any reduction in crime. They must also be satisfied, as far as possible, that the alleged crime would not just be carried out somewhere else, which would merely be transferring not reducing the crime. In obtaining information from the police they must obtain statistics which have been independently tested, eg in a magistrates’ court.
18.	Para 5.3 should read ‘Authorities must …’ not ‘Authorities should …’. That information must be watertight, there must be real proof.

	(B) Consultation

	C1	Does the guidance provide an adequate explanation for the role and extent of consultation? If not, in what way should the advice on consultation be changed? (paras 5.5 – 5.8)

19.	Paras 5.5 – 5.8. We are astounded that there is no mention of user bodies being consulted on the designation orders. Of course these must be added, together with any other organisations and individuals who might have an interest in the matter.

	(C) Specific issues to be addressed

	C2	Does the guidance provide sufficient clarity on the specific issues that highway authorities should address in formulating a submission? (paras 5.9 – 5.14)

	(i)	Nature of problem: What crimes are occurring on rights of way (serious or others)?

20.	Para 5.9. Again authorities must provide real proof

	(ii)	*Location of problem: are the rights of way adjacent to adjoining premises?*

21.	Para 5.10. The authority must provide hard evidence that the rights of way are the cause of crimes. If the estates are poorly designed and the routes are not lit or welcoming, the authority must improve the routes for the public and see whether that reduces the level of crime.
	(iii)	*Current problem: are some rights of way being used for crime?*

22.	Para 5.11. The authorities must carry out their own independent surveys and not just rely on crime and disorder reduction partnerships who may well be biased.

	(iv)	*Effect of problem: are those rights of way causing disruption to the local community and reducing its quality of life?*

23.	Para 5.12. The heading to this section is very odd because the legislation requires the crime to cause disruption to the local community not the right of way. Clearly rights of way are overwhelmingly beneficial to the local community in providing them with traffic-free, safe routes through towns.

	(v)	*Mitigation of problem*

24.	Para 5.13. This should spell out that applying for a designation order should be the absolute last resort, after all other methods have been tried and independently tested.

	C3	Should more prominence be given in the guidance to the relevance of ‘wider considerations’? (para 5.14)

	(vi)	*Other matters*

25.	Para 5.14. The authority must be required to assess whether the level of crime would be reduced by having more rights of way and whether by removing any rights of way the level of crime would be reduced.

	Summary checklist

26.	Para 5.15. ‘Disorder’ must be deleted from the third blob, since the law is about crime not disorder. Also, the third blob must be accompanied by evidence. The fifth blob should say ‘the majority of rights of way’ not ‘some rights of way’. The ways must be identified, if necessary by map, showing connecting streets. The sixth blob must be hard evidence not just anecdotes.

	C4	Are there any further considerations which should be outlined in the guidance (in relation to the content of the submission)?

27.	Further blobs need to be added.

	·	Evidence that an increase in public rights of way would not reduce crime.

	·	Evidence that a reduction in the number of rights of way would reduce crime.

	Section 6: Next stages

	Phasing of designation orders

	D1	Do you agree with the phased approach to designation orders?

	D2	Is the 10-week period suggested for the formulation of priority submissions (for the purposes of the first designation order) the right length of time? What would you suggest and why? (para 5.18)

28.	Para 5.18. We do not consider 10 weeks to be long enough because some of the evidence will take some time to collect (for example an assessment of the effect rights of way have on crime – both positive and negative).

	D3 (i)	Should a ceiling be placed on the maximum number of wards an authority can submit for the purposes of the first designation order?; and/or

	D3(ii)	Should there be a ceiling on the total number of wards to be included in the first designation order?

29.	We consider there should be a ceiling in both.

	D4	Is 2 years an appropriate period for review for the first designation order? If not, what should the period be? (para 5.19)

30.	We submit the review should be after one year not two. The guidance must spell out what the review will examine.

31.	We submit that designation orders must be published with an opportunity for user groups and the public to object. If there are objections the Secretary of State should hold an inquiry before determining a designation order.

	Annex 2: other procedural matters

32.	Paragraph 6. This seems to imply that a highway authority can make a special extinguishment or diversion order before the legislation comes into effect. This needs clarifying but we trust that is not the case.

	Further matters

33.	We envisage problems in the conveyancing of properties in designated areas. These should figure in official searches, say by the local authority as Smoke Control Zones are. If the query is only an option for solicitors, we run the risk of later problems, as with rights of way.

34.	The guidance does not state if designation is to be permanent. If a designated area becomes a non-crime area it would be wrong for the tag to continue for ever.

35.	It needs to be made clear who will advise property owners and tenants of the effects of such designation, such as the effect on value of properties and problems of maintenance when the highway authority ceases to maintain. Presumably ‘riparian’ owners/tenants will be responsible for dealing with un-social neighbours, with ultimate recourse to the civil law. All these matters need to be clarified.