Agenda item

Report by the Principal Rights of Way Officer

 

The Committee is asked to note the following report:

 

Public Rights Of Way Annual Progress Report 2021

12.1   The Committee considered a report by the Principal Rights of Way Officer who set out the key points of the report.

 

12.2   During the debate the Committee raised the points below and a response or clarification was provided by the Principal Rights of Way Officer, where applicable, as follows:

 

Condition of structures on public rights of way (PROW)

 

Points raised – What can be done to encourage landowners to maintain structures, e.g. bridges, to a good state of repair?  If a bridge is reported as defective, where does the risk liability lie?

 

Response – Where a structure is an accommodation bridge for private access with a PROW over it, the main responsibility lies with the landowner although the Highways Authority has an interest in it.  Reported issues with structures are assessed.  Officers work with the landowner to agree repairs.  Bridges under the ownership of the Council are assets which the Council is responsible for.  The PROW team assesses smaller wooden bridges, larger structures are assessed by the Structures team.  Assessments lead to a recommendation on the timescale for repairs.  Resources would have to be found to do so.  Regarding liability for a privately owned structure which carries a PROW, the Council has responsibility for the public status of the route and would work with the landowner.  If a structure is unsafe then it may need to be closed to the public until made safe.

 

Reduction in compliments

 

Point raised – What has accounted for the reduction of compliments to 6 from 19?

 

Response – There is an element of expectation that the Council undertakes the work it should.  It is felt that the PROW team does an excellent job and has not reduced the volume or standard of work.  Compliments are dependent on the individual.

 

Ploughing

 

Point raised – How often has the PROW team had to engage with farmers who have encroached on PROWs through ploughing?

 

Response – Officers did not have statistics to hand; however, it was clarified that any reports or incidents raised through inspection would be assessed and prioritised against the reporting standards - Low, Medium and High.  If a High priority then Landowners would be contacted and encouraged to reinstate the path.  If Low or Medium priority it would usually wait until the next routine maintenance inspection.  Most landowners are open to reinstating paths, but enforcement procedures are available although used as a last resort.

 

Vegetation

 

Point raised – Only about 10% of PROW vegetation is cut back.  Does this keep up with annual growth or is some useability of the network affected?

 

Response – The PROW team’s budget allows for cutting back 10% of the network under the Summer Clearance Contract, which focuses on reported heavily overgrown paths that restrict access.  This is separate to the 15-month Routine Maintenance Contract cycle.

 

Ash Dieback

 

Point raised – How is Ash Dieback affecting operations and the network, including the risks to users and blocking of watercourses from failing trees?  And, to what degree is this affected by Riparian owners not undertaking their duty?

 

Response – The Council has a contract to deal with Ash Dieback which includes the PROW network.  Access Rangers undertaken inspections of the PROW, any concerns are reported to the landowner or Arboricultural team who undertake a detailed tree inspection and determine the course of action and timescale, which then goes on the list for contracted works and is cleared under that contract if the landowner is unknown or, if necessary the work is undertaken as part of enforcement action if landowners do not.  Officers and volunteers are aware of the issue and vigilant and, at this time, there have been no major concerns on the PROW network.  Whilst drainage can be an issue, trees falling into water courses is not generally an issue, but can occur at times, and again any issues are prioritised.

 

Local issue

 

Point raised – Advice was sought on how to progress improvements to the network to enable pedestrian access to a particular primary school.

 

Response – It is understood that there are outstanding matters to be settled with landowners, including a change of ownership on one section.  Landowner agreement is required to upgrade the path, which is there in principle, although the legal ownership needs to be dealt with first. Consideration of funding would follow once ownership is settled and an agreement to dedicate is in place.

 

Resources

 

Point raised – Clarification was sought regarding resources, both funds and staff.

 

Response – There are finite resources.  Planning is the key to delivering enhancements on the PROW network, including within red-line boundaries of development and developer contributions (Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)).  Landowner agreement to upgrade paths is also essential. 

 

Urban footpaths maintenance and vegetation clearance

 

Points raised – Who deals with the maintenance and vegetation clearance on footpaths in urban areas?

 

Response – Responsibility for urban areas depends on the location, it may be the PROW team or Highways.  The PROW team maintains surface vegetation on urban footpaths to the same standard as the rural network, with the same provisos for privately owned land and trees, unless the landowner cannot be identified and a risk is posed, in which case the Council has a duty to take action.  Encroaching vegetation is the landowner’s responsibility and prioritised as described above.  The Council’s iMap will show whether land is private or Council owned. 

 

The Art Project

 

Point raised – Section 106 money has been allocated to providing signs through the Art Project to enhance the experience of using the Worth Way and related paths.

 

Response – Section 106 money is specific in what it can be spent on and it is unlikely that the PROW team would be able to get involved.

 

Crawley Down/Copthorne development

 

Point raised – 3,000 houses are planned in the next 15 years in the Crawley Down/Copthorne area, which may provide ample opportunities for enhancements to the PROW network, as critical infrastructure including providing a link from the Worth Way to Copthorne and on to Gatwick and Crawley.

 

Response – None required.

 

Crawley Down Pond

 

Points raised – Crawley Down Pond, which runs along the Worth Way, requires maintenance as it is silted up.

 

Response – The Worth Way is managed by Countryside Services, who would be best placed to advise on what to do.

 

Complaints

 

Point raised – What is the most common type of complaint?

 

Response – It is seasonal.  In summer, surface vegetation – overgrown paths.  In winter, surface condition – muddy paths.

 

Gates for Stiles

 

Points raised – What type of gate is provided?  48 gates have been provided to landowners, what is the cost?

 

Response – The budget is limited, so an offer is made to replace a stile only where there is no other within easy access.  Gates are offered for free under the agreement that the landowner installs it.  This is to encourage the replacement of stiles which the landowner may not otherwise replace.  A range of structures can be offered, metal, wooden, self-closing or spring lock, depending on requirements. 

 

New development – planning applications

 

Points raised – How many planning applications does the PROW team respond to?  How good is the response timeframe performance and how is it monitored?

 

Response – Officers did not have statistics to hand.  This will be included in the next annual report.  The system used is MasterGov.  Access Rangers respond to smaller scale planning applications and the Planning Communities Officer considers the larger scale and strategic applications, working alongside the Principal Rights of Way Officer.  All planning applications are responded to, some have a massive impact on the PROW network, some have no impact.

 

England Coast Path

 

Points raised – Who is responsible for the proposed England Coast Path, what status will it have and what involvement does the PROW team have?

 

Response – Natural England had the initial responsibility to identify the potential route. Once signed off by the Secretary of State, responsibility has reverted to the local authorities (locally, a Trail Partnership, made up of stakeholders including the County Council as the local access authority) along with funding for the delivery and a project officer post, which in West Sussex is within the PROW team.  The Coast Path will be for walkers only, following much of the existing PROW network but with sections of new paths that will be part of the national trail, but will be managed by West Sussex – some funding will be provided.  Current delivery is for the Shoreham to East Head section, which has been signed off.  The remaining section is not yet signed off, but is hoped to be soon with a view to delivering this in the next financial year.

 

12.3   Resolved – That the Committee notes the report and that it is circulated to the wider membership of the Council.