suffolk local access forum...2005/10/27 · suffolk local access forum a meeting of the suffolk...

SUFFOLK LOCAL ACCESS FORUM

A meeting of the Suffolk Local Access Forum will be held at the Riverside Centre, Stratford St Andrew on Thursday 27 October 2005 at 4.00pm AGENDA

1. Welcome & Apologies 2. Declaration of Interests 3. Confirmation of Minutes: Meeting 15 September LAF05/15 4. Matters Arising from Minutes

5. Letter to the Countryside Agency – Outcomes of Open Access Restrictions

Meeting LAF05/16

6. Report from David Barker reference Meeting for Landowner & Farmer

Representatives on Local Access Forums LAF05/17

7. Consultation by DEFRA on proposals for changes to the way the local access

forums operate – briefing note LAF05/18 8. Consultation by DEFRA on proposals to improve procedures for confirming

countryside recreation bylaws made under a number of Public and Local Acts of Parliament – briefing note LAF05/19

9. Consultation by DEFRA on proposed approach to implementing the provisions in Schedule 6 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 that insert new sections 119D,119E, 135A and 135B into the Highways Act 1980. That is diversions of rights of way. (1) for the protection of sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs); and (2) temporary diversions for dangerous works – briefing note LAF05/20

10. Blyth Estuary Strategy preferred Option consultation 11. Draft Rights of Way Improvement Plan

12. Dates & Venues of future meetings 13. Public Question Time 14. Any Other Business

LAF05/15

Minutes of the meeting held at Endeavour House, Ipswich, on Thursday 15 September 2005. Present: Annette Whybrow (chair) Julie Craven (Vice Chair), Iain Taylor, John Pearson, Monica Pipe, Mark Timms, Gordon Merfield, David Barker, Norman Southgate, Angela Brown, Don Levick, Bryan Collen, John Wayman, Keith Turner, Mary Mitson-Woods, Mike Taylor, Anthony Wright, Phillip Dunnett, Jane Midwood, Rob Lucking, Nicola Harper (Countryside Agency) Apologies were received from: Linda Hoggarth and Bryan Freemantle Officers present: Peter Tilley (Access Development Officer, SCC), Jasmin Hicks (Secretary to the Forum, SCC), Jerry Hindle (Countryside Manager), Andrew Woodin (Countryside Access Leader), Catherine Osborne (Open Access Officer), Sue Hooton (County Ecologist, SCC) Members of the public were present. 1. Welcome & Apologies The chair welcomed attendees to the meeting. Apologies had been received from Linda Hoggarth and Bryan Freemantle. 2. Declaration of Interests None. 3. Confirmation of Minutes: LAF05/11 An error was pointed out in the last paragraph of section 12. The first sentence should have read ‘Julie Craven advised that abandonment needed to be treated the same as managed re-alignment’. This would be amended. The minutes were approved. 4. Matters Arising from Minutes Item 9 – the meeting agreed to defer circulating the Statement of Action until the next SLAF meeting in October. Draft reports would be circulated before the next meeting.

SUFFOLK LOCAL ACCESS FORUM

2

The point raised about insurance for volunteers under item nine was clarified. Volunteers would be covered by Parish Council insurance as long as the work they were doing came under the auspice of the Parish Council. 5. Open Access Report – To update the Forum on the progress of the

development of Open Access in Suffolk, presented by Catherine Osborne Access Officer (SCC) LAF05/12

There are fifty identified sites in Suffolk with conservation value for which signage would need to be completed by the 31 October 2005 for the opening of Open Access land. The County Council were responsible for educating the public and raising public awareness about the restrictions, which were coming into force on 1 March 2006. This would involve holding meetings with landowners and managers to keep them updated on the process. A widespread publicity campaign would include press coverage and putting information in libraries. Officers would also be visiting sites in person giving people the opportunity to ask questions if they wanted to. Catherine Osborne reported that funds had been secured for seasonal wardening of sites. Hopefully landowners would benefit from knowing that there would be someone to deal with problems that may arise on sites. Members commented on Suffolk County Council actions. The main points addressed are summarised below:-

• The job of wardens would be to spread a positive message about Open Access. They would be responsible for attempting to resolve situations on site without being confrontational. This scheme would be funded for the first year of Open Access. The intention was that it would help address any problems that could arise during the introduction period. If wardens were still needed after a year this would be addressed at the time.

• A volunteer warden scheme would be set up through the winter months. Volunteer wardens would be responsible for reporting site problems to Suffolk County Council and promoting access to the public. The volunteers would not be responsible for resolving issues themselves. This scheme would continue on a yearly basis

• Suffolk County Council plan to send information letters to parishes with registered commons.

• Work installing open access signs would start on 19 September 05.

• Events throughout the winter would be aimed at informing people where Open Access was and how it could be used responsibly.

• The public would need advising that golf courses were not automatically Open Access land although mapped by Ordnance Survey as such.

3

• The public would need to be educated on the curtilage of dwellings (private gardens).

Peter Tilley highlighted some issues below:-

• Suffolk County Council would be targeting commercial dog walkers in order to warn them in advance about open access rules.

• Commons used as golf courses are not automatically open access they would be signed accordingly.

• Catherine Osborne would provide SALC with a list of parishes that had open access land mapped within them.

• Suffolk County Council are responsible for fixing signs.

• The Countryside Agency launch event is planned for either Sutton or Walberswick.

• Low level use of open access is generally expected.

• Suffolk County Council are working closely with the Brecks and Sandlings Group.

Some actions for meeting attendees were:- Catherine Osborne would check with other counties what they are doing about Open Access. It would need to be made clear to the public that open access would only be allowed within mapped areas and would not give people the right to roam wherever they pleased. Mary Mitson-Woods offered SALC’s help in sending leaflets out and sending electronic fact sheets to parishes. Peter Tilley would arrange to add a frequently asked questions page to the web-site. 6. Suffolk Local Access Forum annual report and SCC cabinet response, presented by Annette Whybrow, SLAF chair LAF05/13 Annette Whybrow attended cabinet on 28 July 2005. She reported back to the meeting that the Annual Report had been well received. The recommendations for Suffolk fall under the areas of financing PROW and open access; flood defence, path erosion and maintaining access; community involvement; and definitive map work. The cabinet acknowledged that funding for the ROW network maintenance and related concerns would need to be addressed. It was highlighted that the name Suffolk Local Access Forum could be confusing to members of the public because people link the word access with disabled access. The meeting decided to clarify what SLAF represented in their publicity. Annette asked members to send her ideas for a change of name for SLAF.

4

Mary Mitson-Woods highlighted some parishes expressed enthusiasm for getting more involved with path maintenance. The public appreciate access and what it can do for the local economy. There is concern about the level of funding for access and rights of way. The cabinet asked whether the health improvement aspect was supported enough. Peter Tilley agreed that health improvement would be included in the Action Plan at the end of October. The Outreach programme is also being considered to target schools. Jerry Hindle informed SLAF that as a response to the Annual Report the County Council is reviewing it’s Definitive Map work and priorities. It is also reviewing its Parish Path Partnership scheme with a view to extending its community involvement in Rights of Way and working closely with land-management groups. He also stated that aspirations had to be realistic given the likely resources available. Peter Tilley informed SLAF that an indicator and target had been included in the new draft Local Transport Plan. This is ‘Increased usage of high priority PRoW in Suffolk’ and that the Target was ’An increase of use by 10% on improved routes’. 7. Update on Awareness raising steering group – verbal report by David Barker The steering group was still trying to agree an Enforcement Policy Procedure acceptable to the CLA. David Barker advised that a united approach would be needed to achieve results. If the procedure was agreed by all it would make it stronger and more enforceable. Several points were raised as below:-

• cross field paths

• EADT feature on RoW

• encouraging walking for health

• benefits of walking to landowners and the economy of villages

• CLA want RoW Improvement Plan to include the rationalisation of footpaths

• any publicity about enforcement should cover cross compliance.

• proportionate approach

• plastic coverings over fields obstructing RoW. David will take this point back to the steering group.

Annette Whybrow had received a request from the CLA for a representative from SLAF to attend a meeting on the 21 September. David Barker agreed to represent the forum. 8. Dates & Venues of Future Meetings 27 October 2005, venue to be decided.

5

9. Public Question Time Neil Mahler asked whether landowners would still be allowed to exclude dogs and people who were causing problems for livestock and wildlife from their land. Catherine Osborne replied that existing powers of exclusion would still exist. 10. Any Other Business There was no other business.

LAF05/16

Dear Mr Jones

Countryside Rights of Way Act, 2000 (CROW) Consultation on long term directions to restrict access for nature conservation reasons in Suffolk

The Suffolk Local Access Forum met on September 15 2005 to consider the restrictions to open access land in Suffolk that exceed 182 consecutive days. The Forum has concerns on many sites as to whether part of the site away from the nest(s) should not lie outside of the restriction areas. These concerns were generated by the lack of detailed data made available to the County Council and the Forum about nest sites. The forum’s concerns are even more pronounced on sites where an exclusion was recommended but no breeding Stone Curlew where recorded as being present. The requirement to restrict a site if a bird adopts it as a nesting ground is seen as illogical as the bird has adopted a site where the public currently has access. SLAF therefore requires more information about the time frame during which the data was collected, the basis of the 450 metre exclusion and the changes to the nesting positions from season to season. Recommendations All August extensions to the “dogs on lead” restrictions were agreed. No further information was required concerning these restrictions. The March to October exclusions for ground nesting birds were endorsed by SLAF for a period of one year only and it is requested that all these restrictions be reviewed at the end of this period and regularly thereafter. The exception to this request is Foxhole Heath where the Forum totally endorsed the recommendation due to the high public pressure on the site.

Your Ref:

Our Ref:

Enquiries to: Jasmin Hicks

Direct Line: 01473 264775

Fax: 01473 216877

E-mail: [email protected]

Date: 14 October 2005

Matthew Jones

Access Adviser – Nature Conservation

John Dower House

Crescent Place

Cheltenham

Gloucestershire

GL50 3RA

Environment & Transport _________________________________________________

Suffolk Local Access Forum C/o Jasmin Hicks

Countryside Section

Endeavour House

8 Russell Road

Ipswich

Suffolk

IP1 2BX

LAF05/16

Specific site comments are: Foxhole Heath - exclusions totally endorsed due to the high density of nesting stone-curlews. Icklingham Plains - exclusions endorsed due to the presence of stone-curlews on site and adjacent arable land. Lakenheath Warren - exclusions endorsed due to the presence of stone-curlews on site and adjacent arable land. Little Heath - exclusions endorsed due to the presence of stone-curlews on site and adjacent arable land. Minsmere - Walberswick - the proposal for an exclusion should stone-curlew nest on adjacent arable reversion land was endorsed. Restrictions to Cavenham Heath, Thetford Heath, Horn Heath and Berner’s Heath were also supported for a period of one year. The site where SLAF had the greatest concern due to no birds being present was Deadman's Grave. SLAF did endorse the proposal for one year. SLAF noted that some comments within the English Nature report (part supplied) for the Brecks were thought to be imbalanced. SLAF feel that all interested parties need to present a balanced view of the affects of open access within the County. The most concerning of these being the exaggerated opinion that the tank museum would result in an increase in visitor numbers at Little Heath of up to 30,000 people per annum. Thank you for the opportunity to consult on these issues. Yours sincerely Annette Whybrow Chair of SLAF

LAF05/17

Meeting for landowner & farmer representatives on Local Access Forums I attended a meeting at the Bell Hotel, Thetford for land-owning and farmer representatives of Local Access Forums on Wednesday 21 September on behalf of the Suffolk Local Access Forum. Those attending included Caroline Boddell Access Advisor for the CLA, Paul Hammett of the NFU Eastern Region. Karen Jones legal advisor to the CLA, Jane Burch CLA and representatives of the Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire and Broads LAF. No one from Norfolk LAF attended. I explained the steps taken in Suffolk to provide restrictions to support the Stone Curlew population. The discussion on open access had to be taken in the context of very little open access in Essex (four ha), Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire or the Broads. In fact the problem in the Broads surrounded lost Staithes – points for off loading on the waters edge. These points go back to the time when wherry transport was important. The public staithes have become private and lost to general use. In Cambridgeshire the pressure on waterways is from a high profile ‘canoe’ lobby looking for river access. Because the river Waveney is the boundary it maybe it falls between Suffolk and Norfolk the Environment agency is looking to promote voluntary permissive access on the Waveney for canoeists at certain times of the year. There are four pilot schemes in the UK, one on the River Waveney offering a strategic approach to canoe use. There can be an affect on fishing interest. Discussion took place on DEFRA’s strategy to improve access to coastal areas. Most landowners allow permissive access to the waters edge. It was said saltmarsh areas could be dangerous for people to walk. The CROW act is inappropriate to provide access to coastal areas. There is in 2006 a consultation on coastal access. On woodlands it was stated that the Forestry Commission designated their freehold areas as open access but leasehold areas need leasee agreement. There is a problem of deer management in open access areas. The pressure for open access to woodland is mainly on the urban fringe. Hertfordshire County Council were unhappy about open access to their woodlands. There is a big problem in Hertfordshire with fly tipping and illegal hare coursing. This is a problem elsewhere. The problem of dogs was raised in particular Tesco have refused to accept vegetables from fields affected by dog fouling. The general CLA view is to support permissive access under the ten-year stewardship scheme it was felt once access had been provided for ten years people would regard it as permanent. Concern was expressed about the Lost Byways project because it could snarl up the system with loads of claims often to inaccessible areas and not to areas people want. The local authority could be swamped with claims and the cost of dealing with them. It was felt the money would be better spent on creation orders to improve the network. Concern was expressed at the use of four-wheel drive and motorcycles on Byways. It was said Rights of Way Improvement plans could be affected by insufficient funding. The feeling was that many persistent offenders to footpath disturbance re-

LAF05/17

instatement this year had complied. Cross compliance may have had an affect! Certainly quoting the page in the cross compliance book in the case of re-instatement offenders has had a positive affect. With regard to the operation of Local Access Forums there was a general view that too much paperwork went out with agendas in Cambridgeshire over 100 pages of consultation accompanied a recent agenda. This consultation included new towns and waterway consultations. It seemed that when the secretariat to LAF was external the paperwork was much greater. I said that in Suffolk we do not suffer from too much paperwork and we had a good balance of all interests within the forum. The feeling in other areas was that the LAF in Essex and Hertfordshire only had one land-owning representative. I came away with the feeling that tensions exist in many LAF in our area that do not happen in Suffolk. I also got the impression the Suffolk Local Access Forum is operating much more effectively than many others which is a tribute to our staff, Chairman and Vice Chairman. D E Barker 28 September 2005

LAF05/18

Briefing Note for Suffolk Local Access Forum Consultation relating to the amendment of Local Access Forums (England) Regulations 2002. The response of Suffolk County Council (SCC)

Proposal 1 SCC support this proposal

Proposal 2 SCC support providing the appointing authority with greater flexibility in the establishment or abolition of forums. In a large rural area such as Suffolk there could potentially be a need to provide further forums to respond to specific local need and maybe over a limited timescale. Examples may be either of the AONB areas, the Brecks in combination with Norfolk County Council or urban Ipswich.

Proposal 3 SCC support this proposal, changes to a local access forum may adversely affect the work and membership of a neighbour.

Proposal 4 SCC would support if the recommendation was that an appointing authority should advertise for new members but was at liberty to also recruit from existing members.

Proposal 5 SCC support this proposal and already inform Countryside Agency when appropriate.

Proposal 6 SCC support this proposal and do forward the annual report to the Countryside Agency.

Proposal 7 SCC has recently increased the forum membership to 21. It would be unwise to reduce forum minimum membership below 10. 3.18 of the consultation states correctly that a small forum would a) be less effective b) not represent the appropriate balance and range of local interests c) have an increased burden falling on individual members.

A) Extending the list of bodies to whom the LAF should provide advice

SCC considers that the list of bodies should be extended to include AONB’s and Environment Agency

LAF05/18

and “other named bodies”. Suffolk Local Access Forum has advised both the Environment Agency and Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB .

B) Additional matters for consultation SCC considers that the current range of matters is sufficient given the lack of time that members currently have to discuss issues and their availability as volunteer members.

C) No comment

D) “

E) “

LAF05/19

1

Briefing Note for Suffolk Local Access Forum Andrew Woodin, Countryside Access Leader, SCC DEFRA Consultation – Diversion of Rights of Way

1. For the Protection of SSSI’s 2. Temporary Diversions for Dangerous Works.

1. The consultation can be found at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/rightsofway-diversions/index.htm and sets out the Government’s proposed approach to implementing the provisions in Schedule 6 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 that insert new sections 119D,119E, 135A and 135B into the Highways Act 1980. 2. Sections 119D and 119E will enable a local highway authority to divert a public right of way to protect a site of special scientific interest (known as a SSSI). 3. Sections 135A and 135B will enable an occupier to temporarily divert a right of way across their land to enable dangerous works to take place. 4. The legislation enables the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations procedural matters to provide clarity in the administration of these four provisions when they are commenced. This document invites views on the approach to the proposed regulations. 5. Points of interest or concern to SCC on which SLAF may wish to comment: Paras extracted from consultation with SCC points in bold: 6. SSSI’s 2.1.3 The ground for making an order will be that the public use of the highway is causing, or that continued use of the highway is likely to cause, significant damage to the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the SSSI is of special interest, and that the diversion is expedient for the purpose of preventing such damage. There needs to be demonstrable evidence of significant damage to the SSSI.

2.1.6 Highway authorities, in considering such an application from English Nature will have in mind their statutory duty as ‘section 28G authorities’ 6, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), to take reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of their functions, to further the conservation and enhancement of the special interest features of

http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/rightsofway-diversions/index.htm

LAF05/19

2

SSSIs. In addition, before making or confirming an SSSI diversion order, the local highway authority or the Secretary of State will have to consider the effect which the diversion would have on public enjoyment of the highway as a whole, and whether the damage to the special interest features of the SSSI could be prevented by the making of a traffic regulation order and, if it could, whether making a TRO would cause less inconvenience to the public than diverting the highway. Clarification would be welcome on whether a highway authority’s duty to protect and assert the public’s rights to the use and enjoyment of a highway (Highways Act 1980 s.130) is overridden by the new duty under the wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 s.28G to further conservation interests. The county council would welcome clarification of how to assess public enjoyment when a diversion under the new sections 119 D and E is likely to reduce enjoyment by virtue of taking a path away from a site of conservation interest. 2.1.9 Before determining to make an SSSI diversion order, the council may require English Nature to enter into an agreement with them to defray, or make a contribution towards, any compensation which is payable, and to pay any expenses incurred by the council in bringing the new site of the highway into a fit condition for use. SCC welcomes the intention for the applicant to pay any compensation and cost of practical works to bring a new route into effect. 2.2.5 This is a “last resort” power to prevent significant damage to SSSIs and it is envisaged that cases will be few and far between. As a result, the impact and restriction on users of rights of way should be limited. SCC welcomes the reinforcement of the new powers being used as a last resort to prevent significant damage. 2.3.5 English Nature have, however, undertaken to consult widely well before they decide to apply for an order. They will normally consult relevant organisations (including rights of way user groups and nature conservation organisations) to consider the use of appropriate management measures and/or traffic regulation orders before considering an application for a SSSI diversion order. This approach is consistent with the new section 119E(3) & (4) of the Highways Act 1980 and ensures that the use of these powers to prevent significant damage to SSSIs is as a last resort. SCC welcomes user groups being consulted on traffic management prior to a diversion and user groups should also be notified of any intention to divert under s.119 D and E

2.4.2 Costs can be recovered on the premise that the applicant will benefit from the stopping up or diversion of the public right of way. We have

LAF05/19

3

considered whether local authorities should also be able to recover their costs in making SSSI diversion orders. We have concluded that that they should not. SSSI diversion orders are different to other public path orders. They will protect our natural heritage for generations to come and will not be of private benefit to English Nature. Local authorities have already been funded for these, and for other new duties imposed by the CROW Act, and should be able to meet the costs of these orders from existing budgets.

SCC does not agree the highway authority should pay costs of order making and sees little difference between English Nature as applicant and, for example, Network Rail for a rail crossing diversion to remove a dangerous path from crossing a rail line. English Nature are funded by Government to improve condition of SSSI’s just as highway authorities are funded to protect, assert and improve rights of way. 7. Annexes: Annex 1 Proposed form of notice of the intention to make an application for a SSSI diversion order and accompanying notes to be prescribed in regulations. There does not seem to be any space on the form for describing the path to be diverted and the alternative route. 8. Temporary Works 3.1.3 Any diversion must be reasonably convenient for the exercise of the public right of way. The diversion must be so indicated on the ground to not less than the minimum width, so that it is apparent to those wishing to use it. SCC would welcome clarification of how the highway authority is to test the reasonableness of the diversion.

3.3.2 Views are invited on those land management works, not already provided for elsewhere in legislation, which are likely to cause danger to users of footpaths or bridleways, and should be available as grounds for a temporary diversion.

Suggested works:

• Maintenance of existing utility services along rights of way to property where works cannot be safely done without closing the right of way.

• Laying of new utility services to property where the only reasonable access is along rights of way and where works cannot be safely done without closing the right of way.

• Repair works to accesses shared with rights of way where works cannot be safely done without closing the right of way.

LAF05/19

4

• Essential drainage works alongside or across rights of way where works cannot be safely done without closing the right of way.

• Maintenance works to structures or boundaries adjacent to rights of way where sole access is via the right of way and where works cannot be safely done without closing the right of way.

• Construction work on property adjacent to and directly affecting a right of way where works cannot be safely done without closing the right of way.

9. Annexes: Annex 3 Proposed form of notice to authorities of a temporary diversion for dangerous works and accompanying notes to be prescribed in regulations. The annex should additionally cover:

• Details of landowner if different to the applicant should there be problems at a later date.

• Details of land managers of alternative route if not on applicants land.

• Details of the alternative route and an accompanying map.

• That the applicant has read and will comply with the guidance accompanying the notice.

Annex 4 Proposed notice of temporary diversion for dangerous works and accompanying notes to be prescribed in regulations. The notice must give details of the alternative route.

Briefing Note for Suffolk Local Access Forum LAF05/20

1

Suffolk County Council

Environment & Transport Directorate

THE BLYTH ESTUARY STRATEGY

(SUFFOLK ESTUARINE STRATEGIES FLOOD MANAGEMENT STUDY)

COMMENTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY ON THE PREFERRED

OPTION CONSULTATION (September 2005)

CONTACT DETAILS

1 Name, organisation, nature of interest


Interest – local authority

2 Address, telephone, fax, e-mail

Countryside Service


Endeavour House

8 Russell Road

Ipswich, Suffolk, IP1 2BX fax: 01473 216877

Sarah Jennings, Countryside Strategy Officer. tel: 01473 264447

e-m: [email protected]

Graham White, Countryside Service Officer. tel: 01473 265104

e-m: [email protected]

COMMENTS ON THE PREFERRED OPTION STRATEGY FOR THE BLYTH ESTUARY

3

Do you agree or disagree with the long term preferred option strategy for the Blyth estuary of “hold the

northern line of defence?

Suffolk County Council (SCC) disagrees with a number of the proposals within the long term preferred

option strategy. This is on a number of grounds:

3.1 Implications for passability of the A12. Long term passability of roads depends not only on

susceptibility to flooding but also on maintaining the integrity of the road structure. Before agreeing to this

strategy we need to be certain that the implications on passability of the A12 and A1095 have been

effectively dealt with (see comments given in 4a and 4d below).

3.2 Public Rights of Way (PRoW). The preferred option will result in the loss of a number of extremely

well used Public Rights of Way (including sections of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Path) which are integral

to recreation and tourism in the area. SCC is unable to agree with implementation measures impacting on

PRoW until we have agreement that the EA will effectively mitigate for loss through funding the provision

of new and improved definitive PRoW (which will provide an improved service in terms of access,

recreation, tourism and so on). This mitigation package must be agreed with SCC.

The Environment Agency should have regard to work currently underway to extend access to open country

to coastlines as part of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 provisions. There may be a requirement

to provide access in the area of the Blyth at a future date as part of these provisions.

3.3 Landscape: SCC does not consider that the landscape implications of the preferred option are


2

adequately covered in terms of loss and change to landscapes of high national value in the statutory Suffolk

Coasts and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Landscape issues are not mentioned in the

‘summary of implications’ (see p. 11 of the document). Unlike some wildlife habitats it is not possible to

create new areas of high quality AONB status landscape by way of compensation for land lost to a new

intertidal zone. SCC agrees that on balance the detrimental landscape implications of the preferred option

during the 20 year scenario may have to be accepted. We do not, however, consider that the landscape

implications of no active intervention above the A12 road bridge are acceptable (see comments given in 4d

below).

4

Do you agree or disagree with the implementation measures for the Preferred Option for the Blyth Strategy

Immediate Short Term (0-5 years)

a. Construction of a sill at Bailey Bridge We wish to put in a holding objection until we are sure that any implications (such as increased flooding) on

the passability of roads have been effectively dealt with (see our original comments sent in December,

2004).

b. Strengthening/rebuilding of Reydon Marshes flood embankment

Agreed provided that:

• There is no impact to the value of the County Wildlife Site

• There is no long term loss of PRoW (see 3.2)

• Any short term impacts on the PRoW (closures / management) are agreed with SCC

c. Create compensatory freshwater grazing habitat either (i)upstream of the A12 road bridge, (ii) in Reydon Marshes, or (iii) outside of the study area

Agree subject to:

• English Nature being satisfied that the ecological integrity of the SPA and estuary is maintained and where possible improved.

• SCC and Suffolk Coasts and Heaths AONB Unit being satisfied that landscape issues have been adequately considered.

• SCC being satisfied that access issues have been adequately considered.

d. (i) Construction of an embankment at the A12 road bridge to protect the road and (ii) withdrawal of maintenance of flood defences upstream

(i) We wish to put in a holding objection to construction of an embankment to protect the A12 until :

1. We are sure that this is the best option for maintaining the passability of the A12 (please see our original comments sent in December 2004).

2. The EA have confirmed that they will meet all costs relating to maintaining the long term passability of the A12.

3. Proposals relating to protection of the A12 have also assessed the feasibility and cost of incorporating a design that would maintain the upstream pastoral river valley landscape (see ii

below)

Long term passability depends not only on susceptibility to flooding but also on maintaining the integrity of

the road structure. Raised groundwater levels may have a long term impact on the integrity of the road

structure. It therefore remains difficult to comment on the proposals without information on water levels

relative to road level as requested in our original comments. We asked the EA for information on water

levels in December. This information has not yet been received. The most effective solution in this

situation may be to raise the road level.

The A12 may also flood at Fool’s Watering, a dip on the A12 to the north of the A1095 junction, at the head

of the River Henn. Again we need more information on water level relative to road level.

(ii) Suffolk County Council disagrees with withdrawal of maintenance of flood defences upstream on

landscape grounds. No active intervention above the A12 road bridge would result in a fundamental change

to the landscape character from pastoral lowland river valley to an estuary intertidal zone. We suggest that


3

proposals relating to protection of the A12 should include a study to assess the feasibility and cost of

incorporating a design that partially restricts the incoming tide at this point.

Further comments

Short to Medium Term (5-20 years)

e. Realignment of Tinkers Marsh flood defences Agree subject to:

• English Nature being satisfied that the ecological integrity of the SPA and estuary is maintained and where possible improved.

• SCC is satisfied that an effective mitigation package is in place for PRoW (see 3.2) and that there will be no detrimental impact on Bailey Bridge.

Medium term (20-50 years)

Given the long term nature of the medium and long term proposals we cannot state at this stage whether we

agree or disagree. Our initial comments on these proposals are however given below.

f. Realignment of Robinson Marshes flood defences and protection of Walberswick SCC has severe reservations about the long term loss of Robinson Marsh and the implications of this for

car parks / properties on the edge of Walberswick, loss of an extremely well used PRoW which

provides important socio-economic benefits and loss of moorings. If this proposal goes ahead SCC

must be satisfied that an effective mitigation package is in place for PRoW (see 3.2) and that new (and

where possible improved) access is provided from Walberswick village to the Bailey bridge.

g. Replacement of existing northern harbour arm wall with rock groyne

There should be no impact on the wildlife value of Southwold Denes County Wildlife Site (vegetated

shingle beach)

Further comments

Long Term (50 years and beyond)

h. Natural widening of the estuary mouth to the south

Further comments

The present harbour clearly adds to the local economy, both directly and indirectly, through fishing and

marine leisure activities. SCC is concerned that allowing a more natural development of the Southern arm

may lead to silting and more significant offshore bar formation, thereby reducing access time for vessels.

Reduced depths around High Water or any significant increase in currents (especially the ebb) may lead to a

reduction in the number of boats accessing the harbour with implications for the local economy.


4

FEEDBACK ON THE CONSULTATION PROCESS

Has it been easy to comment on this stage of the Strategy?

No. A number of the implementation measures have been combined in a slightly confusing way. For

example ‘construction of an embankment at the A12 road bridge to protect the road and withdrawal of

maintenance of flood defences upstream’ are two different issues.

Have the consultation activities provided a clear insight into the development of the strategies? Yes

LAF05/21

SUFFOLK RIGHTS OF WAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN

STAGE 2: DRAFT ACTION PLAN 2006 – 2016

October , 2005

2

Contents requires page numbers

1 Background to Suffolk’s Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) 2 Suffolk context

2.1 Use and promotion of the network 2.2 Extent of the network 2.3 Condition of the network 2.4 Current state of the network 2.5 Links with public agendas / strategies 3 Tables of action

Objective A: Provide better signed and maintained network

Objective B: Create and protect a more continuous network that provides for the requirements of all users

Objective C: Develop a safer network

Objective D: Increase community involvement in improving and managing the network

Objective E: Provide an up to date and publicly available digitised Definitive map for the whole of Suffolk

Objective F: Improve promotion, understanding and use of the network

Appendix 1 Appendix 2

3

1 Background to Suffolk’s Rights of Way Improvement Plan There are approximately 3,400 miles (5,400 kms) of public right of way (PRoW) in Suffolk, one of the highest densities of network in the country. These routes form an integral part of the county’s transport network allowing residents and visitors to move around the county on foot, bicycle, horse and vehicle away from busy roads. The network provides vital access to services, links between settlements, access from towns and villages into our beautiful countryside and opportunities for healthy exercise. Rights of Way are a major recreational resource and asset to the rural economy attracting both regular users and tourists to the countryside. Access to the countryside is also provided in a variety of other ways such as permissive paths (largely as part of an agri-environment scheme), Open Access land, recreation sites, Forestry Commission land and nature reserves. Production of the Suffolk County Council’s ROWIP The Government recognises the value of PRoW and requires each Highways Authority to produce a Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) in order to identify changes that will ‘improve provision for walkers, cyclists, horse riders and those with mobility problems’. This plan must be integrated into the county Local Transport Plan. Suffolk’s ROWIP consists of an Assessment Report and an Action Plan. The production of these documents and the consultation process is explained by figure 1. The Assessment Report was developed following widespread consultation and includes information on the extent, condition and use of the PRoW network. The Report also highlights the key role that PRoW play in maintaining and improving quality of life in the county and the links to issues such as sustainable transport, local economy, recreation, tourism and health. The Action Plan sets out how Suffolk County Council will work with others to address the issues identified in the Assessment in order to secure an improved network. Monitoring of the Action Plan The Action Plan will be revised every five years in line with revisions of the Local Transport Plan. It will be monitored annually by Suffolk County Council and the Suffolk Local Access Forum. Where can you find further copies of the plan? Copies of this plan are available on Suffolk County Council website, at all libraries and all Local Authority offices. A copy has been sent to all organisations & individuals listed in Annex x. The Plan is available in large print / other languages from CSD by calling xxxx. How to comment on the plan If you have any comments on this plan please xxxxxxx by 31 March 2006

4

Figure 1: Production of Suffolk’s ROWIP

1. 2004 / 2005 – Development of the Assessment Report through:

a. An analysis of the extent and condition of the network and the current state of the Definitive Map.

b. An assessment of the links to relevant strategies such as planning, health, transport and Community Strategies.

c. Widespread consultation (see Annex x) to gain a better understanding of the use of the network and the main issues of concern.

d. Issues identified through analysis and consultation were used to develop over 50 ‘considerations for the statement of action’.

2. April 2005 – Publication of the Assessment Report.

3. April-July 2005 – Consultation period for the Assessment Report.

The Assessment was sent out to a large number of organisations for comment. A summary leaflet was also produced which grouped the issues highlighted in the Assessment into nine objectives. The leaflet was widely distributed in libraries, tourist information centres, recreation sites, district council offices and the SCC web site.

4. July-November 2005 – Action Plan drafted and discussed with key organisations and individuals (see Annex x for a list)

Actions were drafted based on the ‘considerations for the statement of action’. The actions aimed to meet the nine objectives included in the consultation leaflet. Both the actions and objectives were amended following consultation. The final action plan has six objectives and related actions which, based on the findings in the Assessment Report, will provide improved PRoW in Suffolk.

5. December 2005 – Action Plan agreed for consultation by Suffolk County Council

6. Jan-March 2006 – formal consultation period for Suffolk’s Rights of Way Improvement Plan.

5

7. April 2006 – Publish Action Plan following amendments to the draft and agreement by the Council.

2. SUFFOLK CONTEXT The section is a summary of the Assessment report that sets out the purpose of the objectives in the action plan.

2.1 Extent of the network The composition of the 3,400 miles (5,400kms) of PRoW in Suffolk is shown in fig. 2 below. Suffolk has one of the highest densities of PRoW in the country but the network has many interruptions such as dead-end paths or routes that change status (for example, a route changing from bridleway to footpath). Footpaths represent a higher than average proportion of the network than usual. Many parishes either lack a bridleway network or lack a continuous network, forcing both cyclists and horse-riders onto roads. Given that there are over 10,500 horses in Suffolk this is a major issue. Fig. 2 Composition of Suffolk’s PRoW network

Footpaths – 83% (2,813 miles or 4,527 kms Bridleways – 11% (357 miles or 574 kms) Byways – 3.4% (118 miles or 190 kms) Roads Used as Public Paths – 2.6% (86 miles or 139 kms)

The objectives that address these issues are: Objective B: Create and protect a more continuous network that provides for the requirements of all users

Objective C: Develop a safer network More information is given in sections 3.B and 3.C below.

2.2 Use and promotion of the network 73% of respondents to a postal consultation use PRoW weekly or more. Most respondents (94%) walk the network whilst 30% use it at some point for cycling. 4% use motorized vehicles and 11% carry out equine pursuits. 8% of respondents use the PRoW network to travel to work, 5% to travel to school and 22% to access services such as shops. Disability groups feel that relatively few PRoW are open for use by those with mobility problems. Restrictions due to physical barriers and poor promotion of barrier free routes are major issues restricting use of the network. A survey of 661 visitors carried out on the coast in August 2004 indicated that the most popular activities undertaken were walking and cycling with 60% of respondents saying these were their main activities. There is high economic value of a walking and cycling network with the average walker or

6

cyclist on a day visit to Suffolk in 2004 spending £14.83. The average spend per day for staying visitors was £33.62. The Assessment showed that all users would appreciate more widely available and up to date information about routes. There are a large number of leaflets and guidebooks and an increasing number of websites that provide information on routes in Suffolk. Much of this material, however, has been produced on an ad-hoc basis by a range of organizations (Local Authorities, Countryside Management Projects, Parishes and Commercial organizations) and individuals. There is a need for better co-ordination of this material. All of the objectives include actions that will increase use of the network and meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act. The objectives that specifically address promotion and use are: Objective A: Provide a better signed and maintained network Objective F: Improved promotion, understanding and use of the network

2.3 Condition of the network Highways Authorities must assess the condition of a minimum of 5% of the network each year in order to be able to report to Government on a Best Value Performance Indicator (BV178). This indicator measures ease of use of the network is taken as a yardstick of the condition of PRoW across England. Suffolk’s BV178 results over the last four years are shown in the fig. 3 below.

Fig. 3 BV178 Results. (% Network passed (measured by distance)

%

2001 (November survey only) 48 2002 57.4 2003 60.5 2004 59

These results are on a par with other similar Highways Authorities in the east of the country, and show Suffolk performing in the second bottom quartile as an authority nationally. The Assessment Report includes detailed information on the condition of the network from the 2004 survey. Major difficulties include difficulties with missing and inadequate bridges. Inadequate summer clearance of paths, way marking and unnecessary, unauthorised or illegal barriers. A summary of this is set out in section 3.A below. The objectives that addresses issues relating to condition of the network are: Objective A: Provide a better signed and maintained network Objective D: Increased community involvement in improving and managing the network

2.4 Current state of the Definitive Map It is a legal requirement for Suffolk County Council to produce and maintain a Definitive Map and Statement. The Definitive Map shows all known PRoW whilst the Statement includes a written

7

description of each route. The Definitive Map and Statement is the legal basis on which Suffolk County Council protects, maintains and improves PRoW. In Suffolk the Definitive Map needs to be updated and digitised. More detail is set out in section 3.E below. The objective that addresses Definitive Map issues is: Objective E: An up to date and publicly available digitised Definitive map for the whole of Suffolk

2.5 Contribution to other public agendas / strategies Government guidance requires the ROWIP to be developed within the context of other relevant public plans and strategies. ROWIP's should themselves influence other strategies. A key to the success of Suffolk’s ROWIP will be recognition of the contribution that PRoW can make to public priorities such as health, quality of life, citizenship, sustainable transport and economic development. This recognition should also open up access to ‘new’ funding streams. The Assessment Report sets out the links between PRoW and relevant strategies such as the Government’s White Paper on health, Choosing Health, Suffolk’s Community Strategy, Suffolk’s Local Transport Plan and Planning Policy Statements. This document should also be fully integrated with: the Suffolk Transport Strategy, Ipswich Transport Strategy, Bury St Edmunds Transport Strategy, Accessibility Strategy and Transport Asset Management Plan. Strengthen Community Strategy, Rural Partnership , working with LSP’s The objectives that address these issues are: Objective B: Create and protect a more continuous network that provides for the requirements of all users

Objective F: Improved promotion, understanding and use of the network

2.6 Summary The six objectives which, based on the findings of the Assessment Report, will provide an improved PRoW network in Suffolk are listed below. These objectives will be achieved by the actions listed in Section 3 of this report. Objective A: Provide better signed and maintained network Objective B: Create and protect a more continuous network that provides for the requirements of all users

Objective C: Develop a safer network

Objective D: Increase community involvement in improving and managing the network

Objective E: Provide an up to date and publicly available digitised Definitive map for the whole of Suffolk Objective F: Improve promotion, understanding and use of the network

8

3. OBJECTIVES, AIMS AND ACTIONS OF THE PLAN. This section details the six objectives of the plan, highlighting the outcome of each objective. The issues that formulated the objectives are then discussed in more detail, together with the current projects being undertaken to achieve the aims. The aims, actions, resources, key organisations and how performance will be measured are provided in a tabulated format, which forms the delivery statement. Resources are both human and financial and show those actions that can be carried out within current resource, those that need current resource to be reprioritised and those that need increased resource whether supplied through Suffolk County Council funding or from other sources. Potential sources of funding include: Local Transport Plan, Local Authorities, East of England Development Agency, Local Strategic Partnerships, Suffolk Development Agency, AONB Sustainable Development Fund, Central Government, Sustrans, Lottery, Sport England. Although each aim has a performance measure that will be monitored, the whole action plan will be reviewed annually as required by the CROW Act (2000). A major review will be undertaken every five years in line with the Local Transport Plan timetable.

9

3. Objective A: Provide a better signed and maintained network

The actions in this section will provide a more useable, better managed network thereby encouraging greater public use

Issues arising from the Assessment Improvement and maintenance of the current network was the greatest priority for all groups consulted.

Bridges:

• 19% of bridges in Suffolk failed the 2004 PRoW condition survey indicating that currently across the county 510 bridges need attention, 860 are missing or need replacing, and 40 need urgent replacement.

• All users would like to see structures such as gates and stiles only where they are essential. Obstructions

• 12% of paths surveyed for the 2004 condition survey are obstructed.

• 48% of parishes see Suffolk County Council’s reinstatement of illegally blocked paths as being less than satisfactory.

• Disability groups see the removal of obstacles as the greatest benefit for the less able. Surfacing

• 11.5% of PRoW are affected by poor or dangerous surfacing.

• 43% of parishes rated improving surfacing on selected routes as the best measure to aid people with mobility problems.

• 745 miles, (1,200 kms) of the 3,400 miles (5,400kms) in Suffolk of paths are currently mown one to three times a year. 1,708 miles (2,750 kms) are estimated to need some surface management. When asked to suggest a specific improvement in their parish, 25% highlighted the need for improved maintenance including mowing and clearance. This was supported by 30% of land managers who considered the network needed better mowing, cutting and maintenance to improve public access. Of those land managers surveyed, 59% would consider contract managing the maintenance of rights of way.

Cross-field routes:

• 54% of cross-field routes are not properly reinstated following ploughing and sowing. Signing / way marking

• Poorly signed and way marked routes were the most common problem experienced by the public. 38% of land managers thought that the network could be improved by better signage and way marking. 27% of parishes felt that if resources were available more should be spent on sign posting and way marking. (Note that the consultation was carried out in 2004, prior to initiation of the highways signing project).

10

Current projects

Review of network prioritisation for maintenance and improvement A review of the current prioritisation of the network is underway. The review is essential to best manage scarce resources for mowing, cutting and annual maintenance of the network. It will also highlight those routes that bring added value and opportunities to the rest of the highways network both in the urban and rural environment.

Landowner / manager steering group A group consisting of officers from Country Landowners and Business Association, National Farmers Union, Suffolk Agricultural Association, The Ramblers, British Horse Association and Suffolk County Council has been formed to consider improved maintenance of the network and enforcement procedures. Development of funding bids within the Local Transport Plan (LTP) 2 process As part of the integration of the ROWIP into LTP2, opportunities for rights of way improvements are being collated and scoped under the four main LTP2 themes (congestion, accessibility, road safety and air quality). The best of these will be put forward as funding bids. Rights of Way indicator in Local Transport Plan 2 A local indicator, ‘Useage of high priority PRoW routes in Suffolk’ has been included in the LTP2. Improvements to PRoW will be measured against a local target for the first time. The target will be a 10% increase of use on improved routes by 2011.

PRoW signing from the highway SCC is now in the second year of a three-year project to renew the county’s path signage from the highway. This project is to provide more visible, durable and longer lasting signs across the network. Asset Management Plan Suffolk County Council has included Rights of Way in its Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP) The TAMP will promote the long term management of the highways network including PRoW. This will ensure that works to enhance the safety of the network are considered alongside and coordinated with works necessary to safeguard the condition and value of the asset.

11

KEY TO ACTION PLANS

LA – Local Authority. CMP – Countryside Management Project. AONB - Area Of Outstanding Natural Beauty Projects. HA – Highways Agency. Agri orgs – Agricultural Organisations. NGO – non-government organisation (example National Trust). FWAG – Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group.

Resource required: £ = existing resource, ££ = reprioritise existing resource, £££ = requires increased funding through SCC and / or other sources.

Aims Actions

Resource required to complete action

Key Organisations lead partner

underlined. Bold = priority for partner

Performance Measure

A.1 To effectively allocate maintenance resources

Review the current priority system. This should look at criteria such as current use, potential use and socio-economic benefits.

£ SCC User groups, LAs, parishes, CMPs

Introduction of revised hierarchy

A.2 To improve investment in PROW

Identify investment needs through the Traffic Asset Management Plan and agree an appropriate level of service for ROW that balances investment needs with resources. Bid for funding through appropriate processes eg: Local Transport Plan, Single Capital Pot etc.

£££ SCC

Increased investment

A.3 To improve (off road) way marking

Develop way-marking project with partners (see A8).

££ SCC Volunteers, LA, parishes, land managers, user groups, CMPs, Broads.

% Completed

12

Aims Actions Resource required to complete action

Partners lead partner


Performance Measure

A.4 New roadside signing programme.

Complete roadside signing project by 2007.

£££ SCC 100% completed

A.5 To keep required paths clear

Review and extend the level of mowing carried out across the network based on the priority system. Implement a new mowing regime which, where possible involves land managers and parishes (see A8).

£££ SCC Land managers, LA’s, parishes, Broads

Review completed Increase in distance cut

A.6 Remove unnecessary barriers

Work with land managers to reduce the no. of unnecessary barriers (see A8).

£ SCC Land managers, LAs, parishes, user groups, CMPs Broads Authority

Number of barriers removed

A.7 To improve the re-instatement of cross-field paths

Work more closely with land managers and agricultural organisations / user groups to raise awareness of responsibilities and develop a clear enforcement policy linked to cross-compliance (see A8).

£ SCC Land managers, parishes, agri. orgs, DEFRA, user groups, CMPs

BV 178 or a local indicator Reduction in complaints?? Enforcement policy produced.

13

Aims Actions

Resource required to complete action

Key Organisations lead partner


Performance Measure

A8 To increase the involvement and understanding of land managers in the management of PRoW.

Maintain the agricultural / user PRoW group in order to help meet aims A.3, A.5, A.6, A.7. Deliver a campaign to ensure that land managers understand their roles and responsibilities. Work with DEFRA to ensure that those drawing up Farm Plans (e.g. Farm Environment Plans) are fully aware of access issues.

£

SCC Land managers, agri. orgs, CMPs. FWAG, DEFRA

Articles in agri. Publications?? No. of training events organised

14

3. Objective B: Network Improvements

Create and protect a more continuous network that provides for the requirements for all users

The actions in this section aim to provide a joined up and useable network that will support local needs and provide transport, economic, health and social benefits to communities.

Issues arising from the Assessment

The Assessment showed that:

• A high priority for parishes is to create a more continuous network though making links in the PRoW network. Suffolk has 426 dead end paths and a large number of paths which change status (e.g. from a bridleway to footpath) for no obvious reason.

• 11 settlements do not have direct access to the countryside via PRoW.

• There are large areas of the county that lack any routes above footpath status. 385 parishes have no bridleways. 43% of parishes stated that there are not enough bridleways available for use. This limits opportunities for cycling and horse riding

• Access to and from the countryside via PRoW in the urban fringe needs to be improved and promoted. Local disability groups saw the urban fringe as the most important area for improving PRoW to “access for all” standards.

• 53 inter community links (many connecting small communities to service centres) have been identified for improvement.

• Circular routes are popular for local people and visitors and should be developed and promoted.

• 36% of parishes feel that planning authorities take less than adequate consideration of rights of way when considering planning applications. Local planning authorities felt that there is a need for greater consultation between Development Control and Rights of Way Officers.

• There should be better access via PRoW to recreation sites, Open Access and Forestry Commission land.

• Coastal and estuarine paths are some of the most popular walking routes for residents and visitors providing substantial benefits to the local economy, but in places they are subject to coastal erosion and are likely to be under serious threat in the future. These routes need to be protected or alternatives found as part of the coastal management process.

15

Current projects Planning seminars - A series of planning seminars are being organised to raise the profile of Rights of Way issues and develop more joined up working with District Council planning sections. Coastal access – PT to include para. reg discussions with EA - Open Access? - AONB buses, Brecks sustainable tourism project? - Blythe – Alde pilot?




Performance Measure

B.1 A user focussed and integrated approach to highways and PRoW management

To integrate PRoW activity into:- Suffolk Transport strategy Ipswich transport Strategy Bury St Edmunds Transport Strategy Accessibilty Strategy Transport Asset Management Plan

£ SCC Inclusion in appropriate planning.

B.2 To improve the development and protection of rights of way through the planning process

Embed ROWIP into planning and transport process. * Have greater engagement with the planning process to gain benefits from development including the development of supplementary planning guidance for new Local Development Frameworks. * To improve PRoW protocol with planning authorities * Continue to organise seminars for planners to increase understanding of PRoW and planning issues. * Integrate ROWIP and PROW policies into Local Development Documents. *Work with Suffolk association of Local Councils to raise parish awareness of their role in ROW development and protection

££ SCC LA’s, parishes, developers

No of developments contributing to PRoW improvements

16




Performance Measure

B.3 Provide a more joined up and useable network

Through discussion and negotiation with land managers and user groups provide routes that will enhance the existing network including local circular routes. This will be achieved by:- *Public path orders *Permissive routes *Creation orders

£££ SCC LA’s. parishes, users groups, CMPs, land managers

% improvement in use at improved sites. Number of improved routes. Number of circular routes

B.4 Improve access to and from recreation sites, open access land and other public open spaces.

Consider access to green spaces in all LA green space strategies. Work with site managers to improve public access to, within and from sites. Work with nature conservation organisations to provide appropriate access to wildlife sites which does not adversely affect the wildlife value of the sites.

££ SCC LAs, Broads, land managers, parishes, CMPs, nature conservation orgs.

No. of sites with new access??? Appropriate access to CA Open Access Priority 1 sites by Yr 2

B.5 Improve access to shops and other services in rural areas via PRoW.

Improve where necessary and create new routes that provide safe routes to services. Identify PRoW that could be better managed / promoted to provide safe routes to services.

££ £ SCC, LAs, parishes, developers, CMPs

No. of improved / created routes?

17




Performance Measure

B.6 Improve links between urban areas and the countryside

Identifiy and improve urban-countryside links through LA green space strategies and relevant strategies /plans such as Local Development Frameworks, Ipswich, Bury and Lowestoft Transport Strategies, green travel plans. Provide a good standard of access and design (including access for those with limited mobility) for all new developments

£££ SCC, LAs, developers, parishes, user groups, CMPs

No. of improved / created routes Increased levels of cycling and walking. LTP cycling to work indicator.

B.7 Provide access to the surrounding countryside via PRoW for settlements have a need and desire for it.

Identify settlements with no access to the countryside. Discuss with parish and create routes where appropriate.

££ SCC , LAs, parishes land managers, user groups, CMP

No. of settlements provided with access to the countryside

B.8 Develop off –road bridle and cycle routes with suitable surfacing to link to existing network

Joint working between SCC Countryside Access team, SCC cycle officers and Sustrans to complete National Cycle Routes 14 and 51 and improve National Cycle Route 1 using PRoW where possible and improve, upgrade or create bridleways and cycle tracks where there is a demand.

£££ SCC, user groups,

LAs, parishes, land managers, SCC highways

Increase in the bridleway network Increase in cycling / riding routes

18




Performance Measure

B.9 Protect and enhance PRoW along the coast and estuaries.

Work with appropriate authorities to improve coastal access and mitigate loss of PRoW through erosion / abandonment of erosion control management. Improve the management of coastal paths through developing better working arrangements with Suffolk Coastal AONB. Monitor and work with any changes in legislation relating to coastal open access.

££ SCC LA’s AONB parishes, EA

B.10 Improve the integration of PRoW and public transport.

Work with partners to improve access to the PRoW network via public transport. Develop innovative pilot projects in AONBs / CMP areas and link to sustainable tourism projects.

£££ SCC,AONBs SCC CMPs, ACRE, parishes, tourism orgs,

B.11 Improve the provision of areas for deboxing horses.

Work with Forestry Commission to improve safe parking and and de-boxing areas on / near bridleways.

£ Horse riding groups, SCC, Forestry Commission

19

3. Objective C: Develop a safer network The actions in this section will support improved road safety and increase walking, cycling and riding.


A survey of the A14, A12, A140 has shown that there are at least 51 PRoW crossings at road level, most of which have safety implications or are very difficult to use. There are also 37 paths that stop at these roads, forcing users either onto busy roads or to turn back. User groups have campaigned for many years for improvements to these crossings. Local Authorities and parish councils have highlighted over 70 further locations where improvements can be made to road safety and safe routes to schools and work.

Current projects PT to input info. on Newmarket – Felixstowe strategy, Haughley Bends etc




Performance Measure

C.1 Provide safe links between PRoW along roads.

Use road verges to provide improved links between PRoW for walking and cycling.

£££ SCC, LAs, parishes, user groups, HA, CMPs

No. of links created

C.2 Improve the safety of main road crossings.

Review use and demand of main road crossings and provide improvements where appropriate. Continue to work with Highways Agency (HA) on the Newmarket – Felixstowe strategy to improve trunk road crossings.

£££ SCC, HA, LAs, parishes, user groups

No. of improvements

20

Aims Actions Resource Required to complete action



Performance Measure

C.3 Support the development of safe routes to schools using PRoW to increase cycling and walking for students and their parents

Work with School Travel Plan officers to highlight opportunities for walking and cycling using PRoW. Review current schools with authorised travel plans and carry out bi-annual reviews of schools signed up to developing travel plans.

£££ SCC, LAs, parishes, schools, community groups

No. of improvements

C.4 Reduce the illegal use of PRoW (e.g. illegal motorbikes, vehicles, inappropriate use of byways, fly tipping etc) and anti social behaviour.

Ensure that the design of routes in new developments limits opportunities for anti social behaviour. Engage with the police in the management of vehicular use of footpaths and bridleways. Use Traffic Regulation Orders and other legal options where necessary. Work with LAs to reduce opportunities for fly tipping etc.

£ SCC, LAs, community groups, parishes, Broads Authority, schools, user groups, police

Reduction in the no. of complaints reg. Anti social behaviour.

C.5 Reduce user conflict on bridleways and cycle tracks

Identify specific areas of conflict and work with others to reduce them. Work to increase understanding e.g. how cyclists / walkers should approach horse riders.

£ SCC, user groups, LAs

Reduction in no. of complaints??

21

3. Objective D: Increase community involvement in improving the network

This objective will increase public involvement in the protection and maintenance of the network, giving higher quality of life in the participating parishes.

Issues arising from the Assessment There are currently 59 Parish Path Partnership schemes. A number of these have independent volunteer groups which enable parishes to undertake parish path surveys and minor works. The Assessment showed that:

• 56% of all parishes would be interested in some level of rights of way management such as reporting problems to SCC.

• 21% of all parishes (~100) in Suffolk would like to be involved in a greater level of network management such as promotion, mowing and maintenance.

5 countryside management projects in Suffolk have regular volunteer groups which are involved in improving access to the countryside. LAs and health Primary Care Trusts are working closely to develop a countywide Healthy Walks Scheme following the success of a pilot project. Current issues limiting this work are the lack of response or support from general practitioners and a shortage of volunteer walk leaders. Include info. on reasons for involving volunteers – to improve the network, community benefits, health benefits. – we ALL need to be clear what our objectives are for increasing volunteer involvement Improve problems with legal liabilities? Lack of health walk vols.

Current projects / (case studies?) Parish Community Scheme Work is now being undertaken to establish a new parish community scheme for the local management and promotion of rights of way and access land in the county.

22

Include info on CMP vols – current work undertaken Landowner / manager steering group A group consisting of officers from Country Landowners and Business Association, National Farmers Union, Suffolk Agricultural Association, The Ramblers, British Horse Association and Suffolk County Council has been formed to consider improved maintenance of the network and enforcement procedures.




Performance measure

D.1 Greater parish involvement

Establish a Parish Community Scheme to encourage and enable more parishes to be involved in managing and promoting PRoW. Investigate the best means of linking this scheme to the development of parish plans.

£££ SCC, LAs, parishes, CMPs

No. of parishes involved

D2 To increase the involvement and understanding of land managers in the management of PRoW .

Maintain the agricultural / user PRoW group in order to help meet aims A.3, A.5, A.6, A.7. Deliver a campaign to ensure that land managers understand their roles and responsibilities. Work with DEFRA to ensure that those drawing up Farm Plans (e.g. Farm Environment Plans) are fully aware of access issues.

£

SCC Land managers, agri. orgs, CMPs. FWAG, DEFRA

Articles in agri. Publications?? No. of training events organised

D.2 Greater volunteer involvement

Work with CMPs / AONBs to increase the number of volunteers engaged in PRoW work.

£ CMPs, SCC, LAs, parishes user groups, community groups, schools

No. of volunteer days

23

3. Objective E: Produce an up to date and publicly available digitised Definitive Map for the whole of Suffolk

The outcome of these actions will be to provide Suffolk with an up to date Definitive Map and a claims process that will provide a network that gives the greatest public benefit.


Consolidation and digitisation of the Definitive Map. The Definitive Map shows all known PRoW in Suffolk. Suffolk’s Definitive map should be periodically updated to show changes made to the PRoW network through ‘legal events’. This updating process is known as ‘consolidation’. In Suffolk the last consolidation of the Definitive Map took place in 1993 and the oldest area not consolidated dates from 1961. User groups, land managers and planning authorities see the production of an up to date Definitive Map as important for the management, development and protection of the network. It is estimated that consolidation of the map for the whole of Suffolk will take 3 years or more at current rates. The current paper maps (with film copies) are subject to damage and are incompatible with modern digital mapping. Modern digital mapping allows for easier access by the public, planners and commercial organisations. It also allows for the speedy transfer of information to other users and can be combined with other computer packages to provide data bases for maintenance and management of the network. 64% of parishes believe that it is important for them to have an up to date electronically available digital map. SCC is in the process of digitising the Definitive Map and is running this process alongside the consolidation of the map. Claims In Suffolk there are a large number of PRoW which are believed, or alleged, to exist but are not shown on the Definitive Map and Statement. There are currently approximately 80 formal and 500 informal outstanding claims. SCC has a duty to investigate any evidence that the Definitive Map and Statement is in error and when necessary to make an Order to amend the PRoW on the Definitive Map. The Definitive Map Review Project was set up in 2001 to deal with a large backlog of around 900 claims. Whilst the number of claims has been reduced, this has been at a high cost and many of the routes created are of limited value to the network. The Assessment showed that there is widespread concern over whether the process is of significant public benefit. A more cost effective way of dealing with claims is needed which allows greater negotiation and greater public benefit. There is a need for SCC to develop a transparent and more effective method of dealing with claims that bring added value to the network.

24

Anomalies There are 756 cases where routes drawn on the Definitive Map are believed to be incorrect. Reasons include poor drafting, poor order making procedures and discrepancies between the map and statement. Public path orders. These Orders relate to issues such as long standing obstructions, dead end routes and residential obstructions. In 2005 there were 70 outstanding high priority orders and 154 outstanding low priority orders. Definitive map for Ipswich Ipswich does currently not have a Definitive map. This is widely acknowledged to be a serious impediment to protecting, maintaining and developing sustainable access in and around the town.

Current Projects Ipswich Definitive Map SCC is currently working with Ipswich Borough Council to survey the use, condition and management of routes that are considered potential rights of way. SCC will adopt the most cost effective means to acknowledge these unrecorded ways as public, which is likely to mean adding them to the definitive map by Definitive Map Modification Orders.




Performance measure

E.1 Produce a consolidated definitive digital map

Consolidate a pilot area onto a digital base by mid 2006. Use this process to develop a programme of digital consolidation for the rest of the county.

££ SCC % of Map completed. No. of Rural Districts consolidated

25




Performance measure

E.2 Publish digital Definitive Map for Ipswich

Work with Ipswich Borough to record, protect , manage and develop PROW in Ipswich *Survey and map possible Rights of Way * Research legal status of these routes * Make orders * Consolidate and publish a Definitive Map

£££ SCC, Ipswich Borough

Completed survey by 2006 Complete legal status research Number of orders made

E.3 Develop a clear and transparent public path and claims process that provides routes of public benefit.

Review and adopt new procedures for prioritising claims and Public Path Orders to provide a consistent and integrated approach to path order making across the county through which outcomes can be negotiated.

££ SCC, land managers, user groups, parishes, LAs

Number of public routes created with public benefit No. of claims which result in added value to the network.

26

3. Objective F: Improve promotion, understanding and use of the network

These actions will address the need for better coordinated and targeted promotion of the network. This in turn will increase public use and provide economic benefits to rural areas.


Promotion of walking / cycling / horse riding routes Residents cited lack of information about where to go as the third most important problem experienced when using PRoW. 36% of visitors said that more widely available information about routes would improve their enjoyment of the countryside. Parishes and users alike want information to be more accessible and ‘visible’ to both current users and potential users. 23% of parishes wanted improved promotion and communication through a single countywide web site. There are currently no campaigns which aim to engage the public (especially the young through schools or clubs) in active use and understanding of the countryside. User groups and land managers saw the improved promotion of the network as key to improving the public’s knowledge of PRoW and the countryside. Generic promotion of the network providing information about health, cycling and walking is seen as a key factor in boosting the confidence and knowledge of non-users. Promotion of PRoW will also increase the economic benefits to the rural economy. A lack of knowledge about the location of ‘access for all’ routes is seen as a problem. 25% of parishes saw the promotion of existing ‘easy access’ paths as important for helping people with mobility difficulties to access the countryside. Consultation with Diversity groups during 2004 revealed that ethnic groups participate less in countryside activities than other groups within society. Only 57% visited the countryside in the last year of which 16% visit the countryside on a weekly or greater basis. Information on certain types of access, such as DEFRA funded access, is difficult to find. Greater understanding of public responsibilities Input text Greater understanding of management responsibilities See section D2 Greater understanding of the key role that the PRoW network plays in maintaining Suffolk’s high quality of life

27

Input text

Current projects / (case studies?) PT to input text on Focus Suffolk open access etc




Performance measure

F.1 Greater understanding of the key role that PRoW play in maintaining Suffolk’s high quality of life

Ensure that links are made to Community Strategies, LAA, AONB Management Plans etc

SCC, LA’s, AONB, CMP’s

F.2 Better co-ordinated and higher quality promotion of countryside access

Work strategically with tourism partners and AONBs to promote countryside access and long distance recreational routes in Suffolk Develop a ‘one stop’ access website initially through the Mid Suffolk ‘Focus Suffolk’ project. Role the project out across the county.

£ £££ ££

SCC AONBs, SDA, LSPs, parishes SCC, EETB, user groups, parishes, land managers, CMPs

No. of joint promotional activities?? Focus Suffolk d’ed in Mid Suffolk County wide website developed

28




Performance measure

F.3 Increased promotion of access routes for those with mobility difficulties.

Identify routes already suitable for those with limited mobility. Work with partners to ensure effective promotion.

£ SCC Disability groups, user groups, parishes, LAs, CMPs, NGO’s

No. of routes promoted. Use of routes.

F.4 Better public understanding of their responsibilities when using PRoW

Work with schools and community groups to increase understanding of the countryside as a working environment as well as its conservation and recreational value.

£

SCC, Schools, colleges, comm. groups, CA/Natural England, parishes, land managers + agri. Orgs,

LAs

No. of groups / schools involved. No. of volunteer days.

F.5 Better promoted health walks

Support PCTs in bid for full time healthy walks co-ordinator for Suffolk

£££ SCC, PCTs, NGO’s, Las, volunteers, FC

Healthy walks co-ordinator employed

F.6 Increase the no. of ‘access for all’ routes, where most needed.

Identify and improve routes (including to and within open access land and other green spaces).

£££ SCC, Land managers, parishes, user groups , CMP’s, Broads Authority

Number of routes created