North Yorkshire Local Access Forum

28 May 2025

Rights of Way Improvement Plan Sub-Group

Report of Forum Members:  Pat Coulson, Lin Ryan and John Toogood

1.0 Purpose of the Report

To provide guidance and recommendations to NYC Countryside Access Services on the contents of the next Rights of Way Improvement Plan.

The Forum is asked to consider the contents of the report and agree on the advice it wishes to offer.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 At the Forum meeting in January 2025, the Principal PROW Officer had shared a presentation with Members which outlined the current position of the NYC Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP).

1.2 The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 had introduced the requirement for Highway Authorities to produce a ROWIP which was to be reviewed on a 10-year basis.  North Yorkshire Council’s current ROWIP was due for review in 2027, at which time the Council could determine to continue with the existing ROWIP or produce a new one.

1.3 North Yorkshire County Council’s first ROWIP published in 2007 ran to 147 pages and took two full time members of staff 5 years to compile. It contained a significant amount of research into the existing PROW network and the challenges and opportunities associated with improving it.  Extensive public engagement was carried out which identified 1005 potential improvement projects.  At the time NYCC made significant funding available to maintain and improve the PROW network following the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak when closing the entire network brought into sharp focus the economic benefit it brought to rural areas.

1.4 In contrast the current North Yorkshire Council ROWIP, 2017 to 2027, which was contained within the North Yorkshire Local Transport Plan (LTP) 2016 to 2045 ran to just five pages, was generic and mainly focused on the Council’s core statutory function to maintain the PROW network. 

1.5 The Council still held the original data collected from the public consultation in 2007 which had identified potential projects and the improvements each project would bring, along with the costs, and demand and feasibility, it also revealed common themes, however there was a need to streamline and analyse the data. 

1.6 The RoW Improvement Plan briefing paper outlined to Members in January shared the current position of the ROWIP and officers welcomed Members views on the topic and any strategic advice that would help to inform NYC’s approach going forward.

2.0 Key considerations

2.1 Pat, Lin and John agreed to be part of a sub-group and have met several times since the last Forum meeting and have developed a list of recommendations together.

2.2 The initial task was to search the internet for other ROWIPs, and each member reviewed several.  Many of the plans were difficult to find and some are still in ‘Draft’ form despite having been produced some years ago.  They vary greatly in length and in the amount of detail contained therein. Some are brief, high level and strategic in content, others lengthy, specifying individual projects.  It was agreed that there was no consistency. 

2.3 The sub-group also looked at North Yorkshire Local Authority and National Park Local Plans and the National Parks and National Landscapes Management Plans with a view to identifying any common strategies.

2.4 The 11 questions posed in the January 2025 briefing document were considered, and the sub-group’s responses are given in Appendix 1.

3.0 Recommendations

3.1 Given current financial constraints, there is little to be gained by commissioning a new ROWIP of the length and detail of the 2007 document.

3.2 As an overview, the 2027 document should be:

· Concise – many people only read the beginning of a document.

· Strategic – giving high level objectives not how to achieve them

· Deliverable - SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound) objectives

· Written in plain English – avoiding the use of abbreviations and acronyms

· Included in the current Local Transport Plan – but not hidden away, it should be easily identifiable.

4.0 For consideration, discussion and agreement by the NYLAF

4.1       Ensure PROWs are improved or developed to connect communities, and create links that will encourage people to use walking and cycling as viable and safe modes of transport for local trips and access to green space.

Method – Work in partnership with e.g. Sustrans, NYC Planning Team, NYLAF, Government’s Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy, volunteer groups.

Potential outcomes – opportunities for car-free travel; reduces carbon emissions; results in health benefits and less expenditure for all in the current climate.

4.2       Aim to provide a safe and accessible PROW network that promotes the widest range of inclusivity by considering age, gender, ethnicity, economic status and ability.

Method – engage with stakeholders in minority groups to understand the barriers to use.

Potential outcomes – improvement in people’s physical and/or mental health as part of an active lifestyle may lead to an overall reduction in illness.

4.3       Engage with local communities, including schools, to improve awareness of the existing PROW network and provide relevant information to encourage its wider usage.

Method – use NYC’s website and publications more effectively; explore the cost of developing apps and downloadable routes; make more use of social media; encourage community sponsorship of local PROW.

Potential outcomes – could promote use and ‘ownership’ of local paths and encourage their upkeep by local volunteers; would inform both residents and visitors to an area about what is available.

4.4       Gather comprehensive, reliable and up to date information on the condition of PROWs and prioritise maintenance on the basis of usage/location (e.g. close to settlements or good public transport) within the envelope of resources.

Method – ensure the PROW network is accurately recorded; continue to gather and analyse data from Strava and other software.

Potential outcomes – provides information on where to direct resources; may permit less well known routes to be promoted thereby relieving pressure on current popular tourist areas.

4.5       Strengthen relationships with NY National Parks, National Landscapes, Natural England and key stakeholders (e.g. NHS, BHS, TRF, Ramblers, Sustrans) to make best use of resources and interconnections.

Method – work in partnership to identify any specific themes or possible networks between areas that could enhance access.

Potential outcomes – working in unison can make the most of limited resources; could result in new trails that would promote tourism, leading to economic growth.

4.6       Highlight some of the projects achieved during the course of the current ROWIP.

Method – could include ‘case studies’ in information boxes with photos (and cost), using a ‘you said, we did’ type of structure.

Potential outcomes – educates the public on how resources are deployed; may encourage more volunteering and aid understanding as to why all projects cannot be fulfilled due to funding limitations.