Questions from January Briefing Document:

Q1. Taken as a whole, do these plans sufficiently capture rights of way improvement aspirations?

A: Not completely, there are still some areas to be addressed.

Q2. Are there other key commitments we should consider including in the ROWIP: e.g. accessibility and inclusion, encouraging development that respects and improves the network, community empowerment and engagement, promoting tourism, access to nature?

A: Yes, accessibility and inclusion should be a key commitment, along with:

· Promoting tourism for economic growth

· Promote inclusivity and engagement with local communities:

· Creating links between PROW and other types of green spaces

· Provision of circular routes that can be accessed by public transport where possible or from a car park

· Prioritise PROW routes close to settlements to encourage use by local communities

· Ensure any building developments enhance rather than reduce the PROW network

· Engage local communities and stakeholder groups to encourage volunteering and promoting the PROW network

· Ensure accessible, safe and convenient choices that consider age, gender, ethnicity, economic status and ability.

Q3. Should we identify specific themes or geographic areas for improvement e.g. development of old railway lines, connections between urban areas, accessible walking for health routes in and around urban areas and working in partnership with National Parks and National Landscapes.

A: In order to make best use of resources it’s important to work in partnership with:

· Key stakeholders to identify themes e.g  BHS, Ramblers Association, TRF, Sustrans, NHS, etc

· Local cycling and walking infrastructure plans

· Local Authority and National Park Local Plans

· NP and NL Management Plans

Need to draw on external funding where possible e.g. Government’s Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy, Natural England, Charitable Trusts, Lottery funding, local businesses, Parish Councils, Sport England

· Prioritise PROW routes close to settlements to encourage communities to exercise

· Use NYC’s website and publications more effectively (apps, downloadable routes?) to improve awareness of the PROW network and educate users

Q4. How will any future legislation to improve access to rivers impact on the work of CAS and the National Parks?

A: The Local Access Forum sub-group does not have any knowledge of how possible improvements to river access will impact the work of CAS and the National Parks.

Q5. Traditionally transport plans and funding tend to be utility rather than recreation focused and therefore favour urban or urban fringe schemes. Whilst guidance is still awaited from the Department of Transport (DfT), it is likely that the forth coming LTP will put more emphasis on recreational travel. But are there rural / recreational aspirations that are missing from the current plans?

A: The 5 objectives in the current plan LTP cover most bases, however, the LTP should consider; isolation, loneliness and access to health services for all in rural locations and also considering the needs of young and looked after children.

New rural developments will require good access to sustainable means of travel for work and recreation.  Include measures to link to public transport and/or improve effective footpath and cycle networks and connections to nearby services. 

Q6. Many long-standing issues on the PROW network are complex and often a combination of anomalies with the original Definitive Map or major obstructions due to development (housing, industry, quarries etc). Should there be more focus and resource to resolve these as well as dealing with new service requests to resolve maintenance and enforcement issues on the network? This has the potential to make more network available for the public to enjoy.

A: A good aspiration but given its limited resources, the CAS will need to prioritise. DMMO applications that increase or improve the network should be prioritised above applications that seek to limit or reduce it.

Q7. There is no capacity within CAS to compile a revised ROWIP and as such would need to be contracted out to consultants. Would this represent good value?

A: Definitely not.  The funds will be better spent on creating Rights of Way improvements, not writing about them.

Q8. Following public consultation, the original 2007 ROWIP identified 1005 improvement requests from the public to improve, upgrade or create new PROW. Many ideas were from individuals with no evidence of significant public benefit. Since 2017 CAS has not had funding to deliver these schemes but some have been delivered by partnership working with other teams or organisations (e.g. KCIII England Coast Path). Is this information still relevant? What should we do with it?

A: It may be worth a brief review (this may already have been done?) to consider what would be relevant now or if they could be delivered by other organisations.  It may be that we have to say that at 18 years old it is probably time to archive the 1005 ideas.

Q9. The original 2007 ROWIP undertook significantly more analysis of PROW provision across the County and looked at opportunities and challenges in improving the network in much more depth than the current LTP. While utilising the best research and data available at the time we now know much more about how the network is actually used by walkers and cyclists from Strava Data etc than we did in 2007. There is not the resource to produce a similarly in-depth plan, but are there any key themes captured in the original plan that are missing from the current plan or that should be revisited now we know more about how the network is used?

A: It would be worth a simple review of the data from Strava to check this out then, if questions are raised about why something is not included there is evidence to demonstrate why.

Q10. How does our approach compare with author authorities ROWIPs? For example, Durham County Council’s ROWIP has strategic and delivery elements, but it is evident that they have a rights of way improvement budget to deliver specific schemes whereas NYC does not. It should also be recognised that Durham owns a significantly more extensive network of railway paths and country parks than North Yorkshire. These are managed by a ranger service which also provides the capacity to undertake community engagement work to promote responsible countryside access in a similar way to how the ranger teams operate in our national parks. https://www.durham.gov.uk/article/3679/Rights-of-Way-Improvement-Plan.

A: Northumberland ROWIP is very good and has some interesting themes but given they have a budget to fund their ROWIP and NYC do not, direct comparison is not appropriate. The volunteer scheme should be extended in North Yorkshire. The Lake District National Park for example claims to have in excess of 500 volunteers.

Many of the ROWIPS we have looked at are very specific in terms of what they are hoping to achieve in the ten year period but, given the constraints of budget and workforce, it seems unrealistic to offer detailed plans unless there is a good chance of achieving the desired outcome.

Q11. Despite the intended abandonment of the 2031 cut off for claims based on historic evidence to add or upgrade public rights of way on the definitive map, the huge increase in applications due to the intended cut off has created a significant increase in workload for NYC’s Definitive Map Team. Without a corresponding significant increase in resource, it is unlikely the focus for DMT for the next ten years can be anything other than working through the definitive map modification order caseload and processing path orders which are in the interests of the landowner. But should there still be an aspiration in the ROWIP to undertake public interest diversions or creations to improve the network?

A: It should be an aspiration to undertake public interest diversions or creations to improve the network.  DMMO applications that increase or improve the network should be prioritised over applications that seek to limit or reduce it.