Agenda item

Pat Coulson presented the report to Members, but firstly thanked Mr Brown for his guidance on the project.

It was noted that at the last meeting of the Forum in January 2025, the Principal PROW Officer had shared a briefing paper and presentation with Members which outlined the current position of the North Yorkshire Council (NYC) Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP).  At that time the Countryside Access Service (CAS) asked that Members provide strategic guidance on the development of the next NYC ROWIP, which was scheduled for review in 2027.  In response to this request, a sub-group was established at the meeting, comprising Pat Coulson, Belinda Ryan, and John Toogood.

Mrs Coulson reported that, in response to the CAS teams request, the sub-group had undertaken a review of several ROWIPs.  It was noted that many of the documents were difficult to locate online and, in several instances, only draft versions were accessible, with no finalised documents available.  Additionally, some of the plans were particularly lengthy and contained numerous acronyms, which posed challenges in interpretation.  Despite these issues, the sub-group reached a consensus that the Northumberland ROWIP represented a particularly strong and effective model.

Following the review, attention was directed to the eleven questions outlined in the January 2025 briefing paper, which were included in the appendix of this report. Each member of the sub-group completed the questions independently, then the individual responses were consolidated into a single, unified set of answers for further discussion.

Given current financial restraints, the sub-group could see no benefit in commissioning a new ROWIP of the length and detail of the 2007 document and stated that the 2027 document should be:

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

·       Strategic, providing high level objectives, not how to achieve them

·       Deliverable and with 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.

Members noted that the sub-group had identified six key areas for the CAS to consider when drafting the new ROWIP, these could be found from section 4.0 of the report. For each area, the sub-group proposed a method for implementation and outlined potential outcomes to support the development of the next ROWIP.

A detailed discussion then took place between Members and officers on the six key areas identified.  Mr Brown expressed that all six identified areas held significant value and emphasised the importance of fostering collaboration with teams from other organisations. However, he acknowledged the challenge of ensuring that shared information remained both useful and up to date.

Ms Ryan suggested leveraging modern technology, such as social media platforms or dedicated mobile applications, to facilitate real-time reporting of issues on the Public Rights of Way (PROW), for example, enabling users to report fallen trees.

Mrs Coulson highlighted the importance of making the network accessible to as many people as possible. Mr Brown stated that inclusivity was central to everything the team did, and that efforts were made to engage with groups who may currently feel excluded or underrepresented.

One of the areas agreed upon was the importance of raising public awareness about the achievements of the CAS, particularly given the constraints of a limited budget.  Of the ROWIP’s researched, a number had showcased their key projects through a “you said, we did” approach.

Mr Brown noted that specific schemes had not been included among the key areas and questioned whether this was consistent across the sub-group.  Mrs Coulson explained that while the sub-group had considered this issue, it was felt that being overly prescriptive could lead to criticism if certain projects were not delivered, however if CAS were aware of good schemes, then it would be beneficial to include them as examples.

Mr Clark cautioned against including too many ideas, which could become unmanageable and suggested a balanced approach, avoiding both overly brief and excessively long documents. Concerns were raised that as the Local Transport Plan (LTP) would be produced by the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, that major infrastructure schemes may be prioritised at the expense of local needs.

Both Mr Kelly and Mr Brown thanked the sub-group for their clear and constructive guidance and stated that officers would continue to draft the ROWIP, while taking into consideration the input from the LAF sub-group.

Resolved

That officers take note of the recommendations of the ROWIP sub-group.