Agenda item

Ian Kelly – Head of Countryside Access Service, Beth Brown – Principal Definitive Map Officer and Andrew Brown – Principal PROW Officer delivered a presentation outlining details of the Countryside Access Service review, highlighting the following:-

·       The Service Structure – a Multi-tiered team including PROW Officers (Public Rights of Way), Definitive Map Officers, Technical Officers, Volunteer Coordinators and Structures Engineers

·       An overview of the Service’s budget commitments was provided

·       Definitive Map Team - Maintains 10,253 km of public rights of way – the longest network in England and Wales - Legal responsibilities: Diversions, creations, extinguishments. Processing claims to add/amend routes (approx. 300 active applications). Increased activity due to 2031 cut-off for historic evidence-based claims. Opposed orders referred to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

·       Maintenance Team - Maintains: 6,144 km of PROW outside National Parks,

4,109 km within National Parks (via delegation), 737 km of unsealed roads.

Responsibilities include: Surface, signage, and structure maintenance (approx. 1,700 bridges). Supporting landowners with stiles and gates.

Handling 1,700 issues annually, with 90.5% of the network accessible Supports: 3 National Landscapes, 6 National Trails, 14 long-distance promoted routes, 12 off-road National Cycle Network sections – details of a number of projects were provided.

·       Community Engagement - Active volunteer and path-keeper groups,

use of Strava heat maps to monitor walking, running, and cycling activity

·       Further Information - CAS Annual Report – Local Access Forum (28 May 2025) Public Rights of Way – North Yorkshire Council

Members discussed the presentation and the following issues were highlighted:-

·       In terms of PRoWs details of how appeals are undertaken, when the situation may go to a Public inquiry and the type of evidence required were provided. It was noted that the Secretary of State could intervene where confirmation of the PRoW cannot be determined.

·       It was stated that evidence had to be provided for the review of a PRoW to be undertaken.

·       One a PRoW has been defined, eg footpath, bridleway, etc., that could not be altered, despite objections to how it is used.

·       Monitoring of the use of PRoWs and whether this was in accordance with the appropriate conditions, was undertaken by a number of agencies.

·       The Service works closely with Planning Services to ensure that delivery of the service is as pro-active as possible. The Service also contributes to the Local Transport Plan.

·       Details of the reasons for the closure or change of category of a PRoW were discussed and it was noted that this was guided by legislation, with strict criteria in place as to how this can be implemented.

·       The Service has a good relationship with the Police in terms of identifying and preventing the mis-use of PRoWs.

Councillors Philip Barrett and David Ireton left the meeting at this stage.

·       Volunteering, how to become a volunteer and their contribution to the service were highlighted.

·       Further exploration of the use of planning gain funding through S106 agreements was being explored to maximise the use of available funding. Members locality budgets could also be utilised for PRoW maintenance and upkeep. The areas of responsibility in terms of what was required to be maintained and repaired by the Council was clarified.

·       The use of Strava Walk heat maps to identify the usage of PRoWs was explained. It was suggested that these could be utilised for applications, appeals and Public Inquiries. It was noted that the details provided through this medium could utilised for such events.

Resolved -

That the contents of the report, and the issues raised, be noted.