Agenda item

Context:

We received a report to seek the Committee’s views on the scope of and progress on the Review of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan.

Recommendations:

That the Committee note and provide comments on:

i. The scope of and progress on the review;

ii. The proposed timescales for further reporting to the Committee on the outcome of the initial assessments

Key Issues:

1 The Rights of Way Improvement Plan (RoWIP) is a statutory plan required by the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000 to cover the management, development, integration and promotion of local rights of way networks. Welsh Government published Guidance on the Review of RoWIPs in July 2016.

2. The Monmouthshire RoWIP was approved in 2007 (and can be viewed at

http://www.monmouthshire.gov.uk/app/uploads/2013/09/ROWIP-final-doc.pdf). We are now required to carry out a new assessment; review the existing plan and decide whether or not to amend it; and if required to publish a new plan within 12 months of that decision.

3. The review requirements and the proposed timetable are set out in the appended paper. The formal review has to take place within 10 years of the plan’s original approval (i.e. before Oct 2017) and our proposal is to complete that stage by July 2017 and to publish a final plan by March 2018.

4. The existing RoWIP took a “benefits driven” approach to countryside access management based on the following vision:

·         To recognise the economic, social and heritage value of our public rights of way network as an important investment in the future for the residents and visitors of Monmouthshire.

·         To maintain and improve local rights of way in order to promote and encourage their use and enjoyment for the physical and mental well-being of all of Monmouthshire’s residents and visitors.

·         To sustain the quality and diversity of Monmouthshire’s countryside and to promote responsible countryside access for all.

Our assessment is that the existing RoWIP has been very successful in guiding this approach to countryside access management and has helped secure external investment over the last decade. So the proposed approach is to review and refine and set the RoWIP into the new wellbeing / natural resource management policy context but aim not lose the essence of the original plan.

5. As required by statute the Local Access Forum has been consulted on the proposed scope and timetable and the intention is that the new Local Access Forum will be consulted throughout; the RoWIP being its main focus of work over the coming months. The guidance suggests the involvement of the LAF should cover:

Assisting with dialogue through contacts with national, regional and local organisations;

Informing the data gathering exercise including the extent to which local rights of way meet the present and likely future needs of the public;

Advising on how the network could be improved for the public and where there are particular land management concerns;

Advising on the related issue of access to open countryside especially where new linear routes may be desirable;

Providing advice on prioritising implementation;

Commenting on published draft plans; and

Assisting in the resolution of conflicts between different representations when plans are issued for consultation.

Member Scrutiny:

A question was raised regarding the footpath around the Nevern in Caldicot and if there had been any progress. We were answered that we were looking at that Welsh coast path development and it still ongoing. One of the landowners wasn’t prepared to dedicate part of the land there and this is still the situation, hopefully this will change in the future.

In respect of the Wye Valley walk it was asked if there were any plans to move extend. We are were told there no plans to extend at this time. The that the main issues with the Wye Valley walk related to the large infrastructure items, Redbrook bridge and Lydbrook bridge given in example.

The Chair advised officers that when presenting the improvement plan that all major structures which are perceived to become a problem are listed in the plan because they may be an asset, but if they have to be made safe in view of pathways the cost may make plans virtually impossible.

A members asked if volunteers were welcome to help and officers advised that MCC are currently looking at a piece of work to clarify what volunteers can and cannot do.

A question was asked in respect of pavements, cycle tracks and pedestrians as there was an ambition to have a cycle route from Pontypool to County Hall in Usk. Officers answered there was an overlap with highways in terms of footways and cycle ways that run alongside roads they generally would not be rights of way.

A member asked about a previously presentation regarding rights of way issues and asked if these had been resolved, we were told that there is still a significant backlog of issues.

A Member commented on the closure of footpaths being a huge problem and asked for an explanation of the procedure. It was explained that the procedure was under the Highways Act 1980 and the only reason we can close a footpath is if it not needed for public use and that they would look at extinguishing or closing a path at the same time as a diversion or creation of a path, then they are more acceptable.

Footpaths can be closed as a safety issue but only for 6 months before seeking Welsh Government approval.

It was asked if National Parks are handing over all paths to MCC, the officer told the Committee that we may not be taking the paths on for the next financial year but would have to contribute to costs.