| Proposals to alter the rights of way Network |
| Alleygating |
| Section 63 Orders |
| Common access land |
| Windfarms |
| Rupps and Green Lanes |
The objective of this policy is to improve the network.
It must be implemented in harmony with two constraints:-
(a) building development and changes in land use – which continually alter the public rights of way environment and
(b) the legal rules which tightly control how changes in the network may be made.
Any creation which is not part of a package of rationalisation or diversion proposals will be encouraged.
The promoter shall be given all supporting evidence that we can muster.
Other creations shall be considered on the merits of the packages of which they form part.
Proposals for such changes should be supported or resisted (as the merits determine) on historical evidence (from maps etc) and evidence of user.
The fact that such a change will reduce enjoyment of walking is a spur to evidence-hunting: not a ground for objection.
The starting position for all diversions is that we will oppose them
An objection will be maintained if the diversion route is not as convenient and enjoyable as the existing route; and in responding to a proposal or order PNFS should strive to achieve greater convenience and enjoyment.
If a diversion is proposed or ordered in respect of an obstructed way, the highway authority shall be urged not to consider it until the obstruction has been removed.
This rule does not apply where the obstruction is a quarry, or a completed
(or substantially completed) building: in which event a route should be
demanded which is at least as convenient and enjoyable as the obstructed
route.
Diversion on to estate roads should be avoided. Preference will be given
to made-up estate paths through landscaped or open space away from vehicular
traffic.
If a way is to be diverted from an open route to a route alongside a wall or other physical boundary, the width will be the greater of the existing width; or 1.5 metres (for a footpath) or 3 metres (for a bridleway).
If a way which is to be diverted is to be enclosed on both sides, the width will be the greater of the existing width or 2 metres (for a footpath) or 3 metres (for a bridleway).
Rationalisation schemes are subject to the same criteria.
The starting position for all extinguishments is that we will oppose them.
An objection will be maintained unless
(a) a suitable alternative way is available (or to be provided); or
(b) the way is no longer needed by the public.
If an extinguishment proposal or order is made in respect of an obstructed way, the highway authority shall be urged not to consider it until the obstruction has been removed.
This rule does not apply where the obstruction is a quarry, or a completed (or substantially completed) building: in which event a route should be demanded which is at least as convenient and enjoyable as the obstructed route.
Alleygating is a specific type of activity that has been undertaken within urban areas to try and reduce criminal activities of various types by gating a number of passages, rear roads or roads within a given area. Although the CROW Act 2000 enacted s118b within the HA 1980 to cover extinguishment of rights on a public highway within specially designated areas of high risk it is expected that alleygating will still be seen on a regular basis.
- the Society will not oppose an alleygating proposal providing,
- The majority of the local residents are in favour.
- The footpaths to be closed do not form part of a network with links to other local footpaths.
- The footpaths to be closed are not important links for local people to amenities like schools, shops, bus stops etc.
The CROW Act 2000 enacted under section 63 a number of new s130 to the HA 1980 covering the removal of obstructions. These are important new provisions that give significant new powers to not only the Society but, to any Members of the public.
There is a very clear procedure to be used with pre defined forms to be filled in together with set time limits between each step. This is all defined on the DEFRA web site and the forms can be down loaded.
Crucially for the Society, s63 orders could find themselves in a magistrates court where if the magistrate finds against it costs could be awarded. Further if an authority chose to challenge the magistrates decision then high court hearings and potential costs could be very detrimental to the Society’s finances.
For this reason while the Society does wish to use the new s63 provisions it must also be very cautious in the potential exposure to costs. Especially as these are new provisions and there is very limited experience in their use and also how magistrates will make orders for costs. Any Area Officer or Inspector who believes that the Society should start the procedure for a s63 order MUST get prior authorisation from the Courts and Inquiries Officer at Taylor House. It is MANDATORY that this is done before even a Form 1 is issued.
Once authorised then the procedure may be taken up by either an Inspector or an Area Officer or by Taylor House dependent upon the circumstances. Any Members of the Society may clearly choose to start the s63 procedure in their own right without any authorisation, however, it must be clearly understood that if this happens then it is the individual who carries any risks associated with award of costs.
Where faults or obstructions are brought to the attention of the Society they will be assessed before being entered into the ‘faults database’. Those which are considered dangerous, blatant, repeated problems and are within the scope of s63 will have a ‘Form 1’ served IMMEDIATELY on the Highway Authority.
Now that Part 1 of the CROW Act 2000 is seeing the implementation of the rights of access to common access land it is important for the Society to make its position clear on a number of aspects.
The general principle that the main attraction of common access land is the right to roam freely is accepted by the Society. The question therefore of new footpath provision in such areas is considered by the Society to be something that would be looked at on a case by case basis. This would also apply to new footpath provision at the points of access where currently none exists.
the Society would also look into any reports that it receives concerning closures of common access lands where such closures have either not been listed or, are outside the permitted reasons for closure. the Society will not have a policy of inspecting or reporting on common access land as part of its normal activities.
The Society does not have a stated policy of either being always in favour or against plans for proposed windfarms.
The primary consideration will always be whether a proposal is believed to have a significant impact on the footpath network. the Society will therefore look at each proposal on its merits and consider each on a case by case basis.
Some general principles will apply such as,
- how close are the turbines to any footpath.
- what affect does the proposal have on the quiet enjoyment of the footpath and its associated landscape.
- Are there any incidental proposals e.g. Inclosure Act sections involving common land.
- Do the proposed access roads cause further problems with the footpath network.
- What are the plans for restitution once the expected lifespan of the turbines expires.
The CROW Act 2000 included provisions for another attempt to regularise the unsatisfactory position with RUPPS (roads used as public paths). The issue of higher rights has never been resolved so the current change will re-classify all RUPPs to ‘Restricted Byways’ where use by ‘motorised vehicles’ will be prohibited.
However, the exception to this is where a RUPP is already the subject of an application for a Modification Order to upgrade to a BOAT (byway open to all traffic). This is leading to an increasing number of green lanes being subjected to 4x4 and uses for which they were never intended.
Wherever possible and, certainly where these Modification Orders are for green lanes or equivalent, they will be opposed. However, these particular orders require detailed evidence, are time consuming to prepare, complicated and always subject to interpretation so the Society will only be able to maintain objections to a Local Public Inquiry in a very few cases. If where we have opposed an order we either lose or have to withdraw our objection we will always put the Highway Authority on notice that we will regularly inspect and if we find damage that causes a problem to walkers we will reserve the right to serve notice on them.
