Meeting documents

To be presented by Mrs S Bayne, Blackwood Bayne Ltd.

Ms S Bayne, Director, Blackwood Bayne Ltd, provided a presentation, appended to the minutes, and gave the following update:

• An extraordinary meeting was held on 21 May 2019 to discuss the emerging findings from the stakeholder and public engagement activities; the meeting was useful but Ms Bayne felt that, due to low attendance, it would be beneficial to re-examine a couple of areas with the Local Access Forum (LAF). 
• The Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) would contain an ‘assessment’ which included an understanding of public need, review the definitive map, the condition of the network and relevant plans and strategies.  It would also include information on economic needs, health and wellbeing and facilities for visitors.

• The assessment would also consider opportunities for recreation and exercise and accessibility of rights of way (ROW) to blind and partially sighted people and people with mobility problems.
• The LAF had received the results of the survey carried out with parish and town councils and the stakeholder and public engagement activities.

Topic 2 – Addressing Maintenance Challenges

• Maintaining and investing in the network was the highest priority; overgrown paths were the highest scoring priority for the public and parish councils.
• Lack of way marking, stiles, finger posts and obstructions were in the top five priorities.
• 38% of the public were satisfied with the ROW service for reported issues; communication was the main suggestion for improvement.
• The CAMs system would continue to be improved; combined with monitoring public satisfaction for the new system.
• A significant number of people recognised that issues would not be fixed immediately due to lack of resources.

Ms Bayne asked the LAF for suggestions on how to improve the scores for addressing maintenance challenges and for input on what could be included in the ROWIP. 

• It was noted that the main comments were on the condition of the ROWs.
• There was low satisfaction with the responses to reported problems.  The Chairman queried if the reason for the dissatisfaction was the response time or that the issues were not resolved.  Ms Bayne clarified that both the response time and the communication issues had received the highest percentage of comments. 
• Some of the problems were dependent on the landowner e.g. footpath clearance and it often came down to enforcement proceedings which was time consuming for staff.  It was queried if more focus should be on enforcement action.
• The pie chart showed that 42% of the public were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the response to the reporting of ROW issues.  A member of the forum asked how it could be determined if people had too high an expectation of the condition of the ROW.  Ms Bayne stated that it would not be possible; a number of people were dissatisfied but understood the reasons.

• A member of the forum acknowledged that it was difficult to manage people’s expectations; it was an impossible mission as people only reported the bad news.  The Chairman stated that, on the whole, Buckinghamshire had an extensive ROW network with plenty of maps available and numerous walking books in the libraries. 

• It was noted that significant improvements had been made to the CAMs system since the consultation; however, it was more difficult to increase the maintenance due to a lack of resources.  It was suggested that when overgrowth was reported, the system show if the ROW services were devolved to the PC.  It was suggested that the ROWIP include a paragraph to say the County Council was carrying out as much as possible with the resources available and to also include a section on enforcement.
• A member of the forum stated that, post-Brexit, funding could be available for farmers to provide new ROWs and asked if there was evidence of demand.  It was confirmed that there was always a demand, particularly for more cycle routes and bridleways, but the demand had been constrained by lack of funding.  It was agreed that the ROWIP should acknowledge that there was the possibility of landowners receiving funding for extra ROWs and explain how it would be handled.  Ms Bayne added that there was strong feeling in areas of high change and major infrastructure such as Aylesbury, that there should be an improvement in the quality of the paths from the urban areas to the countryside. 
• It was agreed that communication on how to report a ROW problem needed to be improved; however, Ms Taylor, Team Leader, ROW, stated that it was easy to find the ‘report-a-problem’ page via Google.  The ROW service needed to be more accessible to the public but a balance was required. A spike in the number of reported issues followed the introduction of the new CAMS system.
• Ms Taylor commented that the score for accessibility for mobile users was disappointing as 1,800 stiles had been removed and replaced with gaps, pedestrian gates and kissing gates to enable the routes to be accessible.  The ROWIP needed to understand why people were dissatisfied and how to resolve the dissatisfactions.  It was questioned that it was probably the PC clerks who had completed the survey and that the score was good.  Ms Bayne added that organisations, such as Parkinson’s UK, were satisfied with the network, but had requested more information and good quality steps with handrails. A member of the forum recommended installing standard size kissing gates and offered to provide a list of where narrow gates were located.

ACTION:  Mr Harriss

• A member of the forum stated that permissive paths should not be lost as they created links, but it was noted permission could be withdrawn.  Another member felt it was better to have more permanent pathways.  Mr Briggs advised that farmers were not paid for ROWs but were paid for permissive paths and suggested that there could be a new stewardship payments for ROWs. 

• It was agreed that the work of the volunteers could be mentioned in the ROWIP.  Concern was expressed that there may not be such a large pool of volunteers in the future.

Topic 3 – Partnership for Delivery

• The ROWIP covered a broad remit and would need new partnerships/organisations/volunteers to work with. 
• Volunteers had offered to carry out work on CAMs to process reported problems; it was agreed this would be a good way forward as the volunteers had a wide range of abilities.
• A member of the forum stated that the new Buckinghamshire Council would be based on working in the community and potentially the volunteers could be involved in the community hubs to help organise volunteers to clear the paths. 
• It was noted that it was difficult for small parishes to take on responsibility for footpaths; some parish councils with devolved responsibilities were managing but others required additional support.
• A member of the forum stated that he hoped the community hubs would improve the partnership working.  The County Council had not forced the PCs to become devolved; the problem was that when services were devolved, the precept was often very low.  The new Buckinghamshire Council would work for the public and be a positive way forward as there would be improved communication.  The problem for small parishes was finance.  For example, grass cutting could be quantified but looking after footpaths could not and would be reliant on volunteers.  Small parishes tended to find it easier to get volunteers;   it was a matter of how it was communicated to the parishes.
• The forward to the ROWIP should include information on the new Buckinghamshire Council and how it would be based on working in the community.
• Ms Bayne ran through the timetable for the production of the ROWIP.  Mr Chapple advised that the ROWIP would need to be adopted by early March 2020 while Buckinghamshire County Council still existed as all plans would be carried forward.  Mr Chapple agreed to discuss dates with Ms Bayne.

ACTION:  Mr Chapple

The Chairman thanked Ms Bayne for her work on the ROWIP so far.