To provide an update on progress and issues set out in the Public Rights of Way report considered by Environment Scrutiny Committee on 13^th July 2010.

The Committee received an update on progress and issues, set out in the Public Rights of Way (PROW) report considered by the Committee on 13 July 2010.

At its July 2010 meeting the Committee received a report on the PROW Service including an indication of the responsibilities of Amey and the Council following the transfer of the Service to Amey, and performance in relation to various aspects of its work, following which the Committee requested a further update.

The Chairman reported that questions had been received from Mr Everitt and Mr Lee relating to this agenda item and that copies had been circulated to members prior to the meeting.  The full questions have been appended to these minutes and a written response would be given. 

Responding to questions on the Service’s apparent lack of progress the Chairman agreed but appreciated the restricted level of resources available.  The Cabinet Member (Highways and Transportation) shared the concerns but pointed out that systems had been streamlined and needed time to show improved results.  He emphasised that the Council had to prioritise its limited resources.

The Countryside and Leisure Development Manager presented the agenda report which set out a number of current issues and performance around Definitive Map Modification Orders (DMMO), Public Path Orders and network maintenance.  The report also provided an update on a list of issues previously suggested for scrutiny.  He highlighted that since the July report the PROW Team were undertaking two new areas of work.  The first related to the researching of applications for amendments to the Council’s statutory List of Streets. The second involved implementing a solution to the Ordinance Survey’s Positional Accuracy Improvement (PIA) programme.  Both areas impacted on the work load of the DMMO team.  This impact and consequent change to outputshad been agreed by Amey anf Herefordshire Council and set out in the report.

During the course of scrutinising the report the Committee noted the following principal points:

• In the timescale of PROW work six months didn’t provide sufficient time to show significant improvement.
• The Countryside Commission used to provide funding for bridge installations. That funding had ceased and the County had a backlog of bridge maintenance works.  The PROW team were exploring whether alternative maintenance options were feasible e.g. working through the Ramblers Association or the Parish Councils.
• The Committee noted the position concerning the issues previously submitted by Mr P McKay as set out at appendix 1 to the report.   These had been considered and mostly fell into three categories of: dealt with; an operational matter or for Herefordshire Local Access Forum (LAF) to consider.
• In response to the Committee’s recommendation in July 2010 a meeting had been held with members of the local National Farmers Union.  The NFU had acknowledged their PROW responsibilities and were keen to work with the PROW team, particularly recognising the importance of tourism to the county.
• Herefordshire Local Access Forum had sought a meeting with the Minister and MP’s to discuss PROW issues.  Current indications were that this may occur in July 2011 and officers would ask the HLAF to consider inviting various representatives of the Council to attend.
• Clarifying issues around bridge maintenance the Committee were informed that small scale bridge works were usually undertaken in-house with larger structures put out to tender.
• Due to the resources required to process applications to go to the Secretary of State for decision, nine months to one year being a typical time scale, only one was awaiting decision, however other applications were awaiting processing.
• Good progress had been made in tackling the backlog in Highways Act orders and therefore the new procedure, indicated in the July report of applicants appointing their own consultant, would not now be implemented but the existing procedure was being revised to minimise the burden on the Council.
• The Committee requested that any future report should indicate the percentage of the network open to the public – particularly in relation to the important category 1 & 2 routes.  Information also needed to clearly indicate performance against targets (the service direction of travel).
• A number of outstanding service issues related to hazards or obstructions across rights of way.  Some were such that the public could go around the obstruction others related to buildings having been built across the right of way and these would be more resource intensive to sort out.  Following a query relating to prioritisation, it was reported that in line with PROW Standards, Amey had met the necessary targets that 100% of hazards had been made safe within 48 hours and 77 out of 78 (98.7%) of defects on a Category 1 route had been cleared, or programmed for works, within 3 months.
• The Committee supported the intention to further develop the closer working between the Parish Paths Partnership (P3) scheme, the Parish Lengthsman scheme and other partners e.g. the Ramblers Association.  Efforts to focus the work undertaken by volunteers was also welcomed.  The Cabinet Member (H&T) commented that while no further finance was available there was a need to ensure that greater value for money was achieved.  Questioned whether this linked to the Localism Bill he thought this was a typical example of how communities can get involved to make a local difference.

The Chairman thanked Mr Everitt and Mr Lee for their questions, responses to which would be sent in writing in due course.

RESOLVED:

a)      that the position set out in the report be noted;

b)     the Committee supports the closer working arrangements with partners particularly concerning the Parish Paths Partnership (P3) scheme and the Parish Lengthsman scheme;

c)      future performance reports should indicate the percentage of the main network that was open to the public; and

d)     written responses be given to the public questions.