APPENDICES APPENDIX I. GENERAL PUBLIC QUESTIONNAIRE AND ACTUAL RESULTS District Council Rights of Way improvement Plan

Wokingham District contains 143 miles of Public Rights of Way. Wokingham District Council is currently compiling a Rights of Way Improvement Plan, which will guide us in improving the network by ensuring that we understand the current and future needs of users and potential users. The information we gather will help us to investigate the possible future funding for the improvement of rights of way. We would be grateful if you would spend a few minutes answering the following questions, in order to help us create an effective plan.

Please could you complete the following questions and return this form to Linda Spencer by 21 October 2005. If you feel a question doesn't apply to you, please just leave it blank and move on to the next one, as we are equally keen to hear from people who use the Rights of Way as well as those who do not.

Q1 How often do you visit the countryside in Wokingham district Q4 If there were suitable routes created in the future, would you consider Daily 69 Month 136 cycling or walking to these places? 311 Already d 69 Several times a week ...... 71 Less ofte 160 Weekly ...... 15 Not used at all ...... 34 126

Q5 Are you aware of the following routes within the district? Q2 How often do vou visit each of the following-. ~laces? Thames Trail ...... Loddon Valley Footpath ......

Several~~ ~ ~ Blacltwater Valley Footpath ...... 153 times a Less Not used Daily week Weekly Monthly often at all Public Riahts of Wav (footoaths. Q6 For what reasons do you use Public Rights of Way? (Tick those which bridlewaG, byways and roads apply) used as public paths) ...... 84 85 118 85 114 43 For recreational puposes ...... 475 For sportlfitness ...... 151 Cycle tracks ...... 10 14 37 42 98 261 To travel to worldschool ...... 55 Other ...... 49 Country Parks ...... 12 15 67 157 252 57 To reach local amenities ...... 130 Nature Reserves ...... 6 12 30 112 268 80 Please specify other Local Parks ...... 28 30 97 119 205 71 67 Rivers ...... 14 20 67 123 228 84 Woodlands ...... 24 44 79 128 202 72 QY Which activities do you pursue on the network? (Tick those which apply) Walking ...... 491 Horse riding ...... 10 4WD driving ...... 4 Running ...... 30 Carriage driving ...... 1 Motorcycling ...... g Q3 What mode of transpod do you use to access these places? Public transport ...... 26 Car/rnotorbike ...... 463 Cycling ...... 152 Dog walling ...... 102 Other...... 17 . . Bicycle ...... I32 Mob~btyscooter ...... 6 Please specify other 38 Foot ...... 4 1 Is there anything that discourages you from using Public Rights of Way in How often do you use Public Rights of Way from Wokingham District to Wokingham District? (Tick those which apply) areas of the countryside outside the district? Lack of information about available Lack of signs ...... 80 Always ...... 12 Rarely ...... ZIE routes ...... 195 Lack of time ...... 146 Usually ...... 2738Never...... Poorly maintained paths ...... I 36 Sharing use with other users ...... $1 Sometimes ...... 207 Paths not accessible ...... 62 Influence of agriculture ...... 14 Lack of useful routes ...... 73 Health restrictions ...... 50 Are you aware of the Health Walks Programme? Personal safety concerns ...... I57 Yes. I'm aware but do not tale pa Don't lilce walking/cycling ...... Io Irresponsible users ...... 91 Yes. I'm aware and take part Other ...... 33 No. I am not awa Please speciF/ other

Q13 How satisfied are you with the Public Rights of Way network in Wokingham District Very Vely satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied dissatrsfied No opinion Information ...... 21 249 133 16 129 Q9 In which locations do you mainly use the network? (Tick all those which 124 18 131 apply) Vegetation clearance ...... 17 249 Hurst ...... 121 ...... 43 ...... 147 Waymarkers ...... 15 259 102 4 145 ...... 71 ...... 43 Woodley ...... 137 Condition of stiles. gates. bridges ...... 20 308 64 11 131 ..... 120 ...... 145 ...... 77 Available routes ...... 21 267 86 11 139 Arboifield ...... 66 ...... 40 ...... 137 Surface condition ...... 10 285 88 18 124 ...... I37 Wokingham ...... 172 Twyford ...... 95 Accessibility ...... 19 308 54 8 130 ...... 43 ...... 50 ...... 236 Q14 How satisfied are you by the service provided by Wokingham District Council regarding Rights of Way issues? Q10 Why do you choose these locations? (Tick those which apply) Very Very dis Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied satisfied No opinion Close to home ...... 512 Favourite route ...... 153 Internet information ...... 8 101 29 7 368 Scenery of area ...... 257 Near to public house ...... 41 Staff response to enquiries ...... 13 100 17 3 388 Quality of paths ...... 101 Other 28 Response to maintenance Please specify other issues ...... 10 89 43 14 361 Response to enforcement issues ...... 6 67 42 15 378 Q15 Given that financial resources are limited, what three actions would make Q19 If no, why not? the greatest improvement to your ability to access the countryside now? 243 (Please label 1-3, with 1 being the most important) 164 Improved rural transport ...... 169 Reduced need to use roads to link ...... 218 Q20 Conflict sometimes arises between people using the paths for different More routes and links for pedestrians, horses and cycles ...... reasons e.g. walking, cycling, horse riding etc. What do you think could be 80 More routes and links for pedestrians, horses, cycles and motor vehicles ...... done to help minimise these conflicts? 202 387 Better signage ...... 108 Better surfacing ...... 208 Better maintenance of existing paths ...... 318 Better information about the routes available ...... 122 More guided walks ...... 99 Improved accessibility for wheelchairslpushchairs ...... 40 Q21 Would you be prepared to support multi-use of routes (e.g. pedestrians, Other ...... cyclists and horse riders) if this were the only- way- of widening- the Please specify other network? 37 Yes ...... 380 No ...... 89 Don't Inow...... 82

Q16 Given that the population of Wokingham is set to expand considerably, Q22 On vulnerable unsurfaced byways, what winter controls do you think there what improvements do you think we need to be addressing to should be on motorised recreational vehicles? accommodate future needs? Motor cars Motor bikes 322 No restr~ct~ons...... 20 13 Seasonallcondition restrictions ...... 206 187 No access ...... 31 7 308

Q17 Traffic congestion is an escalating problem across the UK. What mode of Q23 Would you be interested in taking part in a one-off focus group discussing transport do you use to access your place of worklchild(ren)'s school? Public Rights of Way? Car ...... 294 Walk ...... 87 Ido not workltake Yes ...... 21 No...... 431 children to school...... 232 Bus ...... 21 Bicycle ...... 25 Train ...... 32 Motorbike ...... 4 Q24 If yes, please could you give your name and a contact telephone numberlemail address: Q18 If there were suitable routes created in the future, would you consider 117 cycling or walking to worklschool? Name ...... 117 Yes ...... 128 No ...... 202 Already do ...... 70 TelIEmail ..... Q25 Do you have any specific routes or links that you would like to see Q26 How would you like to get information about accessing the countryside? created? If so. please list them below . Intemet ...... 247 Leaflets ...... 424 99 Q27 Are you a member of any of the following? RSPB 2 Ramblers Association ...... 37 BTO 8 BBOWT ...... 38 RSP 37 29 Any other user organisations ...... IOC

About you The next seven questions are optional. However. your answers will help us with the analysis of the consultation responses .

Q28 Are you... ? Q33 What is your family status? Male ...... ~OIFemale ...... 297 Marriedfiving with partner - with Separated/divorced/widowed - no children ...... 2 children ...... 49 Marriedfiving with partner .no Single .with children ...... 3 Q29 Where do you live? Please give your postcode: 585 children ...... 225 Single -no children ...... 29 Seoarated/divorced/widowed .with children ...... 29 Q30 Is your mobility restricted by disability or long-term illness? Yes .sensory ...... 7 Yes -physical ...... 71 No ...... 499 Please indicate what you consider your ethnic background to be? Q31 What is your age? White .British ...... 533 Asian or British .Pakistani ...... 1 Under 25 ...... 1 55 to 64 ...... 182 White .Irish ...... g Asian or British .Bangladeshi ...... 0 25 f0 34 ...... 20 65 to 74 ...... 133 White .Traveller of Irish Heritage...... o Any other Asian or Asian British 35 to 44 ...... 72 75 or older ...... 61 . background (please state below) ...... 0 White .Gypsy/Roma ...... 1 Black or Black British .Caribbean ...... 1 White -Any other background (please state below) ...... 7 orB1ack British -African ...... 1 Q32 Which of the following best describes your current situation? Please tick Mixed .White and Black Caribbean ..... I Any other Black or Black British the appropriate box background state below) ...... 0 . Mixed .White and Black African ...... 0 Working in full time employment ...... 196 Wholly retired from work ...... 226 Chinese ...... 2 Mixed .White and Asian ...... o Working in part time employment ...... 111 Full time student ...... o Other ...... 5 Mixed .Any other Mixed background Not working but available for work ...... 8 Other ...... 11 (please state below) ...... 0 I do not wish an ethnic background category to be recorded ...... 17 Looking after the home/dependants ..... 31 Would prefernot to answer ...... 3 Asian or British .Indian ...... 5 Unable to work due to ill Please state 'Other' or other Mixed background 20 health/disability ...... 10

Thank you for completing this survey. Please return it to Linda Spencer using the pre paid envelope supplied . Q6: Other reasons for using Public Public transport not available to Dinton Rights of Way Pastures from Maiden Erlegh. Earley is dreadfully short of dropped Walking club kerbs necessary to access Fishing cyclewayslwalkways. Minor pursuits Lack of knowledge on my part Friends Lack of information and 'official' Dog walking resistance to 4wd and motorcycle activity. To get from one place to another An unreliable knee prevents exploration Health walkinglexercise of green land. To visit someone Only walking short distances To reach local amenities Presumption that riverside walks are too Pleasure narrow for pushchairs. To enjoy the countryside It is important that recreational routes I write about walking in the form a circuit1 network so roads without countryside paths and busy roads can be easily I live on a PROW avoided. Bird watching, photography Uneven pavement1walking routes1 lack of Horse riding footpaths on main roads in I used the footpaths during the summer Finchampstead. but will never use them again due to the Age and health restrictions random murders that are taking place in Have to go on busy roads to get access these areas. to them. No bells on bikes! Q7: Other activities pursued on the Too close to roads with no safe grass nelwork verge to separate. Personal safety concerns Includes rambling and guided walks. Need to know about the round Berkshire Playinglwalking with children cycle route. River use Badly maintained roads in the area. Bird watchinglnature Bad weather Mobility scooter where possible. Over development. I am disabled so only use when taken Would like more safe cycle routes. Fishing. Earlier this year I asked the footpaths Rally sport. dept to maintain no.44 as it was very Driving there, then short walk. muddy. Nothing was done and now it Leisure needs cutting back! No.29 has been cut Rowing1boating back! No. 27 (Rebecca's Well) is very bad Dog walking and needs resurfacing. Golf - most courses have PROWS. Ramblers association do a good job generally. Q8: Other things which discourage All very well managed. people from using Public Rights of Lack of parking space near beginning1 way end of roads. Poor lighting Walk outside the district From where I live it takes too long to Weather can quickly make paths reach open country. unusable Rubbish Idumping Iflytipping Not easy access to free fishing stretch. Illegal cycling on footpaths Golfers using parklands for practice. I have two small children and some Sometimes fishermen. places are not practical with a buggy Lack of information Looking for new routes to lead parties Paths which are adjacent to poorly (walks 10 miles+) maintained industrial sites such as 9 Mile Small informal walking group. Ride Industrial Estate opposite California Routes tolfrom worklschool Country Park Variety of area e.g. lake and heathlandl Lack of long distance walks which get woodland, also suitable for dog walking away from housing and busy roads. Sadly the district is too developed now and Q15: Other actions that could improve attractive peaceful countryside is difficult access to the countryside to find. Limited number within walking distance of Ability to get there home More dog waste bins and better Dogs not on leads that are not under enforcement of their use control. Increased access to riverside lack of motivation Safe rural parkinglimproved car parking Some stiles and bridges are dangerously Safe cycleways, separated from roads by rickety! grass verges. Overgrown Paths, and paths that pass Restricting horse1 motorbike14x4 access. through fields with livestock Mend stiles1 gates1 bridges. Poor surfaces due to horse and vehicle Information regarding safety. use Secure fencing around livestock to keep Illegal use of vehicles. dogs out. Lack of dog waste binsldog mess V. happy Improved accessibility for cyclesithe need Q10: Other reasons for choosing to link up into longer routes. locations in Q9 Preventing cyclists from using paths and pavements. it is becoming increasingly Easy access by car and car parking dangerous to walk around Wokingham (or facilities any other place for that matter) either on Visiting friend via bus footpaths or pavements because of Southlake1 Highwood. River Thames. My irresponsible cyclists. The place for a dog can run free. bike is on the road. Its time pedestrians Best dog walking routes. were given greater consideration and the Local knowledge law about cycling on pavements was Easily accessible from home enforced. Child1 pushchair friendly Clear and prevent flytippingllitter So can walk1 cycle the entire route. Better linkage of existing pathsinew paths To access local shops1 station1 doctor's around Wokingham District with easier surgery1 pharmacy1iibraryl sports club. pedestrian access from the town centre. Birdwatchinglwildlife Closer linkage with facilities such as Walks specified in walking guide pubs. publications. Create separate paths for walkers and Avoid main roads when walking cycling. cyclists (particularly motor cycles) Health walks Signage should include distances and Cycle access destinations. Wararave- Parish Council Access poor in other areas. paid for some signs showing general Plus close to play areas. destinations in Linden Hill woods as Next to River people were always getting lost! Children's play areas in vicinity Bridge over Thames from Wargrave to Ramblers walk Chance to explore the neighbouring parishes Generally there is adequate access, Build decent paths that offer efficient signage, and maintenance. They are alternatives to cars1 public transport. 'country walks' not municipal paths! Safety for children and lone walkers on More 'circular routes' routes and information widely available. Publicity, maps and articles in local Q16: Improvements that could be papers to encourage use. Set aside areas made to accommodate future needs specially designed for the motor vehicles and perhaps charge a small fee. More cycle paths Concentrate on existing rights of way, Negotiate with farmersllandowners to ensuring they are kept in first class allow access to create more walks. condition. Build houses on cleared brownfield land More pedestrians and cycle paths as part in order to maintain our countryside. of planning permission system Maintain existing rural areas. Reduce More education to newcomers on the public access to rural areas so that rules of the countryside. damage to the environment is eliminated. Preserving existing woodland A new secondary school in preference to Make certain present amenities are highly any rights of way expenditure extended where needed. Better public transport Ensure that public rights of way are Less fouling of footpaths by dogs protected. By ensuring that areas of the countryside Keep as much leisure1walking1 woodland remain accessible after new building as possible. developments. More rural access for walkers and Provide a toilet between Oracle and cyclists. Sonning on Thames Walk. Accessibility of public rights of way. Very definitely not to lose our country Family needs taken into account. parks. They are the best (outside the Speed reductions better paths. No national parks). parking near or close to schools such as Keep existing paths in good condition. Waingel's Copse and Willowbank. Ensure green areas maintained and more Good walkways & footpaths that are information available. easily accessible. Maintain all the current open spaces and Protection of countryside and rights of routes, keep surfaces safe. way network. Only allow residential and Safe cycle routes to schools agricultural traffic on byways. To keep a balance between public and Ensure that the building of new homes recreational amenities with housing does not adversely affect the countryside development. and infrastructure. In many locations the urban footpaths are The system works generally well. broken up, uneven, and too steeply More paths around town to avoid busy sloped from inside to kerb. This makes it roads. Keep population down. difficult for the unsteady or those in Safety on walkways. wheelchairs or with pushchairs. More routes and improved linking of Communication of facilities available routes. More dropped kerbs. Enforcement of litter ensure availability of sufficient car parking by-laws, crackdown on fly tipping. facilities. I would like to see the Loddon footpath Ensuring there are enough foot/cycle extend all the way to Swallowfield. There paths where needed. is a possible route although private. Reduce numbers of people driving Ensure that sufficient green areas are children to school when they could walk1 free from housing. cycle. Make sure maintenance is a priority. Ensure that existing countryside is not vandalism, litter encroached upon. Clearer signage. developments and making sure that all More walks -less cars. facilities are available. Better access1surfacing for pushchairsl Plan road improvements carefully to kiddies to cycle on to improve the use of avoid wasting land and money. the paths. I only go to where the paths More bridleways. Possible bridleways are suitable. beside existing roadways. Encourage developers to create footways Even more important to ensure footpaths in the countryside. are created through new residential areas Better road and path surfaces. Discourage the use of cars for "school Greater distribution of information on runs" purpose. Facilitate the use of routes available. Not necessarily an alternative methods to travel tolfrom increase in quantity. school. Footpaths that link facilities. Better Protect the encroachment on rights of maintenance1regular checks. way by landowners who wish to divert or Ensure that footpaths are included in the close new developments. More leisure facilities, i.e. open space, Maintenance of existing rural areas and parks and rights of way. Future housing safe litter free links for pedestrians1 estates should have at least one green cyclists. No encroachment of housing into area like a village green. existing rural areas. Increase capacity and create new rights Maintaining rights of way, byways etc to a of way, paths and walkways to enable better standard if use is to increase. Many continued access to green areas and are already in poor condition. countryside Give protection to local green areas and Keep green spaces in built up areas and trees. footpaths linking them Maintenance of public parks, leisure More guided walks and more publicity for facilities, rights of way. Restriction signs these walks re speeds of cyclists & no access for Looking at the way signage of trails and youths on mopeds etc. routes are done in Switzerland. The More encouragement to walk, more info clarity even for strangers &with routes about health walks. An evening health going into different speaking Cantons is walks program. still excellent. Publicised and maintained routes. Better links between rights of way to form Consideration to existing open spaces a cohesive network. Better signage and and rural areas. Pedestrian crossings, maintenance of paths, provision of good foot bridges, speed limits. quality maps. Safe areas for children to play. Parents and children should be Setting aside land for recreational encouraged to walk or cycle to schools on purposes. safe routes. Make users pay for the facilities they use. Small areas of parkland which break up Ensure network does not suffer. Establish the monotony of residential development better link roads. Step up publicity. Make more clearly signed paths for The council needs to give this issue a pedestrians and cyclists. Do not much higher profile with greater all round encourage the use of 414 vehicles make commitment, particularly in staff1 sure paths are cleared of brambles, resources. nettles etc and install some rubbish bins improve recreational facilities. e.g. the 9 Rigorously protect the areas of open hole golf course is poor by comparison countryside, country parks, and local with . Soccer grounds and recreational areas that are currently children's playgrounds. available and accessible throughout Better communication with residents. Wokingham Choosing good sites for large More pavements in rural areas so that Better information on existing routes. people can walk safely from their homes Maybe publishing routes in the free issue to the countryside e.g. Heathlands Road paper from WDC Ensure that the existing public amenities Follow up enforcement faster, when paths are not lost and further networks are are deliberately blocked or diverted included in any planned developments without permission. Leaflet people with Clear rules and enforcement of these what is available in their area. rules. Strike a very careful balance ldentify popular places people want to go between better access etc and misuse. to and from, then see if it is feasible to Improved surfaces and better access create new pedestrianlcycle ROW to ALSO lead to the following: flytipping, encourage non-use of cars. assemblies of drug users and drug Protect existing "open" space for dealers, PRW being used as escape runs recreational use. by offenders. There is NO police in the Betterlsafer complete network of countryside and NO enforcement. Also, cyclelfootpaths to enable people to travel the pleasure of walking, cycling, riding is from home to shopslworklrecreation. not enhanced by the growing number of cars and motorbikes. Ql9: Reasons for not walkinglcycling More information on finding locations of to school/work routes Establishing more footpaths through the Cycling is too dangerous. countryside with provision for off-road Children go to different schools parking and to provide selected areas for No need protection of natural habitats. I do shift work. There is no available Ensure that access to the countryside is transport. maintained and protected Gaining access presents problems Prevent further spreading of settlements Distance too great to walk. into countryside - protecting what quiet The British climate areas we have left. Vehicle required for work More safe routes to school, work with Try walking in Woodley at rush hour. We Sustrans re linking local to national live within walking distance of Willowbank routes. Encourage council workers to use School, but it is much safer to drive. The paths crossing of the GWR line is dangerous Provide more information to local and Butts Hill Road is a nightmare for residents on the details of the walks and children. A third Thames Bridge is paths in the area. needed between the M4 and south Oxon. Ensuring that footpaths and cycle tracks Would only allow children to cycle if there feature prominently in development plans, were safe off road routes. I already use and are readily accessible and secure. cycle for work in reading town centre. Undertake an environmental survey of Too far, too dangerous. remaining green belt and land adjoining Too much to carry. brown-field sites. ldentify key areas close Lack of washing facilities1 showers and to existing built environment and ensure changing rooms. that these are preserved for future Driving is most convenient. generations - attempt to swaddle urban Would like my children to cycle to school areas in green cotton wool!! Protect but Emmbrook may move and the option remaining woodland. Ensure any new of St. Crispin's is not a safe route. Has estates have wildlife corridors and this been considered? pretences of woodland and green I live in rural area therefore my leisure amenity areas. and shopping facilities would not benefit from extra routes. No public transport available. Time constraints Divide footpaths, walkers to keep to one I drop off and then go to work. side. Facilities for elderly sparse. More consideration of pedestrians by Too many places to go in one day, the cyclists on narrow footpaths. car is the quickest and the easiest. Speed limit for cyclists, make it Work unsocial hours mandatory for cycles to have a bell. Age and health Cyclists must dismount at narrow points Distance of school but drive part way and on path. daughter walks the remainder of journey Compromise, double tracks and one way I ferry my grandchildren to their schools. tracks. There is no public transport to the Make footpaths wider and provide schools, which are too far away to suitable signage to show who should go journey on foot. where. impeded mobility People need to show more consideration The children already go to school by for others. Give and take. bicycle. I would not be able to get to work Cautionary signs to encourage in time by other means. Train + bicycle cooperation between different users. takes me 1.5 hours each way (to Slough) Common sense compared with 30min by car Enough space to offer space to different I work from home, why no tick box for this users. Ensuring no motorbikes, mopeds. rising category? Signs needed to denote pathways Need a path code. Q20: Ways to minimise conflict Just ensure signage is accurate between people using paths for Promote better understanding between different reasons groups Everyone has the same right to use the Bells on cycles paths. Have clearly marked paths for each Speed cycling slowed or designated to Keep cyclists off pavements! particular areas. Touring speeds for Widen the paths where space is horses (no galloping) available. Provide signs indicating usage More bridleways and cycle tracks and required cooperation. Provide Day/time/seasonal restrictions alternative routes for users and rest Common courtesy & sense by all. usage to one form. Better signage explaining how to use the Ensure everyone is considerate to others paths. Walkers not trespassing on private land Ensure paths are reasonably wide with Exclude horses and motorcycles; educate clearance of undergrowth. cyclists so that they can operate safely. Have a clear code of conduct which puts Have some paths for walking only. safety first. Teach children discipline Little -the conflicts are too individual. Make pet owners clean up after dogs and Stop 4x4's churning up tracks. other animals. Those riding horses should be made to I believe walkers and cyclists should have clear up their mess. Dog owners should unrestricted access across the board. although this does not seem to be done, Path education is a must; there is enough even on my own garden. room for all and no need to be selfish if provide more cycle routes. Or perhaps you don't happen to like another person's leave bumps in footpaths to discourage leisure sport or hobby. speeding bikes on shared paths. Educate them; make it compulsory for I have not had any problems. bikes to have bells. Teach people Make access more difficult to bikes and consideration for others. motor vehicles, use stiles1 kissing gates. Everyone has the right to use the paths Footpath improved between Wokingham and enjoy the countryside. Without and . Clear signs for when cycles are Improve bus routes i.e. Shinfield to Asdal prohibited. Paths sometimes too narrow Woodley. and windy to accommodate when cyclists Wokingham-Twyford-Henley go too fast. Loddon footpath extended to Swallowfield Publish a code of conduct for each Woosehill to Earley safer cycling category. Bracknell - Wokingham - Twyford - Enforce dogs on leads. Patrol to deter Wargrave motorised scooter use on paths. Link between the Loddon Valley footpath Better info on rights of use. People do not and the Blackwater footpath (and linked understand that a byway is a real road to the Thames Way) and not a footpath. A bypass for Wokingham town centre. More dog bins. A cycle route from Wokingham to Clearer signs, possibly colour coded. Reading which does not follow the main Bikes seem to go on footpaths and roads and heavy traffic. pedestrians seem to have no rights of A footpath across the Thames between way these days. Wargrave and Shiplake. If paths were kept clean of vegetation on Swallowfield to Spencer's wood and all sides. Being readily cut back, we could . use all the available space The route from Luckley Close to If they are all entitled to use the paths Woodcray Manor has been obstructed by then I don't see what can be done to residents who have put a private gate on minimise potential conflicts. It's the the alley between their houses. responsibility of individuals to show Better bus link between Woodley and consideration for others using the paths. Wokingham. Selective walks for each interest group. Loddon footpath through Arborfield and Stiles and gates could help. Newland. Possibly restrict use to s certain time of Arborfield footpath which starts on day for the more anti-social activities. Langley Common Road, Barkham but Sharing is possible as long as both are which is a dead end due to houses being considerate. built over it in the sixties. It could provide Not a major issue. a safe route from the Garrison end of the village for children to walk to school but Q25: Any specific routes or links you nothing is ever done to open it up. would like to see created My route is from Emmbrook to Wokingham station. I would like to see a Public transport to made link from station car park to Reading easy. Until a housing estate arrived there Road near St Paul's Church. Also I feel it used to be a full public footpath from the should be possible to provide an off road railway footbridge at the bowling alley, link through Emmbrook centre. across the football ground to the pin and An improved footpath along bowl pub. Tesco is now opposite. When Finchampstead Ridges as far as the war the housing estate was built a padlock memorial. Speed restrictions on this road. was put on the gate and a wooden fence You cannot access Caesar's Camp from is now blocking the footpath. Wokingham safely by cycling with Cycle route to Dinton Pastures from children. Winnersh crossroads is dangerous to Earley and Woodley to Reading town take children on the road. The hill over centre and Thames. the motorway is dangerous; a cycle route Link to Dinton Pastures from Barkham, south of Wokingham would also be nice. avoiding main roads. Between Molly Millars Lane and the town unhappy for my children to cycle due to centre over the railway bridge would save heavy traffic, if better routes were car usage. available, I would feel happier. Access to river from centre of Wargrave. Any link that would allow more 'country' Twyford - Hurst cycle path on pavement. walks from Wokingham area without Footpath1 bridleway no. 14 at Arborfield using transport or busy roads. end, section missing needs a permitted Twyford to Woodley without going path ending or something. through Chawil. Route between Bulmershe Court and the From A33 over M4 at junction 11 to rest of the uni route from Church Road Green Park. Earley to Woodley shopping precinct. Better link through roundabout at Loddon Improved signage through Woodley Bridge, a lot of children cycle to school. housing estates e.g. Kingfisher Drive. A new path coming off the one running None that are that important, bearing in from the A329m at its junction with the mind the cost of creating them A329 taking you across the fields into Cycle route to station from Barkham and Binfield. A new path coming across fields Finchampstead directions. along the ditch1 stream on Stokes Farm Bus route from Twyford to Piggott School. land would give a shorter route when the Safe off road path1 bridleway along longer circular route seems too Sandford Lane Woodley. This has formidable. become a very dangerous rat run for There's a Binfield Bridle Network or some cars1 vans1 lorries. The nearby sailing1 such. We need an EXTENSIVE one of golf1 walking facilities means that a lot of these all over the district. pedestrians are using it too. Links are I have been in talks with various council needed across Sandford farmland to members regarding the walk to school. I Hurst and across the . go from Eastheath Avenue to Westende. Sonning Lane cycle path. It's an absolute shocker of a journey and Safe passage along Barkham Ride to exceedingly unsafe. Barkham Road. More paths in California I would like to see a formalised route Country Park. created to Wokingham from An official cycle route from Kingfisher Finchampstead using the existing Drive Woodley to Highwood Nature network through the back of Woodcray Rese~e& Church Road to link with etc Anderson Avenue and St. Peters. Woodley to Berks Hospital Would like safe cycle routes everywhere, 1) cycle paths between Hurst (Dolphin especially near schools. school) and Woosehill 2) cycle path has too many dark between Hurst (Dolphin school) and footpaths already. Lower Earley 3) direct cycle path Finchampstead Road1 Bearwood Road between black boy roundabout and too narrow for cyclists. Woosehill For pedestrian safety a pavement is A footpath joining Remenham with needed along the Cha~illane between Wargrave as part of any agreement to Sonning and Cha~il.a very dangerous grant planning permission for any stretch of road for those on foot. development at Park Place Protection Create specific motorbike parks for 4x4s for pedestrians and cyclists over Henley too, where they can gun their engines Bridge Cycle path over the Remenham and test their machines to their hearts Roads particularly on the London and content. Wargrave roads Around Woodcray Manor Farm "golf' Wokingham to Bracknell link for course, still incomplete and unfinished. cycleslfootpath. This should link up to the Cycle routes through Twyford for children Nine Mile Ride cycle path which has been who attend the Piggott School. I am created near the old TRL site. It could run A cycle route(s) south of Reading would along the train track for some of its route. be good. It's quite dangerous on a bike Wokingham to Reading Centre by foot through the villages there. and cycle if the cycleway is not already Cycle routes into Bracknell would benefit covered by the old Berkshire Cycleways those working the Wokingham side of it. scheme. Personally I live on the Bean Oak estate Lower Earley to Shinfield, Mole Road, so the more walking routes out the back Arborfield and better access to the banks to and from the villages the better. of the Loddon More circular routes or routes connected Twyford around Stanlake park, towards by public transport Hurst around the Waltham chase Generally linking as many local routes as development (maybe around the lakes) possible to create 'round' walks. Roman Pavements on Heathlands Road this Walk in Wargrave was supposed to be would aid walking to St Sebastian's going to be adopted and extended but we School and into Gorrick Woods have heard nothing for about a year on Route running from Dinton Pastures this. through Twyford and Charvil and Routes from high-density housing to connecting to the at schools, particularly secondary e.g. Sonning. Winnersh to the Holt School avoiding 1. A better route for cycling from Woodley roads and pavement. to Twyford Station. 2. A circular one linking riverside park to Shinfield recreational cycle route around Woodley - village without having to walk on the road Most of this is already there - it just needs past Mill joining up. 3. Improved cycle routes to Better routes tolfrom Woodley to Twyford Woodley town centre and pavement or cycle route along Bader Woodley to Thames cycle route Way. improvement. Beanoak to town centrelDinton Preferably a footpath and cycle track, but PasturesiThames. definitely a footpath, between St Finchampstead road cycle path through Sebastian's Hall (Nine Mile Ride) and to Wokingham. This deteriorates as you Gardeners Green. Currently the only get closer to Wokingham. access on foot is via Honey Hill, which is I work in Bracknell, the one of the narrow and provides a rather unsafe reasons I don't cycle to work is that there environment for the mix of cars and are no routes from where I live (off the pedestrians. Also, I'd like to see a cycle Finchampstead Road) through the town track established for the entire length of centre and out towards Bracknell via the Nine Mile Ride, a busy and narrow A329M roundabout. Mind you, cycle highway along which cyclists take their routes in Bracknell don't start until you're lives in their hands. almost in the town centre. Links into Sustrans network From Shinfield RoadILower Earley I think the public rights of way are already towards ArborfieldlBarkham. No well very good when put in the context of the designed path to get over the M4 near number of people using them. Black Boy unless you go via Cutbush Expandlopen up the wooded areas lane - (some areas of fly tipping near the around Woosehill, Barkham, Bearwood old bridge) Near the PoacherlSindlesham and Winnersh so that we can access the - narrow road and bridges between some numerous woodlands in this area - ideally footpath access. That area of footpath is without having to cross busy roads. not always well maintained. Improve the environment on the Woosehill - it has a lot of potential for users other than dog-walkers. APPENDIX 3 . PARISH COUNCIL QUESTIONNAIRE AND ACTUAL RESULTS WQKlNGWAM Wokingham District Council DISTRICT COUNCIL Rights of Way improvement Plan: Parish Council Questionnaire

Please could you return the completed form and any additional notes to Linda Spencer by 30th January 2006

Q1 Which Parish do you represent? Q4 Is there anything that the Parish Council thinks discourages people from Hurst ...... 0 Ruscombe ...... 1 Finchampstead ...... 1 using Public Rights of Way in your parish? (Tick those which apply) Lack of signs ...... 2 Barkham ...... 1 Charvil ...... 0 Woodley ...... 0 Lack of information about available routes Lack of time 0 WokinghamWithout ..... 0 Earley ...... 0 Wargrave ...... 1 Poorly maintained paths ...... 3 Sharing use with other users ...... 0 Arborfield ...... 0 Swallowfield ...... 1 Sonning ...... 1 Paths not accessible ...... 2 Influence of agriculture ...... 0 Winnersh ...... 1 Wokingham...... 0 Twyford ...... 1 Lack of useful routes ...... 2 Health restrictions 0 Remenham ...... 1 Shinfield ...... 0 Personal safety concerns ...... 3 ...... Don't like wall(ing/cycling ...... 0 Irresponsible users ...... 2 Q2 From the Parish Council's ~ointof view. what is the main use of the Public Other ...... 3 Rights of Way network in your parish? (~ickthose which apply) Please specify other For recreational purposes ...... g For spoNfitness ...... 7 3 To travel to work/school ...... 3 Other ...... 1 To reach local amenities ...... 1 Please specify other 1

Q5 How satisfied are you with the Public Rights of Way network in your Q3 What are the most popular activities pursued on the network within your parish? parish? (Tick those which apply) Vew Very Walking ...... g Horse riding ...... 5 4WD driving ...... 1 satisfied Satisfied Dis satisfied dissatisfied No opinion Running ...... 6 Carriage driving ...... 0 Motorcycling ...... 1 Information ...... 0 5 4 0 0 Cycling ...... 2 Dogwalking ...... g Other ...... 1 Vegetation clearance ...... 0 7 2 0 0 Please specify other Waymarkers ...... 0 6 2 0 1 1 Condition of stiles. gates . bridges ...... 0 5 3 0 1 Available routes ...... 0 6 2 0 1 Surface condition ...... 0 5 2 1 1 Accessibility ...... 0 6 0 1 1 Q6 How satisfied are you by the service provided by Wokingham District Q9 Are there adequate non-road links between local amenities (places of Council regarding Public Rights of Way issues? work, school, shops etc.) and residential areas in your parish? If no, where Very Very dis are the gaps? Satisfied Satisfied Dis satisfied satisfied No opinion Yes ...... 5 No...... 3 Internet information ...... 0 4 0 0 4 Gaps between amenities: Staff response to enquiries ...... 0 7 0 0 2 4 Response to maintenance Issues ...... 0 6 1 0 2 Response to enforcement issues ...... 0 4 2 0 3

Q7 Given that financial resources are limited, what three actions would make the greatest improvement to people being able to access the countryside in your parish now? (Please label 1-3, with Ibeing the most important) Q10 Given that the population of Wokingham is set to expand considerably, 2 what improvements do you think we need to be addressing to Improved rural transport Reduced need to use roads to link More routes and links for pedestrians, horses and cycle More routes and links for pedestrians, horses, cycles and motor vehicles ...... Better signag Better surfacin Better maintenance of existing paths Better information about the routes availabl Q11 On vulnerable unsurfaced byways, what winter controls does the Parish 1 Council think there should be on motorised recreational vehicles? More guided walks ...... Motor cars Motor bikes 3 lmproved accessibility for wheelchairslpushchairs ...... No restrlctlons ...... 0 0 1 Other ...... Seasonallcondition restrictions ...... 1 1 Please specify other 1 NO access ...... 7 6

I . I Q12 Would the Parish Council be interested in taking- ~part in a one-off focus Q8 What are the main areas of conflict associated with public rights of way in group discussing Public Rights of Way? your parish? What do you think could be done to help minimise these Yes ...... 7 No...... 2 conflicts? 7 Q13 If your parish contains any of the following paths, do you think that the routes are adequately publicised? Blackwater Valley Footpath...... 1 Loddon Valley Footpath ...... 1 Thames Trail ...... 2 Not applicable ...... 4 Q14 Where could links be created to provide safer circular routes (e.g. for Q17 How can countryside access be improved for people with a disability (e.g. horse riders, walkers, cyclists) or attractive routes from villages and towns the less mobile, the blind or partially-sighted)? for people to use for leisure and health? Please list below or attach 8 separately (please include maps if possible).

Q15 What improvements could be made to boost tourism or the local rural Q18 Are there any local owners or bodies with whom we should be working economy? more closely? 5 7

Q16 Do you have any specific routes or links that you would like to see created within the parish? If so, please list them below (please include maps if Q19 Is there adequate public access to local attractions e.g. viewpoints, possible). woodland, rivers, etc? 8 8

Thank you for completing this survey. Please return it to Linda Spencer using the pre paid envelope supplied. APPENDIX 4. COMMENTS FROM PARISH COUNCIL QUESTIONNAIRE

Q2: Other main uses of PROW network in your parish

Dog walking

Q3: Other most popular activities pursued on the PROW network

Families walking together; local residents waking with visitors. Boat users mooring up and walking around village. Illegal and dangerous use by some unlicensed motorcycles We have witnessed inappropriate use of small-wheeled motorcycles on some pathways

Q4: Other issues that discourage people from using PROWS

Lack of footpath booklet for the parish. Footpath signs are not clear enough in indicating mileage between sings or to designated areas ie pubs, neighbouring highways or villages. (Number of footpath to be shown, plus site name) Misleading signs (eg 'Beware of Bulls' in fields when there are none) Paths often become muddy and churned up - mainly because of the heavy use by horse riders. Many people would cycle if able to. Lack of wheelchair and pushchair-friendly paths. Some cycleways are very close to the road edge and therefore unsafe. Lack of segregation between pedestrians and cyclists. Lack of lighting.

Q7: Other actions that could improve access to the countryside

More people would cycle if the byways were passable

Q8: Main areas of conflict associated with public rights of way and ways to minimise conflict

In Sonning we have very few PROW. We have many permissive footpaths and these work well with low volumes of local usage. Upgrading these could cause conflict with local businesses and the University farm managers. People walking off of designated footpaths, causing widening, especially when crops are planted. Also using land without footpaths. Make public more aware of the damaged caused to crops and countryside. Overgrowing vegetation from residential properties. 1 - Restrict the illegal use of footpaths and bridleways. 2 - Involve both the police and the authority in controlling the current desecration of the Coombes area including the part which is privately owned. This area is designated wildlife heritage, LSI and has tree preservation orders. Help is needed to support conservation. We need to be cautious in offering right of way diversions1closures for events on the river or riverbank. Safe access from traffic - busy roads adjoin paths ie Millers BridgelStanlake BridgeINew RoadICastle End Road Conflict between pedestrians and horses. Improve surfaces for pedestrians and cyclists Misuse and hazardous use of unauthorised motorcycles. Enforcement of existing laws. Mini motorbikes and potential use for criminal activities. Q9: Gaps between amenities

Because of volume of traffic over Sonning Bridge the roads are dangerous and speed restrictions are generally ignored. With greater (or any) enforcement to routes to local amenities would be greatly improved. Broadhinton to BroadwaterlHurst Park Road, High Street to River Loddon and A4. There needs to be a footpath between Remenham and Wargrave Swallowfield village and Farley Hill School Riseley Village and shop/PO/surgery in Swallowfield (same for Farley Hill) Exception is getting to Winnersh Triangle Station.

Q10: Improvements that could be made to accommodate future needs

An additional bridge to support traffic flows would be useful. Also need to build leisure capacity with networks of cycle paths and footpaths: currently too many busy roads intersecting networks making them unsafe. Include more paths within planning applications where new developments are proposed. Look at the surrounding rural areas for access to new home owners to the countryside without damaging the rural scene. Better identification of footpaths, bridleways, etc. Better understanding of what these mean and what should be the consequences of ignoring the rules. Prevention of the current decimation of footpaths and bridleways by 4x4 vehicles and motor bikes. Prevention of signs and fences being pulled own. Need to challenge proposed expansion in all areas: specific to this survey expand rights of way and inhibit urbanisation. Signage More cycle routes. Better surfaces. Make byways more pedestrian friendly. Linking parish footpaths across the district and improved information on these. Local parish linkages, including those outside Wokingham District, eg Parish. Improved maps and signage and general maintenance including undergrowth clearance and litter clearance.

Q14: Links that could be created to provide safer circular routes or attractive routes from villages and towns for people to use for leisure and health

Mix of footpaths, PROW and permissive paths. We are not seeking to change. Broadhinton to BroadwaterlHurst Park Rd As mentioned Wargrave-Remenham - reduce speeditravel on the lanes to make them walker/cyclist friendly Routes are in position End of the footpath from Riseley Park Lane to Church comes out onto road - could link to church and opposite way to Nutbean Lane. Many of the Farley Hill paths that come out onto busy country roads with no pavements. Cross county boundary links would be good. Re-visit proposed Millennium Walk Route at Shinfield (never fully completed) - see enclosed. Publicise link to Green Park footpath network. The majority of our footpath network is pretty well linked - but signage is needed.

Q15: Improvements that could be made to boost tourism or the local rural economy

Remove traffic pollution and build cyclinglwalking capacity in and around the Thames Trail with branches into WDC and OCC areas of natural beauty. Availability of parish footpath maps. Also the introduction of a parish map at the council car park in School Lane giving people information as to access to footpaths from this point and awareness of the river access and any local amenities. Move through traffic out of Henley (Bridge) thus inhibiting traffic from Remenham Signage lmprove surfaces, maintenance and publicity. Create special walks and organise group walks (ie with the WI, Brownies, etc). Produce more literature on specific walks. Allocating more resources; website. Advertising, eg Thames, Waterside Centre, etc.

Q16: Specific routes or links that you would like to see created within the parish

Trans-parish links through Sonning-Twyford-Hurst. Trans-parish lining Sonning-Woodley- Dinton Pastures-Wokingham New footpath sites within the development of Park Place, Remenham. Please contact David Bounds of the Ramblers Association with regard to their proposals. Broadhinton to BroadwaterlHurst Park Road. to Silk Mill development in High Street Please refer to me - much more discussion required (Chairman of Remenham Parish Council) Link up BP34 and BP26. Complete papetwork to establish BP from Spring Gardens -Wick hill (this has been with WDC for at least 4 yrs) Farley Hill has many good routes that could link up but with the village not having a speed limit (and cars can travel up to 60mph) it is not good! See SPC's circular walk book.

Q17: Improvements to countryside access for people with a disability

GPS navigation with voice activated response linked to specific circular walks for blind and partially sighted. WDC and volunteer groups could organise short circular walks in areas of natural beauty. Choose specific parking for circular route with good flat surfacing and special audio marking Access lifts for disabled persons to give ability to reach railway station Better access for them and a better standard of paths used. This would mean continuing control of illegal use by users. Particularly by motor vehicles, motor cycles and horse riders. The Thames Walk could be made more friendly. Talk to WAAG Design special routes. Change more stiles to kissing gates. Improve the surfaces (horses churn the mud so badly it becomes very uneven) Better access; better surfacing; better maintenance (general); enforcement on restrictions. Ensure overhanging bushes trimmed back. Radar key access.

Q18: Local owners or bodies with whom we should be working more closely

The Park Place consortium bounded by the A321 at Conways Bridge and Remenham Hill The police. The ownersltenants over land which bridleways and footpaths run. Vandalism resulting in the dumping of rubbish, burning of cars and the destruction of fencing leaves them in despair. NB: Please see attached minutes of a public meeting held by Barkham Parish Council regarding the concerns held by the parishioners. Alan Godsall (Haines Hill Estate) Stratfield Saye Estates, Farley Farms, Butlers (Farley Hill). Highways Kept - speed limits need to be reduced in villages to make walking safer Shinfield PC, University of Reading, Wokingham Area Access Group, Local Ramblers' Associations, Parish Plan Steering Group, Neighbourhood Action Group Oracle, Reading University.

Q19: Adequacy of public access to local attractions

Wargrave has very minimal river frontage for the general public. behind Hurst Road needs a linking path. No -the Park Place estate should be made more open. Areas could be improved - ie the ford in Farley Hill (Ford Lane). Make FH a 'centre' - it already has woods and rivers and is very popular with walkers (and the farmers need extra income). Pedestrian bridge there is not in a good condition. Yes - but signage is needed. APPENDIX 5. STREET SURVEY AND ACTUAL RESULTS Wokingham District Council Rights of Way Improvement Plan

Wokingham District contains 143 miles of Public Rights of Way. Wokingham District Council is currently compiling a Rights of Way Improvement Plan, which will guide us in improving the network by ensuring that we understand the current and future needs of users and potential users. The information we gather will help us to investigate the possible future funding for the improvement of rights of way. We would be grateful if you would spend a few minutes,answering the following questions, in order to help us create an effective plan.

Q1 How often do you visit each of the following places in Wokingham district? Q5 If there were suitable routes created in the future, would you consider Several Not used at cyclinglwalkinglusing public transport to the places in QI? times a week Weeicly Monthiy Less often all Yes ...... 25 No ...... 8 Already do ...... 15 Woodlands ...... 5 11 13 6 11 Country Parks ...... 2 8 16 13 6 Q6 Are you aware of the following routes within the district? Nature Reserves ...... 1 3 11 9 20 Thames Trail ...... 14 Loddon Valley Footpath ...... 13 Local Parks ...... 13 16 7 4 4 Blacltwater Valley Footpath ...... 3 Rivers ...... 4 5 16 8 11 Footpaths, bridleways, byways ...... 11 5 16 6 7 Q7 Which activities do you pursue on the network? (Tick those which apply) Walking...... 42 Carriage driving ...... 0 Other...... 1 Countryside ...... 3 8 16 11 6 Running ...... 7 Dog walking ...... 9 None ...... 2 Cycling ...... 25 4WD driving ...... o If 'not used at all', go to Q4 Horse riding ...... 2 Motorcycling ...... o Please specify other Q2 What mode of transport do you use to access these places? 1 Public transport ...... 2 Foot ...... 34 Mobility scooter ...... 1 Bicycle ...... $9 Car/motorbike ...... 25

Q3 If there were suitable routes created in the future, would you consider If 'none' in answer to Q7, go to Q13 cycling or walking to these places? Yes ...... 22 No ...... 3 Already do ...... 21 Q8 In which locations do you mainly use the network? (Tick all those which apply) Hurst ...... 10 Ruscombe ...... 2 Finchampstead ...... 7 Q4 What mode of transport do you use to access the following? Barkham ...... 4 Charvil ...... 2 Woodley...... 15 Carhotor Public Mobility bike transpoff Bicycle Foot scooter N/A Wokingham Without ...... 4 Earley ...... 18 Wargrave ...... 3 Work 24 1 2 6 0 13 Arborfield ...... 1 Swaflowfield ...... 3 Sonning ...... 6

c.-L.--c c a n D n 1 a Winnemh 1 a Wnl

About you The next seven questions are optional. However, your answers will help us with the analysis of the consultation responses.

Q18 Are you... ? Q23 What is your family status? Male ...... 14 Female ...... 34 Mam'ed/living with partner - with Separated/divorced/widowed - no children ...... 14 children ...... 0 Marriedlliving with partner - no children. 6 Single -with children ...... 2 Q19 Where do you live? Please give your postcode: 48 Separated/divorced/widowed - with Single -no children ...... 26 children ...... 0 Q20 Is your mobility restricted by disability or long-term illness? Yes -sensory ...... 1 Yes -physical ...... 2 No ...... 45 Q24 Please indicate what you consider your ethnic background to be? White - British ...... 40 Asian or British -Pakistani ...... o Q21 What is your age? White - Irish 1 Asian or British - Bangladeshi ...... 0 Under 25 ...... 22 45 to 54...... 4 75 or older ...... 0 White - Traveller of Irish Heritage ...... 0 Any other Asian or Asian British 25to34...... 12 55to64...... 1 background (please state below) ...... 0 White - Gypsy/Roma ...... o 35 to 44...... 7 65 to 74...... 2 Black or Black British - Caribbean ...... 0 White -Any other background (please 0 state below1 Black or Black British -African ...... 1 Q22 Which of the following best describes your current situation? Please tick the Mixed - White and Black Caribbean ...... 1 Any other Black or Black British appropriate box. background (please state below) ...... 0 Mixed - White and Black African...... o Working in full time employment ...... 15 Wholly retired from work ...... 2 Chines 0 Mixed - White and Asian ...... 1 Working in part time employment ...... 11 Full time student ...... 11 Other ...... 2 Mixed -Any other Mixed background Not working but available for work ...... I Othe 1 (please state below) ...... 0 I do not wish an ethnic background category to be recorded ...... 0 Looking after the home/dependants ...... 5 Would prefer not to answer ...... 0 Asian or British - Indian ...... 2 Unable to work due to ill Please state 'Other' or other Mixed background 2 health/disability ...... 2

Thank you for completing this survev. Comments from ROWIP Street Survey

Q7: Other activities pursued on the network

15 Hang out with my mate

Q9: Other reasons for choosing locations

12 Fishing 17 bike jumps 30 Environment, feel secure 36 To let children experience countryside 38 Link towns and home etc

Q13: Other things that discourage users from ROWlPs

More places to go with kids (pushchairs) Was attacked in the fisherman's car park lack of lights No street light on Woosehill behind Safeway Lack of cycle lanes for car drivers are naive and couldn't care less about cyclists. They drive far too close to cyclists I have been hit by cars on three occasions Paths not suitable for pushchairs Lazy Dog fouling, horses Cyclists on footpaths can be a problem Illegal use of motorbikes - Pearmans Copse area Kids on motorbikes, dog fouling Bicycles - boys going too fast Litterlgraffiti Lighting on PROWS

Q14: Other actions to encourage accessing countryside

1 Some surfaces not suitable for pushchairs in bad weather 2 Better weather and more leisure time 3 Cost of petrol and better public transport 12 untidy 17 more bike jumpsltrails 26 More advertising of where ROW are 27 More maps

Q15: Improvements to accommodate future needs

2 Don't build on green areas 3 Sort out the traffic 4 More reliable public transport and cheaper! 5 Move provision for more development, motor cycle routes to access the countryside 6 More roads and better public transport (trains) 7 More cycle paths, less roads. More encouragement for school kids to use bikes, fewer cars on school run 9 Stop building houses Faster routes for traffic, another junction from M4 More links and network before development Better networks and links More information about them No - happy Safer parks at night Yes - provide more safer parks Yes - they need more places for young people to hang out Road network eg Plough Lane if they get permission. Night buses from Reading as there are none late at night such as lam to 4am Better information of what's available. Education of the rights of way network for young people ie walks for school groups. Careful planning of building sitesllocation of new housing to protect countryside and rights of way Better information ROW in district and communicating what is there to school kids Aim towards younger people - better safety - wardens More appealing to younger people, making them aware of the activities available. More advertising of where ROW are Better public transport and maps Keeping parks with trees, ponds for people to access locally without driving Good publicity of existing facilities Linking open spaces More public transport to get to links, more frequent Better links, work - countryside etc More routes Footpath links - schools, leisure centres, shops More links between houses and shops. More different routes. Local area -fine, but further afield needs more Too many people already, more car parking Better signage, improve surfacing and general upkeep of ROW Ensure gates are wide enough Ensure cycle paths to schools from near houses PROWs should be included at planning stage Keep PROWs, encourage walking Try to keep green spaces between Earley and Wokingham More rubbish collection Put networks in before development More recycling facilities APPENDIX 6. HORSE USER FOCUS GROUP MINUTES

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE HORSE USERS FOCUS GROUP Held on Friday, gthDecember 2005 at Dinton Pastures Country Park.

Chairpersons: Elaine Cox (PROW Officer, West Berks) Rebecca Walkley (PROW Officer, Wokingham)

The Meeting was made up of Horse Riders and Carriage Drivers - 21 in total.

Welcome: Rebecca welcomed everyone to the meeting and explained that the meeting was being held to invite views from horse riders and carriage drivers from Reading, Wokingham and areas. An overview rather than detailed discussion was being sought.

1: Using the Network: a) What do vou most value about access to the countryside:- Positives:- * Freedom from traffic Safety Enjoyment of countryside - peace and quiet Exercising of horses in a pleasant environment Scenerylwildlife e Challenge posed by riding in countryside - sense of achievement to get back safely.

Negatives: PROWs under-used by many horse riderslcarriage drivers - better signage needed B Some areas not having- PROW network - Bramshill, for example. Safety issues

It was generally felt that a clearer differentiation is needed between 'countryside' and 'off road'. b) Do vou use PROWs purely for recreation or also to reach local amenities, work, etc? A number of people said they used their horse to get to work, to make deliveries, to go shopping and to the Pub,

Views were expressed that local amenities definitely benefit from the use of the horse, and that this can make a massive contribution to the local economy via tack shops, liveries, etc. An equine 'park & ride' was suggested. A pub in Kidlington already uses this system. c) If there were suitable routes created, would you consider usinq them for worklrecreation?

RWIEC - interested to know how many used their horses in everyday life? = 415 at meeting.

And enquired whether there was a need to develop access for horses to be further used for worklrecreation, etc?

Answer: Yes, better access, better usage.

Views were expressed that better access would have to ensure that:- r cars did not park across entrances to tracks.

0 Logs not placed across access points * Address the problems of flytipping 0 Address the problems of overgrown vegetation

2. Conflict a) Conflict between different users: How qood or bad are relationships with different tvpes of user when using PROW network?

Views:- Lots of conflict with:-

Illegal motorbike riders - in particular younger, teenage riders - illegal, no plates. 4x4 drivers - although it was noted that 4x4's can in fact be helpful to horseriders as they help in pushing vegetation back. cyclists - can be very difficult to know when they're approaching. Most do not have bells and tend to speed around footpaths with little consideration. Causes great problems for horses. a Dogs off leads. Have been know to attack horses. a Towns people - no knowledge of countryside etiquette Road rage - people under far more pressure to get from A to B over last ten years or so.

Overall feelinq:- that not just specific group causing problems.- inconsideration shown by all users and should be careful not to differentiate.

How do we Resolve? (It was noted that The Coombes is felt to be a good area for riding -well used by all and with no known accidents occurring.) Maintain relationships between all users Publicise 'good practice' - general lack of awareness by public on safety issues, etc. Not enough communication and information on how to deal with horse riders. Public should be educated and effects will be felt over time. a Motorcylists (legal) seem to have more awareness re: safety and horses. In relation to using highways it was noted that:- Bus Drivers (particularly in Newbury) - not helpful. Show very little care for safety. a Skip Drivers, Builders Merchants, Foreign Lorries - all show little or no consideration.

Dustbin men seem to be the most considerate users of the highway Perhaps they have training in relation to Horse riders?

RW - Perhaps Companies involved in training commercial vehicles could be approached with a view to information/education.

2c) Would you be prepared to support multi use of routes if this the only way of wideninq the network? Yes Support already there, for example, all bridleways open to everyone - not dedicated to horseriders Some opinion in favour of single use tracks for riders

It was felt that the loss of 'open land' over the years has created problems for riders and that they have been very patient. There is large horse owner community and increasingly so, therefore access is really important. Landowners seem to be particularly unhelpful in allowing access across their land.

- Where do this increasingly large group of horse riders ride now?

Answer:- Riding Schools - especially the younger generation just starting off. Eventually when they get their own horses they venture out but access inadequate. Access can appear to be horse friendly, however, not the case when looked at closely - appearances deceiving.

It was noted that horse owners will specifically move to live in areas where access seems to be good -can lead to disappointment when not the case.

Problems on PROW'S e Hard surfacing of bridleways causes problems. Surface will dictate usage by multi-users. Hard surfacing causes increase in volume of traffic - and speed. e PROW problems include rutting from 4x43 sharp hardcore. Many of the country lanes are not surfaced often enough and therefore become very smooth and slippery.

Q The new surfacing - SMA - is worst. Councils and Companies need to be made more aware of effects of this surfacing on users.

Problems on Hiqhway Pot holes and drain covers -some have curved covers which prove hazardous. Need for grass verges - not ditches Signage frequently put up on verges creating obstruction drainage 'grips' -too closely spaced and when overgrown are difficult to see. c Litter - in particular, tin cans, bottles. These get shredded, broken up when verges cut by machinery. Shards left in grass causing great problem to horses.

It was suggested that de-littering take place before verges are cut,

2d) Winter controls on motorised recreational vehicles on vulnerable unsurfaced byways?

Unanimous YES - how about temporary traffic regulations on worst?

RWIEC - have taken note of comments raised and will make judgements accordingly.

3. Promotinq the Network: a) How would you inspire non-users to use the countryside? There was some feeling from the floor that there should not be the need for further encouragement. However, EC suggested that some people do need to be introduced to countryside

After clarification that non-users meant horse users not currently using the countryside, the following views were expressed:-

Clearer identification of routes available - creation of small, local, circular routes. Make routes safer - some lone riders parked-up in certain remote areas, feel unsafe Education -general information, on websites, for example, about safe places to park up and ride Approach Parish Council with a view of producing leaflets showing bridleways in their area, including suitable places to park. More input from horse riders themselves via organisations such as British Horse Society. It was felt that horse riders must take some responsibility themselves. Less discrimination against horse riderslcarriage riders when it comes to information - disproportionate at moment - other users seeming to get input from Councils - Unfair. More help needed from Highways - bad signage (in particular, wooden signs). Picture signage more favourable. It was felt that the signs in West Berks are good. Cut down on time it takes for these changesladditions to develop.

E:- It was pointed out that PROW have been chronically underfunded in the past but that this is changing. m:ROWlP allows for dialogue, but making new routes has to come within the budget.

With reference to the parking of horse boxes, this is a big problem. It was suggested from the floor that industrial areas would be good sites to park - Companies would have to be approached and negotiated with, but may be a possibility.

4. User Needs: a) Users with mobility problems - ease of access to PROWS, sign postinq, promoted routes, facilities near by.

The general view was YES, there are problems

One of the riders present is partially sighted. She, with others, ride from a local disabled riding school. Their bi~qestproblem is the surface of tracks and the width (often disabled riders are accompanied by side walkers (both sides of horse) and width of track then becomes a problem.)

-EC:- Are there problems with mounting/dismounting?

Yes, problems for both able bodied and disabled. For example, gates with strong springs - can make horses bolt. West Berks particularly bad for this. Mounting blocks should not be necessary if gates are easier to get through. Weighted gates are a better option.

However, mounting blocks would be advantageous in specific areas and particularly for more elderly users. Where there is 'enforced' dismounting, mounting blocks should be provided.

Summarv of Problems: Gates, width of track, surfaces, security - especially for women.

4b) Which 3 things are most important to riders? Safety o Access - On and to route (incl. Parking) Surface - especially bad in winter c Junctions and signage also pose difficulties for riders

Also, limitation of traffic especially during winter months -temporary traffic regs. -this particularly important to the carriage drivers.

Big difference on 'Access' between WDC and West Berks - WDC suffer from poor access. -EC: Useful to hear opinion that access is very important. The ideal would be not to have to use a trailer to get to rides. ECIRW: will aspire to make this happen. -EC: Traffic regulations order would be contentious but will take note of desire. 5. Management of Network a) Which areas have good paths and why? 0 Englefield (Although private land, has permitted access)

0 to Beech Hill w Bramshill

Q Lambourne Downs - (although not for carriage drivers during winter) Chobham Common w The Ridgeway (North Heath) Chievely Headland 0 The Ridges, Finchampstead -and gravel pits

4b) Which areas not so qood?

Hurst w Swallowfield Bypass (fencing broken - lots of rubbish)

Q Stock Cross a a Bradfield Nine Mile Ride

Q Common (bad surfacing)

Q Stratfield Saye to Beech Hill

Estates with 'permits' are good - no permit system, bad.

Request from floor for Councils to liaise with landowners to provide permitted access? -RW - yes will try EC - could be funded by Countryside Stewardship Scheme - Which estates would need to be approached?

Lambourn Valley, Bucklebury, Haines Hill Estate, Sutton, Stratfield, , Barossa (MOD), Ludgrove School, Astor Estate, Broadmoor, Dinton Pastures Country Park, The Discovery Centre - .

5e) How satisfied are you by the service provided by the three authorities?

0 Dissatisfied but understand that the loss of 'Users Groups' meant that relationship with Councils not good. B Therefore, use of Users Groups beneficial and needs to be extended to multi-users. The view from the floor was that there ought to be a combined group of some sort - representatives from each user group. o Weakness in planning and strategy - there should be no 'sinale user tracks'!

ECIRW: Is there anything that the Councils have done well? improvement in signage Positive re-surfacing but winter still causes big problems a The identification of track needs have been noted and the work done in the West Berks region.

One user wished to publicly thank the PROW Officers in West Berkshire for their good work. There was a feeling that horse riders themselves need to get more involved by advising the authorities of particular problems in order to change things.

Some opinion expressed that WDC not so good in their efforts. Some bridleways have been closed, but on further discussion, it was decided that these were in the National Trust area.

-EC: It would be beneficial if horse riders checked the tracks that were open to them. m: Surprised at mention of closed bridleways. It is not WDC policy to close them.

5f) In the last 2 years, what do you think has happened to path maintenance standards?

o An improvement in West Berks. Good response on all problems although a little slow. WDC -gone down - negative maintenance - RW to follow UD on this viewpoint. a Reading - not applicable.

A question was asked on overgrown hedges on farmland? w:Approaching farms can be done by Highways on horse riders' behalf.

5i) What can be done differently in management of PROWS?

a Consistency - particularly in liaising with users - ongoing discussion Could involve West Berks Horse Society and local contact with Officers.

a Manauement - Reinforcement of banning of illegal users. Temporary closure orders are a good idea by may be expensive. & - not sure that expense a problem. Councils feel the need to keep access open to 4 users. Councils have a statutory duty to protect 4 including motor vehicles, but illegal usage needs to be tackled via policing and prosecution. However, it is very difficult to prove offence has been committed.

Should DEFRA be involved?

a Need to have meetings where rules and regulations can be advised to all users. Local Authority should keep a list of local horseriding contacts who are involved with PROWS. Need more consistency in contact with users.

6. Future:

a) What do you think about network of PROWS in terms of number and positioning, and completeness of network?

Too fragmented a Carriage drivers requested an upgrade of suitable bridleways to restricted byways. RWIEC to look into this possibility a Footpathsltracks should also be upgraded to higher status in order to cover multi-use. Is it possible to upgrade cycle tracks for carriages - EClRW to check legal position

An enquiry was made as to a follow-up meeting.

RWIEC explained that all users are being met with and reports written up for ROWlP 200617.

It was hoped to feed-back to all users.

It was generally felt by all that liaising was necessary in order to improve the network.

A request was made from the floor for interim documents to be available on website in order to keep in touch with progress. Also, that the reports from the different user groups should be made available to the Local Access Forum.

RW - to look into the possibility of putting Minutes from the different User Group meetings on to the website for information and comment.

Rounding Up:

RW - Thanks given to all for attending the meeting and their helpful contributions. Very valuable information and new contacts made. RWIEC to programme the work arising from the list of problems given.

The meeting closed at 4.25pm APPENDIX 7. LANDOWNER FOCUS GROUP MINTUES

Land Owners' Focus Group

Notes from Meeting of 09.02.06 held at Dinton Pastures Country Park

Present: Wokingham District I Reading Borough I West Berks District Emma Tweed - WDC I Anna Woodward - I Elaine Cox -West Berks RBC Council French (Wokingham) James Lamburn Patrick Todd (West (Wokingham and Berks) Reading)

and Wokingham) Berks) Mark Robins (Wokingham) Ian Green (West Berks and Wokingham) James Lamburn (Wokingham and Reading)

Apologies:

Introduction and Welcome

Emma Tweed officially welcomed group. The aim of the meeting was to ascertain future uses and requirements of the PROW network.

It was confirmed that the group would receive the draft minutes for their input before being release published.

1. Using the Network

a) What type of public access is available on your land (footpaths, bridleways, BOATS, Access Agreement, Countryside Stewardship, Voluntarylpermissive Access, Previous legislation eg commons)?

r Between the members of the groups all of the above categories where represented.

b) What do you think in general about the existence of PROWs? Do you think they are important?

0 No problem with the existence of PROWs or with open access areas. e Main issue is with dogs being out of control or off the lead, and horse riders tearing up path surfaces. r Walkers tend to stick to the path, and not wonder too far. Q Although, interestingly, the population of ground nesting birds increased during F&MD, due to people not walking through the countryside. c) Why do you think people like using PROWs to access the countryside?

Q Leisure.

0 Sport. d) Do you rely on any PROWs in order to transport machinery1 livestock around the land?

0 Yes, all parties do use the PROW in some form.

2. Conflict a) Conflict between different interest groups. How good or bad do you think relations are between landowners and the different types of user on the Rights of Way network?

e Areas close to conurbations can be affected by social problems.

0 Active people Igroups can often be uncompromising and difficult, as they believe that they have a right to roam anywhere. Relationships are improving, as landowners are trying to engage with the public. a Requires investment and time.

Q It was agreed that there were issues with people who were new to the countryside having brought a home in the countryside they think that they have a right to access - social change. b) What could be done to help minimise these conflicts?

Education - educate people at an early age to understand right from wrong. e Consultation -although, this has its own issues as people do not always get involved in the consultation process, but kick off when work starts.

Q A lot of landowners feel threatened, access is being forced upon them, and perhaps handled badly by all parties involved in the process. Q Promotion of the network - use parish magazines, notice boards, etc. e Codes of conduct - should be big, bold and pictorial (as not everyone can read), well distributed. Good signing. c) On vulnerable unsurfaced byways, do you think there should be any winter controls on motorised recreational vehicles?

e Yes Statutory requirement to keep routes accessible for users - but finding it a problem, especially to see efforts made destroyed. Where users acting irresponsible, they should be reported to the Local Authority, vehicle registration given if possible. a Would like to see byways closed off in bad weather - seasonal traffic regulation orders - needs to be made easier to apply for. Could the local authority help with this?

d) What are the main problems that you face from Public Rights of Way?

Q People believing that they have a right to roam anywhere.

Q Uncontrolled dogs. a Horse riders destroying path surfaces. m Motorised vehicle destroying path surfaces. e) If the public are trespassing, what do you do? What response do you get?

a In most cases talk to the people concerned, with differing responses.

3. Promotinq the Network a) What type of path information is available on your land eg Signposts, waymarks, information boards

Problems with signs staying in place. Council signs could be more secure, and better positioned. o Permissive Paths are less know about and used, but have varied usage. b) Do you think there is sufficient information for users to follow the correct lines of the paths?

m In some cases, although its not always appropriate to have signs everywhere - do not always compliment the surrounding beauty. c) What do you think is the best way of promoting responsible use of the countryside?

Education -educate people at an early age to understand right from wrong. More information is needed -people don't understand the concept of right to roam. a Promotion of the network - use parish magazines, notice boards, etc. e Codes of conduct - should be big, bold and pictorial (as not everyone can read), well distributed. Trial Riders have a code of conduct, which is good. Forestry Commission has simple leaflets in their Info Centres. e Good signing. a The estates could send a representative out to schools to educate the young. Authority could produce literature for the landowners to hand out. e Although concerns where raised that there will always be some people who don't listen. Heritage, have run free training courses to help landowners with access issues. It was suggested that it have a number on signslnotice boards would be useful.

4. User Needs a) What would help you in managing PROWS on your land?

Byelaws can help. * It would be encouraging if dead paths could be re-routed or taken off, in a less time consuming and costly manner. Especially, where the path goes through a yard or near buildings. o Rationalisation. a More funding. b) Re-instating paths across ploughed fields - why do you think that on occasions, some farmers do not reinstate them? Do you think that farmers are aware of the best method of doing this? Would some guidance be helpful?

Time.

Q Labour shortage. Cost. c) Should the rights of way network consider conservation needs?

a Yes, this happens often now, due to legislation. d) What other issues do you feel are key, when considering the rights of way in Mid and West Berks?

e) As a result of the DDA, stiles should gradually be replaced with kissing gates, in order to allow people with mobility problems to access the countryside. Can you envisage problems arising from this?

B Questions were raised about how often people with mobility issues would access the countryside.

Q Kissing gates not the right solution to replacing stiles, as sheep have been know to get through them. a Kissing gates more difficult to install, often installed incorrectly and require more maintenance, gates often become crooked. 5. Management of the Network a) Do you know who (LOIHA) is responsible for : Surface maintenance of paths (HA), Clearance of obstructions (LO), Width of paths eg crossfield path to legal width (LO), Maintenance of stiles (LO), Maintenance of bridges over natural features eg streams (HA), Maintenance of bridges over artificial features eg canals (LO), Signing from metalled road surfaces (HA), Gates (LO), Overgrown Vegetation eg upgrowthlgrass (HA), Overgrown Vegetation eg croplhedges (LO)

e The group were well informed about responsibilities, although it was suggested the guidance in this area is always welcomed. b) Do you know who to contact at the Highway Authority (Council) if there are any path problems

Although the group didn't appear to have concerns regarding who to contact at the council, it was agreed that clear guidance is always useful. c) How satisfied are you by the service provided by the three authorities regarding PROW?

e Group agreed that they were overall satisfied, although agreed that ROWshould be prioritised and funded and staffed accordingly. 0 it was suggested that economic impact assessments of ROWwork should be carried out to prove value for money. d) What would they like to see done differently in the management of the countryside rights of way network?

o Better liaison with landowners. e Work to be completed by landowner via grant, as individual owners can complete works cheaper, due to contractors over charging Authorities. m Increased consultation on applications for developments, ensuring that smalllmedium enterprises get involved and benefit. e More support for farmers, this is a depressed sector, and will impact on the maintenance of ROWas farms struggle to survive.

6. Future a) Do you think that there is scope for increasing the PROW network?

o No, better to maintain current network, although with rationalisation it might be possible. 8 Riverside and woods are a sensitive issue. 0 The problems lye with 'new' sports using public spaces, such as mountain biking. Important to initially look at how are the current network is served by public transport - joined up thinking, dropping people off on circular routes, etc. b) Are there any PROWs that you think should be modified/diverted/extinguished/extended? Why?

c) Would you be prepared to open up a new path if an unused or dead end path was extinguished?

a Depends on the individual cases, comes under rationalisation -there are packages and deals to be made. d) Would you be happy to see any existing footpaths upgraded to bridleways?

No, but in individual cases of improving safety it would be considered. B Main objection was to the damage incurred. a Should be up to each landowner whether helshe wishes to 'upgrade'. a Might be accepted if the surface was appropriately improved. e) What do you think would encourage landownerslmanagers to create new PROWs across their land?

Rationalisation -for long distance paths an agreement might be reached, to consider improving links, if 'deadend' paths were taken out or re-routed. 0 A modification order acknowledging the existence of PROWs. m Retaining some control, eg. permissive paths or being able to move them. Permits - if people pay for access rights they respect them more and are much keener to " police" them to the benefit of all. f) Given that the population in this area is set to expand considerably, what improvements do you think we need to be addressing to accommodate future needs?

More recreational facilities. a ROWshould benefit from development, rather than causing conflict. It's about leisure. e Should be developer lead. o ROWshould be given greater priority within the Authorities. e Landowners reiterated that its about working together. APPENDIX 8. DISABLED 1 LESS MOBILE USER FOCUS GROUP MINUTES

Minutes of a Meeting of: ROWlP Focus Group: Disabled I Less Mobile Users Held on: 12 December 2005, Present: Elaine Cox Emma Tweed Margaret Pawson John Goddard Barney Wilson Julia Trayhorn

USING THE NETWORK What do you value most about access to the countryside? The freedom and would ideally walk 20 miles a day, even if can actually only walk 10 yards! It is a main hobby and form of enjoyment. It is of benefit to health. Access to fishing. Do you use rights of way purely for recreation or also to reach local amenities, work etc? You feel very vulnerable on a fast road if you are disabled, and if this is the only access then you cannot use it. This is similar to the problems horse-riders face! Also, if a path has an obstacle on it e.g. a stile, then it cannot be used. If there were suitable routes created in the future, would you consider using them to access worWloca1 amenities? There are suitable routes but often they have barriers e.g. stiles. A big problem is how to reach the suitable routes, as people with wheelchairs will still need transport to the beginning of the access. It is felt that the wheelchair people ought to let the councils know how access can be improved. The group raised the point that such improvements need to be incorporated into council action plans. The council access officers also need to be involved. Furthermore, when councils renew structures they should replace them with disabled- friendly structures. Not to do this is inexcusable! CONFLICT Conflict between users. How good or bad are the relationships with different types of user when using the rights of way network? Sometimes horses gallop along footpaths and this is dangerous. It is felt that people who 'rent out' horses are often less responsible than people who own their own. Litter and mess are a problem for people in wheelchairs. Areas with many pedestrians (e.g. the towpath in Hungerford) are helpful because the presence of a lot of pedestrians discourages motorcycles etc. Notices telling people not to allow dogs to foul paths do not work. Policing plus financial penalties are the only way to reduce the problem. A couple of well-publicised fines would also help to reduce the problem. What could be done to help minimise these conflicts? The group felt that people need to be willing to be educated. Erection of structures - sometimes the structures seem to have no purpose e.g. a recently-erected concrete bollard in Wokingham in the middle of a path that is too narrow for cars! Care is needed before steps are ever installed. Thought needs to be given as to who will use them. Would you be prepared to support multi-use of routes if this were the only way of widening the network? The group felt that vehicles cause surface damage and reduce accessibility for others. Multi-use tracks can be OK but it depends on the locality and the width /durability of the surface. On vulnerable unsurfaced byways, do you think there should be any winter controls on motorised recreational vehicles? The group felt that winter controls are needed. They are not needed if the councils are prepared to renovate surfaces regularly, and is not happening. Councils do not have the money for this. Winter traffic orders are needed. PROMOTING THE NETWORK What would inspire non-users to use the countryside? Publicity and word of mouth. What do you feel is the best way to communicate the presence of rights of way and the various routes within the area? Where should users get this information from? Leaflets and media are considered the most effective. All local newspapers should be encouraged to have articles. When ROW leaflets are produced, there should be an included element for disabled and less mobile users. Leaflets need to be circulated to doctors' surgeries. More leaflets, not glossy leaflets e.g. " Around Hungerford" or "Around ". USER NEEDS Thinking of the needs of users with mobility problems when using the countryside, in terms of, for example, ease of access to the rights of way, signposting, promoted routes, facilities nearby, etc Advanced warning of barriers is vital. Signage can be improved and there needs to be a standard convention which is nationally accepted. There are already lots of paths that are already fine and all they need is better signage and publicity. See all the guidance from the Countryside Agency etc - they all advocate good common sense measures. Ease of access e.g. hire buggies on site (see National Trust, where sites have disabled buggies for hire, as has the Royal County of Berkshire Show). It can be difficult to transport one's own buggies to sites. Loading and unloading can be a problem. Which three things do you feel are the most important to people with mobility problems when using the countryside and using local rights of way? Access I toilets / access in that order! Note: ease of access includes ease of parking and room to unload buggy. Also add to the list the need for knowledge of where you can go and what obstacles may be ahead. Important point: the more people seen with mobility problems, the greater the awareness among the general population. What other issues do you feel are key, when considering the rights of way in mid and west Berkshire? People go into the countryside in order to enjoy the results of the consultation efforts presently taking place ! Would like to see a change such that all disabled people can plan trips to all areas in the same way that able-bodied people do. Please do not just direct those with limited mobility towards the same old routes and parks ! MANAGEMENT OF THE NETWORK Which areas have good paths1 not so good paths to use e.g. your favourites and least favourites, and why? What are the main problems you encounter when using public rights of way in the area of the three authorities ? It is not an issue of good and bad areas. It is an issue of promotion and work to improve conditions on the ground. Specific areas: Devil's Highway is impassable. Much of Bucklebury Common is now impassable due to mud caused by vehicular damage. Group does not want the countryside tarmaced! Disabled and less mobile people want to experience the natural countryside (including natural mud) in the same way as everyone else. How satisfied are you by the service provided by the three authorities? Could do better. Specific complaints to West Berkshire are usually dealt with (e.g. carriage -driver groups). Wokingham is so far less successful. Winter controls on vehicular use considered important but a uniformed police presence was recommended. In the last two years, what do you think has happenedlwhat will happen to path maintenance standards? Optimistic about future improvements arising out of Improvement Plan As user group representatives, what are people's opinions about: accessibility for people with disabilities quantity of information provided by the unitary authorities and partners about routes for different types of user. The more information the better. Signage is the most important mechanism for raising general public awareness What would you like to see done differently in the management of the countryside rights of way network? More money and staff needed at the councils. Council managers who design roads and footpaths often appear to have little idea about measures that should be built into designs to aid access by disabled / blind /those with limited access. Given that financial resources are limited, what three actions would make the greatest improvement to your ability to access the countryside rights of way? List in order of priority. Better publicity, including signage. More thought and consideration on,how to improve access by altering barriers. Surface improvement plus maintenance (achieved by enforcement of illegal use if necessary). FUTURE

What do you think about the network of rights of way within mid and west Berkshire, in terms of the number and positioning of paths and the completeness of the network? There is a problem with disjointed network. Given that the population in this area is forecast to expand considerably, what improvements do you think will need to be addressed to accommodate future needs? Potential larger population means that plans and improvement need to be put in place now. List the destinations people would like lo access Church, shops, community facilities, all local amenities. APPENDIX 9. CYCLE USER FOCUS GROUP MINUTES

Minutes of the Cvclists' Focus Group Meeting 01/03/06

Meetina held at 8:30 in The Griffin Pub. Caversham

Meeting included members of the Reading CTC off-road section, Morris Dowding (Reading CTC), Anna Woodward (Reading Borough Council) and Chris Buggy (Wokingham District Council).

1. Using the network

A Getting away from cars Freedom Escaping into the open Exercise Social aspects Fun -as a group or as an individual

B Mostly recreation although do use for general transport, would use more if there were more routes and strategic links.

C Yes, the group were concerned that any surfacing improvements were in keeping with the rural environment and not sealed surfacing, they liked the idea of PROW being vegetated.

2. Conflict

A Minimal conflict with other non motorised users, there have been instances when Motor Cyclist, 4x4 users have caused problems, these issueslconflicts reportedly occurred approximately 5 times a year. Concerns raised over use of PROW by these groups out of permitted season ( Ridgeway ) There was considerable concern that other user needs for surfaced routes may be a potential conflict, as the group wanted to maintain the countryside feel.

B Continue respecting other users, enforce restrictions

C Generally yes although there was discussion over this relating to the ideal of separate routes for individual user groups and the viabilitylfeasibility of achieving this.

D The group felt there was no need to enforce seasonal closures of PROW to protect them as they could make a personal decision as to the condition of the route, although in extreme circumstances this action could be understood. The group quite like muddy tricky terrain as it was a sporting challenge ( "I quite like 3 foot deep holes" ). There was no feeling that the network generally was in a poor state of repair necessitating such measures. 3. Promoting the network

Some members of the group did not feel there was a need to promote the network further as their current personal enjoyment of the countryside partly was a result of the lack of users. However a number of the group felt it was important to encourage new users to ensure the health benefits and enjoyment could be shared by the whole community.

The group felt that promoting existing riding opportunities with clubs was important as was the creation of information showing graded circular routes these would be required to offer opportunities to different ability riders, from starter family groups to the dedicated off roader. ( Mention of French signage being good to follow ) The information should be available in hard copy and electronically, the group felt it was important to be able easily to find up to date information on line when punching in for instance "bike riding in Wokingham".

As above

User needs

Ease of access to rights of way I,Sign posting 2 More routes 3

Yes

When considering new routes along route of roads they should ideally be set off from the road to get away from car fumes and noise. The river valleys and canal routes were thought to be very good opportunities for improving the network. The group were very concerned about the general urbanisation of the network through development pressure. Golf courses were specifically mentioned, example of upgrade of byway to take increased vehicular traffic resulting in a loss of character, maintaining rural character was very important to the group. The group felt that the access to woodland sites was important for their needs; they felt there was a reduction in the number of sites they could ride on. They felt it would be useful to have dialogue with landowners to encourage them to open up their woodland to cyclists there was discussion over charging for this facility but no consensus.

Management of the network

Bracknell was held up as a good example of an integrated system based on good design at an early stage of development proposals.

Any areas that put cyclists at risk, example of Wokingham A329. It was felt that there was a need to involve cyclists at design stage. Wokingham's network was felt to be deficient, C To ensure that PROW do not have dead ends eg bridleway turning into a footpath and link together. Routes should be useable in both directions and have a pleasant and safe feel. Too much street furniture.

D No specific examples raised however the group committed to creating a map of the three areas ( and South ) marking out their aspirations a deadline for receipt of this was asap but with a final deadline of end 2006 ( deadline to be confirmed by Emma Tweed ) Anne explained that Oxford CC deadline may be different to ReadingIWokingham so the group would need to contact them.)

E Concerns were raised over a seemingly anti cycling trait within Wokingham District Council and that the needs of car drivers were given far too much consideration

F There was a feeling that there had been a slight improvement in the standards over the past 2 years.

G No views expressed ('depends on budget').

H The group felt that it was right to consider the needs of all however this had to be appropriate and in keeping with the countryside. it was felt that it would be inappropriate for instance to attempt to make the countryside completely accessible to all but that obstacles to access should be removed wherever possible rather than try to upgrade surfacing. The group commented that they did not realise that there was any ROW information available from the authorities.

I No view expressed

J No view expressed, this is likely to come out of the improvement map, improvement in information provision.

There was no specific dialogue on questions in this item however a general discussion did take place it was clear from the meeting that the group felt it was critical that any improvements in the network were thought out with their needs in mind, they were keen to ensure that any opportunities arising out of development were maximised ie through the linking of existing PROW with new ones, a specific desire to link Arborfield with Shinfield was raised. Cyclists need to be involved in the consultation process - how do sites with cycling benefits Iopportunities get flagged up to them? It was important to them that the enjoyment of cycling should be considered in any design stage. APPENDIX 10. PARISH COUNCIL FOCUS GROUP MINUTES

Minutes from Parish Council Focus Group

26Ih April 2006 Dinton Pastures Country Park

Present: David Chopping - District Councillor and Chairman of Highways Consultative Board Robert Newman - Barkham PC Derek Oxbrough - Barkham PC John lllenden - Chawil PC Wally Chapman - Finchampstead PC Gordon Veitch - Finchampstead PC Mac Stephenson - St Nicholas Hurst PC Rebecca Walkley - Wokingham DC Emma Tweed - Wokingham DC

Introduction and Welcome

Rebecca Walkley officially welcomed the group and introduced the attendees. The aim of the meeting was to ascertain future uses and requirements of the PROW network from the Parish Councils' perspective.

It was confirmed that the group would receive the draft minutes for their input before being published.

Emma Tweed gave a summary of the progress with the Wokingham District Rights of Way Improvement Plan and explained the consultation process.

David Chopping emphasised the importance of Section 106 funding for rights of way improvements.

1. Usincl the Network What do you think.people value most about accessing the countryside in your parish? Keeping fit Accessing the countryside and nature Safety - users can feel safe from traffic etc by using PROWs. Providing a safe environment means people get out in the countryside a A joined-up network and knowing where paths are, is very important Recreation

According to the results from the questionnaire, the main use of Public Rights of Way is for recreation (walking and dog walking), with sport and fitness being the second most popular use. If there were suitable routes created in the future, do you think people would consider using PROWs to access workllocal amenities? There was a general consensus that people would use PROWs to access work/local amenities if the following issues were addressed: Facilities at work, eg. for storing bicycles, changing, showering 0 Safety, eg School crocodile walk e Joined up PROW network o The same levels of maintenance of PROWs across the district

Is there anything that the Parish Council thinks discourages people from using Public Rights of Way in your parish? Not all equally well-maintained and variation in gates and stiles causes problems. e Paths across farmland are a problem - ploughing and aggressive cattle etc.

2. Conflict What are the main areas of conflict associated with public rights of way in your parish? o Disability requirements and illegal use of motorbikes eg. Coombes e Vandalism - Policy in Finchampstead to replace all stiles with gates but some gates were stolen, so stiles were put back. o Flytipping

On vulnerable unsurfaced byways, what winter controls does the Parish Council think there should be on motorised recreational vehicles? All agreed that there should be winter controls on such byways.

3. Promoting the Network What do you think about the quality of information provided by the unitary authority and partners about routes for different types of users? What do you feel is the best way to communicate the presence of rights of way and the various routes within the area? o WDC website - not user-friendly and hard to navigate (too much information on the website). A dedicated footpaths site would be useful. o Map boards - more maps are needed so that Parish Councils can put them up around the parish, eg. Parish notice boards. Sponsorship was suggested for producing signs and maps. Signage -too much concentration on technology and not enough signage on the ground, eg. signage to indicate where the footpath leads to. B Leaflets - it is important to have leaflet maps for members of the public. Some were produced in the past for Wokingham District but need reprinting, depending on the results from the user surveys, which will identify the needs of the public. Books -the Ramblers produce very useful books. e General comment that publicity has improved since the Countryside Service took over the management of PROWs.

4. User Needs Which things do you feel are the most important to people when using local rights of way? o Parking Pubs/places of interest a Maps readily available near to where people walk. Clear waymarking, including: o Clear demarcation between bridleways, footpaths, byways etc. o Cross-field paths should have a mid-way indicator which is clearly marked in blue/yellow, eg. as the National Trust use. Should the rights of way network consider conservation needs? r Paths should avoid sensitive areas. r "Dog on lead" signs should be used in certain areas. PROWs are generally used for accessing natural areas, so conservation needs should be considered.

Is there adequate public access to local attractions e.g. viewpoints, woodland, rivers etc? Loddon Valley - a path is needed along the river linking to the Thames.

5. Management of the Network What are the main problems in your parish regarding Public Rights of Way? This question had largely been covered already. Additional points were: 0 Maintenance - large variations exist across the district in maintenance standards. All parishes in Wokingham District should have the same standards. Parish Councils would like to know if stiles are being replaced.

Q Landowners - should do furniture repairs but often do not. In Finchampstead the Parish Council buys furniture and WDC installs it. Finchampstead have a good relationship with landowners. Parishes may be able to help with information about landowners, eg. contact details.

Q Ownership - it should be made clear which areas WDC own and which are privately owned, as the perception is that WDC owns more than it does. Enforcement - WDC should more readily enforce the law, particularly with maintenance issues.

How satisfied are you by the service provided by Wokingham District Council regarding Public Rights of Way issues? Significant improvement in the last two years It was suggested that Parish Councils could invite the PROW officers to their meetings, if they do not already do so, to improve communication All agreed that a PROW Annual Report should be included on the Highways Consultative Board (HCB) 0 It was suggested that an annual report could also be published on the website a Some thought that the former twice yearly PROW meetings for all users in Wokingham District were beneficial. However, with improved communication, reporting of complaints and an annual report to the HCB, user groups should be well-informed.

What would you like to see done differently in the management of the countryside rights of way network? Parish Councils would like to be informed of works to be undertaken on PROWs in their parish. B PROW Surveys - WDC explained that every PROW in Wokingham District is surveyed once every two years. Parish Councils suggested that they could carry out surveys for WDC and it was confirmed that WDC could train surveyors.

Given that financial resources are limited, what three actions would make the greatest improvement to people being able to access the countryside now in your parish now? Information

Q Communication Maintenance

6. Future Given that the population in this area is set to expand considerably, what improvements do you think we need to be addressing to accommodate future needs? e Extend the PROW network e Section 106 Agreements - this was discussed as an option for creating more paths, but it was emphasised that this is quite a difficult route, as many departments are consulted on planning applications. Section 106 agreements, however, are potentially one good source of funding for implementing the ROWIP. Gravel extraction areas such as the Blackwater Valley were also mentioned as areas suitable for such agreements. e Urban PROWS- it was noted that in Bracknell you can walk through the town without using a road, but opportunities to create such paths with development in Wokingham District were missed.

Summary David Chopping thanked all for attending and explained that WDC was carrying out many forms of consultation for the ROWIP and that Parish Councils would be consulted again at a later stage. APPENDIX 11. VEHICLE USER FOCUS GROUP MINUTES

Minutes from Vehicle Users Focus Group

24thApril 2006 Readins Borouqh Council Offices

Presenl: Colin Patient (Trail Riders Fellowship) Falak Waheed (4WD Representative) Elaine Cox (West Berks Council) Anna Woodward (Reading Borough Council) Emma Tweed (Wokingham District Council)

Introduction and Welcome

Emma Tweed officially welcomed group. The aim of the meeting was to ascertain future uses and requirements of the PROW network.

It was confirmed that the group would receive the draft minutes for their input before being published.

1. Using the Network

What do you most value about access to the countryside? Enjoy the countryside, getting out in the fresh air and out of the city. B Finding historic routes - green lanes can be punished by both over-use and under-use. The views. o Family activity. Like circular routes that include pubs.

Do you use PROWS purely for recreation or also to reach local amenities, work, etc? B Mostly for recreation e Sometimes to get between villages and for training days (TRF) B TWOdistinct groups in TRF - one that is interested in looking at wildlife; the other is interested in getting to the pub.

If there were suitable routes created in the future, would you consider using them to access workllocal amenities? e The two user group representatives would use them for these purposes but could not speak for other vehicle users.

2. Conflict

Conflict between different users. How good or bad are the relationships with different types of user when using the Rights of Way network? o Normally get on well with horse riders and cyclists Regularly have problems with "Ramblers" -main problem. "Ramblers" once trampled on a vehicle users' picnic. Comments such as: "You're tearing it up"; "polluting the air"; "you shouldn't be here".

What could be done to help minimise these conflicts? r Correct signage - example given of a county where signs have pictures of which users are allowed to use paths and crosses over users who are not permitted to use them 8 Dual purpose paths are a problem Restricted byways are a problem Q Find that "Ramblers" are not interested in discussion with vehicle users Residents are often satisfied if vehicle users stop and talk to them

Would you be prepared to support multi-use of routes if this were the only way of widening the network?

@ Yes as vehicle users only have access to 1.4% of the network

On vulnerable unsurfaced byways, do you think there should be any winter controls on motorised vehicles? 8 Yes there should be some controls

Q Some damage is done by farmers using the PROWS Used to be a liaison group where people were asked not to use certain paths 8 A regularly updated council website with information about bad routes would be good, as then these routes can be avoided. A couple of private websites exist that show routes with problems. Users do not want to spend all day using winches to get out of wet holes. WBC commented that a recently cleared route in West Berks had severe damage done to it by a convoy of 4WDs a week after works were carried out. This sort of action gives the user group very bad publicity. - The user group representatives explained that there are two types of vehicle user: the responsible users and the irresponsible users. e It was agreed that sometimes Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) and physical barriers are necessary when works are being carried out or in the winter. Also strategically placed police can help, but knowledge amongst the police force is currently lacking.

Q It was noted that Voluntary Restraint Orders used to be used in West Berks, but no longer as LARA were not happy with the legislation. Communication between users and local authorities is very important in these matters.

3. Promotinq the Network

How would you inspire non-users to use the countryside? No promotion is wanted, because when the NERC Bill comes in, fewer routes will be accessible to vehicle users; therefore these routes will be over-used. Q If surfaces were sustainable, publishing circular routes taking in historic features, etc would be useful. a Websites could be used for advertising. Educating walkers and cyclists could be part of promotion. Informing them of who can use routes. What do you feel is the best way to communicate the presence of rights of way and the various routes within the area? Where should users get information from? TRF tried to get an article in the local paper, explaining the NERC Bill problems, but was not permitted. r Supplier outlets, eg motorbike shops, would not be interested in having information on display, as it is not beneficial for their business and some are unhappy with the forthcoming legislation and the effect it will have on their business. Educating school children when they visit the countryside is important.

4. User Needs Which 3 things do you feel are the most important to vehicle users when visiting the countryside and using local rights of way? 0 4WDs 1. Accessibility (4WDs cover 10-15 mileslday; Trail riders cover 80-100 mileslday) 2. Signage 3. Surface condition a TRF 1. Connecting circular routes 2. Signage 3. Nature

Should the rights of way network consider conservation needs? There should be a balance - comes back to education

What other issues do you feel are key, when considering the rights of way in Mid and West Berks? No further comments

5. Management of the Network

Which areas have good PROWs to use and which areas have not so good PROWs to use and why? a Happy to live with what we have; understand budget restraints; not looking for vast improvements. 0 Vehicle users tend to spread use over several counties, in order to spread wear and eliminate boredom. e West Berkshire has superior scenery.

What are the main problems you encounter when using Public Rights of Way in Wokingham District, Reading Borough and West Berkshire? e Incorrect signagellack of signs as well as items already mentioned.

Which places would you like to visit using the PROW network but can't and why? No places were named, but it was mentioned that vehicle users currently use Unclassified County Roads (UCRs) which are not included in any legislation.

How satisfied are you by the service provided by the three authorities? Mainly good, but a few issues over PROWs with TROs on. a All three authorities are good on issues such as flytipping and burnt out cars.

In the last 2 years, what do you think has happened to path maintenance standards r They have gone up - maybe due to drier winters but vegetation is less of a problem. e Better drainage and surfacing has helped.

In the next 2 years, what do you think will happen to the standards of path maintenance Hopefully with more discussions like this, it will help. It is useful if users know who to contact with any problems.

As user group representatives, what are people's opinions about: 1. Accessibility for people with disabilities, eg disabled users can have problems with ruts on PROWs a If PROWs rut, then they are not being maintained properly by the local authorities.

2. Quality of information provided by the unitary authorities and partners about routes for different types of user a OS maps still have some errors, mainly at junctions and the map not being correct on the ground.

What would they like to see done differently in the management of the countryside rights of way network? It would be nice if claims were handled more swiftly. o Public Rights of Way Liaison Groups were more useful than LCAF, as they were more proactive.

Given that financial resources are limited, what three actions would make the greatest improvement to your ability to access the countryside now? c Better signage and information about routes 0 Hedges cut back to allow use

Q More suitable surfaces, dependant on usage Not losing anymore routes

6. Future

What do you think about the network of rights of way within Mid and West Berks, in terms of the number and positioning of paths and the completeness of the network for vehicle users? a There are never enough paths; it would be good to see new paths created. B Many have been lost over the last 20 years, through being wrongly marked on maps, eg it is cheaper to maintain bridleways rather than BOATS; new legislation has then overridden previous legislation, resulting in lost routes. The Lost Ways Project was mentioned as a tool for rediscovering such ways.

Given that the population in this area is set to expand considerably, what improvements do you think we need to be addressing to accommodate future needs? r Bendy buses and the IDR. r It was thought that development will result in more footpaths being created, not paths for vehicles. WBC noted that an issue that could become prominent is people accessing the countryside who do not know what they can and cannot do when there.

Summary e Attendees were thanked for their contributions and informed that after the minutes from this meeting had been approved, they would be circulated to the Local Countryside Access Forum and also be available on the websites of the three respective authorities. e The meeting was closed. APPENDIX 12. WALKER FOCUS GROUP MINUTES

Notes from Meeting of 17.10.55 held at Dinton ~aituresCountry Park

.Prasnnt: . - - - .. -. Wokingham Borough West Berks District Chris King - RA Roy Batty Dave Ramm Ray Clayton Janet Spiller - WBC Elaine Cox -West Berks Council Emma Tweed - WBC Jane Kiely Rebecca Walkley - WBC Cyril Proctor Fiona Walker

Apologies: Adrian Lawson Reading Borough Council Introduction and Welcome

Q Rebecca Walkley officially welcomed group. The aim of the meeting was to ascertain future uses and requirements of the PROW network. o Reading Borough Council was not represented but the Pang Valley Group covered part of Reading and were represented. e The RA would be submitting a separate piece of work for ROWlP based on proposals for the network supported by reasoning.

1. Using the network What do you most value about access to the countryside? B Clearly signed and easily walkable PROWs Seeing changing seasons, wildlife, fresh air, peace, exercise. .B if PROW network didn't exist, would need to walk on roads.

F) Social element of walking in group

Why do people not walk on PROWs? a Cultural for some

Q Will not try, doesn't appeal, effort involved

Q Fear of walking alone People do not know where to walk. Routes need to be well signed e.g. on and from housing estates. e Hot spots such as country parks often do not have PROW marked on publicity maps. National Trust seldom has PROWs on their land. Access land marked on new OS maps will help situation. m Lack of communication between LA departments often results in PROW pavements not being considered for new build estates.

Do you use PROWs purely for recreation or also to reach local amenities, work etc? 9 Use PROW'S for both reasons Publicity and promotion of routes was essential. Circular routes were particularly useful. A 10 mile circular route had been developed within Reading Town using parks, rivers and canals.

If there were suitable routes created in the future, would you consider cycling or walking to worWlocal amenities? Yes, depending on distance. A percentage of people would, but not all. Could be put off by practicalities such as no shower in workplace. 0 Essential to combine PROWs with public transport. Links from urban areas to countryside were important. West Berks were using PROW as Safer Routes to School. An important link between and the station had been extinguished by a new estate. 0 Problems with safety on PROWs should not be a barrier to use in this way. Increased usage would lead to safer routes.

2. Conflict Conflict between different users. How good or bad are the relationships with different types of user when using the Right of Way network? a Horse riders had good relationships with walkers. 0 Relationships were more difficult with cyclists. There was uncertainty about which sections of the Thames Path could be used by cyclists, mainly due to lack of signage. Cyclists ignored non-designated sections. Signage stating 'Thames Path' was misleading. The public did not know what the path status was. Elaine Cox stated that the signage and cycling policy was being reviewed. Landowners could allow different uses on their land e.g. footpath could be used as a Sustrans route. One comment was that it was preferable to see illegal cyclists on footpaths rather than them being at risk on dangerous roads.

Q 4x4 vehicles were not wanted at all because of the damage caused.

What could be done to help minimise these conflicts? Walkers and 4x4 drivers were totally incompatible. 4x4 vehicles cannot use the routes without damage. They should not be allowed unless the surface was suitable. Damage was caused by farm vehicles, but it was felt that farmers were more likely to repair the damage. 4x4 drivers preferred to use damaged byways. 0 Pudding Lane in Arborfield was an example of a byway whose surface had been improved and this had prevented damage by 4x4s. This treatment would however, spoil the majority of byways. D In West Berks some landowners had given over land for 4x4 circuits. This was felt to be a way forward. 4x4 drivers justified their activities because they only used a small percentage of the network. It was felt that they could use the miles of small country lanes which were the tarmaced equivalent of byways. Cyclists should have warning bells as you cannot hear them coming. You were more likely to hear horses approaching. If cyclists were better behaved then this would minimise conflict.

Would you be prepared to support multi-use of routes if this were the only way of widening the network? No. The BHS had regretted letting cyclists onto bridleways

On vulnerable unsulfaced byways, do you think that there should be any winter controls on motorised recreational vehicles? e Yes, but prefer not to have them. e Fly tipping was a problem on byways and was expensive to remove. WBC was using hidden cameras to catch the culprits.

3. Promoting the network How would you ispire non -users to use the countryside? e RA books enabled people to use paths with confidence. Meetings between Local Authorities and Walkers a Up to date walks leaflets a Promote published routes a Promote new Explorer maps with access land shown. r Promote PROWs in schools. Show children how to read the free 1:25,000 maps that had been issued. r Send parish maps to all households via Royal Mail e Since Right to Roam, many people thought that they had the right to walk anywhere. a Links between PROWs were not always obvious unless person had a map. Promote circular routes based on hotspots such as Country Parks and the Thames Path.

What do you feel is the best way to communicate the presence of rights of way and various walks within the area? Q Parish maps based in centre of parishes. e Parish Councils were key in promoting pride in the network by organising green gym style work parties etc. e Countryside Stewardship signs promoted PROW on farmers' land.

Where should walkerslnew users get information from? a Local shops, central libraries, doctor surgeries via the Primary Care Trust, hairdressers, leisure centres, local shows, tourist information centres, and Kennet & Avon canal centre at Newbury and Wharf. a It had been difficult to get GPs involved in the 'Walking your Way to Health' scheme. The scheme had mushroomed and other spin off groups had been established. Lots of different walks were available at anyone time. a Word of mouth was important.

4. User needs Thinking of the needs of walkers when visiting the countryside, in terms of, for example ease of access to the rights of way, sign posting, promoted routes, facilities near by etc. Which three things do you feel are the most important to walkers when visiting the countryside and using local rights of way? a Signage 0 Open routes Easy to use

Should the rights of way network consider conservation needs? Yes. e Important to conserve old routes and old hedgerows.

Q Urbanising the countryside should be avoided e.g. new developments, urban features such as concrete bridges, taking down native hedgerows. Consewation could back fire. Would not like to see PROW closed if rare species were present e.g. Streatley Warren was only open through the winter months. e The bird nesting season should be respected and a balanced view taken. e Stewardship paths did not always make sense because of conservation reasons. They should be promoted, be clearly signed and walk able.

What other issues do you feel are key when considering the rights of way in Mid and West Berks? Stiles. There were mixed views on stiles. Some felt that as they were not compatible with disabled people. They should be replaced with gaps or kissing gates when stiles needed replacing or new routes were developed. Others felt that stiles were part of the countryside and should be retained. They did not welcome uniformity in the countryside. All were agreed that ease of use was important and that stile dimensions should be to British Standard. Hand posts were essential.

5. Management of the network Which areas have good paths to use e.g. your favourites and why? West Berks - lnkpen (local people look after paths). Enbourne (all paths are lovely) Downs area. Lovely paths existed amongst average ones. Discovering beautiful paths was part of the attraction, as it was difficult to tell from maps. 0 Wokingham - Remenham had best countryside. Wargrave also had lovely paths but was spoilt by poor underfoot conditions and dogs mess.

Which areas have paths that are not so good e.g. your least favourite and why? Routes by motorways (noise) Paths near urban areas (litter) Path near Chievely service station (rat infested and comes out of slip road) a Paths that had been cut off by a new road. The path often then runs alongside the road. ROWlP could look at this area. Paths could be diverted before they meet the new road. It was felt that PROW should now automatically go under new roads. Where streams pass under, the pipe should be made wider to accommodate the PROW.

What are the main problems that you encounter when using the PROWS in Wokingham Borough, Reading Borough and West Berkshire?

Q Summer growth o Ploughed out paths and not-reinstated. The way that ploughed paths were re- instated was also an issue.

.J Underfoot conditions Barbed wire across stiles or nearby Which places would you like to visit using the paths but can't and why? Beside rivers e.g. Crookham (W. Berks). Historically, paths were not designated on floodplains.

How satisfied are you by the service provided by the three authorities? Wokingham Borough Council

9 Improving relationship and work done. Need to act faster on enforcement issues Need standard procedures for dealing with issues such as ploughed paths.

West Berkshire Council There were problems in responding to complaints e Postcards were not always being sent.

Q Elaine Cox (WB) responded that it was not always possible to get back to customers when work was completed. e Issues were seldom taken to legal e.g. lnkpen 31 gun incident.

General ROWlP was looking at the way local authorities worked. RA was aiming to report one issue per letter to make recording easier. 9 Councils should introduce a web based complaint form that enabled digital photos to be attached. e.g. Wiltshire Council.

In the next 2 years, what do you think will happen to the standards of path maintenance? a The network in West Berks would improve with the use of volunteers. Volunteers could identify important areas but would need to liase with professional rangers for efficient working. It was important that the PROW office updated their records when work was completed. Council members should be made aware that volunteer help was saving the councils money. There was, however, a danger that budgets could be cut due to the savings made. e Fiona Walker stated that if asked, the RA volunteer groups would do more as they were irritated when easy jobs were not being done. They could always decline if they could not cope.

What was the group's opinion about accessibility for people with disabilities?

Q There was a need to increase priority for disabled people as UK demographics highlighted an aging population trend. Paths within recreational parks should be available to disabled users. 9 Mike Bruton had spoken recently to the Disabled Ramblers. His view was that the main issue for modern buggies was barriers, not the surface. He felt that disabled ramblers would not want the countryside spoilt by unsympathetic surfaces. e It was important to remember users with pushchairs. a It was noted that Mike Bruton would not necessarily speak for everyone. There should be a selective grading system backed by published information. What was the group's opinion about the quality of information provided by the unitary authorities and partners about routes for different types of user? 8 The general public do not understand who is responsible for PROWS. The RA often got calls from the public with regard to maintenance. Did the councils have displays and shows that improved understanding? An example of how things can go wrong was sited. WBC's directory lists ROW under 'Public Rights of Way'. Would people know to look under the word 'public'?

What would the group like to see done differently in the management of the countryside rights of way network? * There was a need to explore funding options for paths that served multiple purposes e.g. disabled access linking national trails, routes from town to country, exercise etc. There were many possible funding sources e.g. PSA funding, AONB sustainable development fund. APPENDIX 13. PROPOSED NEW ROUTES

As part of our consultation process we asked people for suggestions for new routes, to extend the public rights of way network and fill in gaps in the network. Below are all of the suggestions that we received, in parish order. As part of implementing the Rights of Way Improvement Plan, each of these proposals will be assessed against the following criteria, which have been formulated based on the LTP shared priorities, Defra guidelines and ROWlP objectives:

Does the route link to other paths? Would it create a circular route? Does the route link to public transport? Does the route link to schools I local amenities? Does the route allow rights of way users to avoid busy roads? - Will it improve access for horse riders I cyclists? Is there potential for the route to be accessible to disabled users?

From the assessment, a priority rating for action will then be given to each proposal

Parishes Abbreviations ARBO Arborfield BVCP Blackwater Valley Countryside Partnership BARK Barkham BHS British Horse Society CHAR Chawil RA Ramblers Association EARL Earley TC Town Council FlNC Finchampstead PC Parish Council REME Remenham RBWM Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead RUSC Ruscombe WBC Wokingham Borough Council SHIN Shinfield SONN Sonning STNH St Nicholas Hurst SWAL Swallowfield TWYF Twyford WARG Wargrave WlNN Winnersh WOK1 Wokingham WOKW Wokingham Without WOOD Woodley

Figure 7.1 Proposed new routes for the public riqhts of way network. ml Requested / Parish I Proposed Route / Justification BY I - I _ Create new Mole Road field-edae To form safe Barkham - Coombes I / Dm3", ,- / BR and Church Lane verge track. / Arborfield -Carters Hill circular routes. 1 NE-SW route on S bank of R.Loddon I Waterside path. Would form part of a from Hall Farm to A327 at Arborfield Loddon vailey Path from Wargrave to RA Bridge Basingstoke. Route from existing path SE of Provides residents with off 1 ARBO Arborfield Church parallel to road to road route to church and the path network RA a ooint close to Arborfield Cross. in the Loddon Valley. Links existina truncated oath to villaoe and to path network to N. ~ieatesoff road link NE-SW route on SE side of Cllr Gary Cow ARBO between village and . Arborfield Cross from 83349-A327. RA & Arborfie Links network to N with network to SW PC avoiding busy roads. Waterside path. Provides increased opportunities for circular walks for residents NE-SW route on N bank of River of Shinfield and . Provides ARBO, Loddon from A327 at Arborfield off road route between Shinfield and SHIN, Bridge to path at Sheepbridge Swallowfield villages. Would form part of a SWAL Court Farm. Loddon Valley Path from the confluence with the Thames at Wargrave to the source at Basingstoke. To orovide off road access for horse riders BARK Upgrade BARK FP 8, 9 & 10 to BRs. beheen Barkham Street and Evendons BHS Lane. To provide off road access for pedestrians, BR route from east end of Arbo BW WBC BARK, cyclists and horse riders to the PROW 15 across Arborfield Garrison to link Countryside FlNC network in Farley Hill and Finchampstead. up with Finc BR 14 Service To provide an off road link from Arborfield WBC BARK, FP linking Finc FP 28 with Bark BW to Finchamostead. FlNC 18 Countryside Sewice

Path linking BR 14 (Barkham Street) WBC BARK to BR 11 (nr California Country Countryside Park). Service Provides connections between existing Routes using Nashgrove Ride and paths. Allows Nine Mile Ride residents off BARK connecting tracks in countryside road access to path networks to the NW around Barkham Church. without using roads. Off road path linkina existina oath from N-S route on W side of Beawood ~mmbrookto path networkakound BARK, Road from opposite Simon's Lane Barkham. Avoids busy road. Would provide ARB0 to Coombes Lane. only direct link to countryside for many residents on W side of Wokingham town. An existing well-used, attractive permitted From Church Road, Earley through path, avoids roadside walking and gives open-space alongside playing fields, EARL direct access to Bulmershe Park & North east then northeast to join Woodley Woodley for a large number of Woodley FPI. residents. From Elm Road to Pepper Lane along the backs of houses in Falstaff EARL Avenue. From Wokingham Road to Nuthatch EARL Drive. From Wokingham Road to Courts EARL Road. EARL Along Maiden Erlegh Drive. Upgrade "The Greenway" which runs from Gypsy Lane along the backs of EARL houses in Silverdale Road, to a PROW. From the southwest corner of FP 11, running south westerly parallel to the WBC EARL Lower Earley Way, continuing over Countryside the A327 and meeting Shinfield FP Sewice 10. EARL Getting to Winnersh Triangle Station. Earley TC Cycle route from the town boundary in Town Lane, north along Pitts Lane, across the new pedestrian crossing at the top of Pitts Lane, across the new crossings at the EARL London Road, proceeding Earley TC westwards along the northern side of the London Road into Shepherds House Lane and circumnavigating Suttons Business Park and Thames Vallev Park. Across university land from EARL Whiteknights Road to Shinfield Road. Path from FP 15 on the west side of the Lower Earley Way, running EARL parallel to the Lower Earley Way in a south westerly direction, to join FP 4.7 Avoids road walking on only link between S-N route parallel to road from N of EARL large population to N and path network to M4 to R.Loddon at Sindlesham Mill. S. Links residents of Sindlesham village to path by R.Loddon. Waterside path. Improves currently sparse NE-SW route on N bank of River walking opportunities, including circular EARL, Loddon from Sindlesham Mill to routes, for residents of Lower Earley. ARB0 existing path crossing river at Hall Would form part of a Loddon Valley path Farm. from Wargrave to Basingstoke. Link up Finch BR34 & BR26. FlNC Complete creation of BR from FINC Spring Gardens to Wick Hill. Connects a dead-end path to the network. SE-NW route between end of Creates a useful undeveloped route in an diverted Devils Highway path N area where many rights of way are FlNC of Armholes to existing bridleway developed for residential access and suffer N of Ridge Farm. from traffic. Provides circular walks opportunities. SE-NW route along existing track Off road link between existina ~athsand FINC and Wick Hill Lane from The minor roads. Connects netw'biks E&W Ridges to 63016 W of Church Farm. avoiding busy roads. N-S route from road (Park Lane) Connects (via short road walks) paths FINC past Wheatlands Manor to existing around the N of Eversley. Provides circular path N of Eversley (FP 28). walks opportunities from Eversley. E-W route from 83348 to A327 on Provides off road link from W side of village FlNC N side of Eversley. to path network to NE. Avoids busy roads. Off road link between existing isolated path E-W route on existing track from and network to W. Creates circular walks FlNC A327 N of The Leas to existing opportunities for Eversley residents. With path to Farley Hill. 25 above links networks to E&W of Eversley. NW-SE route along Longwater Provides off road link between Berks and Lane from Blackwater Valley Path Hants networks. Provides direct off road LA & S of Finchampstead Village path between Finchampstead and Eversley 'inchampstead across R.Blackwater to Eversley Cross. 'C Cross (Part in Hants). Requires bridge over river. N-S route through California Links network to S to paths to N. Provides Country Park from existing an off road link for Nine Mile Ride residents bridleway to Nine Mile Ride. to path network to SW. E-W route between paths S of Completes off road E-W route. Provides Greenacre Farm. circular walks opportunities S of Nine Mile Ride N-S route from A327 at Eversley Provides off road link to path network in on existing track across River Hants. Provides circular walks Blackwater to existing path in opportunities for Eversley residents. RA Hants (part in Hants). Upgrade footpath running E-W Horse use is considerable in this area and along river to a BR. this section would provide a substantial BVCP & FlNC area of off-road access for horses and link Finchampstead up with existing access. PC Reclassify to bridleway the existing This has been used by equines for at least FP20 from Ambarrow Lane via the 35 years. It links Ambarrow Lane and the Mr Macey & FlNC east of Beech Hill to junction with bridleway south of Lower Sandhurst Road Finchampstead RB36lFP19. with bridleways near RidgeslSimon's Wood PC and takes equines off the roads. This is a broad track that could be used by equestrians to access the east end of the Reclassify to bridleway existing Ridges. National Trust should then be Mr Macey & FlNC footpath (FP19) from RB36 to B3348 pressed to allow a permitted eastlwest Finchampstead at east end of the Ridges. bridleway along the top of the Ridges. This PC would create a circular off-road route using RB21 or link with the proposed bridleways. The busy B3348 is the only reasonably Create a bridlewaylfootpath direct pedestrianlequestrian route from alongside the northern hedge of CrowthornelRidges to Finchampstead. Mr Macey & FlNC B3348 from west end of the Ridges There is no safe pavement and no kerb. Finchampstead to the junction with Dell RoadNVick Creating this bridleway will contribute to PC Hill. circular routes and will get non-motorists off the road. Create a bridleway running south from the entrance to California Country Park and link to BRI 1. The broad plan would be to link BR14146 from Commonfield Lane and Mr Macey Barkham Ride, through California Park. via BRI 1 to Fincham~stead Church with only one road brossing. Many pedestrians walk on B3348 from FP8 Create a pavement on west side of and FP29 (BVP) tolfrom Eversley to make Mr Macey & B3348 from FP8 and 29 to A327 connection with BVP south of Blackwater or Finchampstead FP3. Walking on 83348 is dangerous. Create a circular bridleway around Mr Macey & the perimeter of the gravel workings Creates a circular, off road route for Finchampstead that will soon be complete to the pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists. PC east of 83016. A new bridleway running alongside This would provide horse riding access the current footpaths 33 & 29 and a from Finch village to Fleet Hill Farm and Finchampstead bridleway created from FP33 south Fleet Hill and eventuallv bevond and PC / linking td FP54 I perhaps one day to Bramshill. Between Remenham and Remenham PC I I SW-NE route from A4130 to path on Off road link between existing paths. Links REME district boundary. Thames Path to network to south. Avoids RA busy road. Links Medmenham village to Thames Path Footbridge over Thames at and Woklngham path network. Links REME district boundary (share costs RA Wokingham paths to Chiltern path network. with RBWM & Bucks CC) Link to pub. Upgrade existing flood-only. .paths to Hlqh scenic value. Provide verv useful off 1 full rights of waj road links in popular area. southern one provides part of link between Wargrave and Henlev BridqelRemenham. I - I Milley Bridgeistanlake BridgelNew Safe access from traffic - busy roads RUSC Ruscombe PC RoadICastle Fnrl Rnad adioin ~aths. RuSC 1 ygrk w~thW, u rade Wal. - - I 9/Ruscombe FP 4 for horse riding dse. -ram southern end of FP39, running WBC SHlN sarallel to Cutbush Lane and ending Countryside at Shinfield Road. Service From the eastern end of FP 8A. WBC running in a southerly direction SHlN Countryside parallel to Church Lane and ioining - Service uith FP 13. From o~~ositethe eastern end of FP WBC SHlN 10 running south westerly parallel to Countryside the B3270 and joining FP 8. Service Linking parish footpaths across Shinfield PC & SHlN the district and adjoining districts. Sonning PC Millennium walk route in Shinfield SHlN Shinfield PC (never completed). NW-SE route from existing path to Links residents of Spencers Wood to SHlN new path 15 above proposed riverside path. Links riverside to path network.

~p Links residents of Spencers Wood to NW-SE path from end of existing SHlN proposed riverside path. Links riverside to path to new path 15 above. path network. Bridge over A33 between existing The A33 is an extremely busy and paths to W and E. dangerous road to cross. It has no dedicated grade separated path crossings for over 4km north of the Loddon crossing. This bridge provides a direct link between SHlN severed paths on both sides. It provides a safe crossing and direct link for Spencers Wood residents wishing to use the path network in the open country to the W (the network to the E is mainly in a developed area). Provides off road link for residents of Three E-W route from Mereoak Lane along Mile Cross to path network to W. With SHlN existing track past Great Lea Farm other paths, provides continuous off road then to join existing N-S path. route from Shinfield Village to path network to W. With proposed path 1 in Reading, provides N-S route on E bank of Foudry mainly off road link from path network in SHlN Brook from road S of M4 to existing

Green Park and Reading. to existing- ~path path. network to S. SE-NW route from Sonning Lane to Provides direct off road link for residents of SONN Thames Path by Thames Valley Sonning and Woodley to reach the Thames Park. Path. St George's Field through Broadmoor Lane and Milestone SONN Sonning PC Avenue returning along Tharnes Path. St George's Field through SONN Broadrnoor Lane returning along Sonning PC Bath Road and Pound Lane. From St George's Field, past Bluecoats School, through the church ground and along the SONN Tharnes to the nature reserve at Sonning PC Thames Valley Park (with opportunity to return via Shepherd's Hill and Pound Lane). From St George's Field, via Thames SONN Street, past the Mill and Sonning Sonning PC Eye to Reading Sailing Club. SONN From St George's Field, via Sonning Sonning PC Lane and across the churchyard to cross Sonning Bridge, past French Horn and up Spring Lane through the allotments to the Flowing.. Spring - pub. W-E route between golf course and SONN, / Provides off road link for residents of railway from ~uffieldsBridge to Park CHAR Woodley and Sonning to reach paths by Lane. River Loddon and Twyford village. From junction of Church Hill and STNH Linking village and school with church. Hurst Village Sawpit Lane to top of Church Hill. Societv Extending permissive pathlcreating STNH new oath from Sawoit Road to Hurst PC connect to FP34 STNH. E-W route linking Lodge Road to STNH River Loddon, possibly from Sawpit Hurst PC Road. E-W route linking Lodge Road to STNH River Loddon as above but also for BHS horse use. Avoids a very dangerous piece of road which forms part of the circuit linking us to Lands End from the other direction, thus Permissive upgrade of footpath next forming one side of the circuit, which links to River Loddon to allow horses - left back round Woodley to Dinton again, or STNH Hurst Riders similar to arrangement at Dinton with right to the new bridleway then across the Club Hurst Riders. A321 Twyford Road to the RUPP which takes riders across towards Poolar Lane.

Link across from Poplar Lane STNH Would make the circuit complete and make Hurst Riders to join up with Footpath 12. riding so much safer. Club E-W route from Lodge Road to River Provides direct off road link for residents of Loddon. Hurst village to reach riverside path, STNH avoiding much road walking. Provides RA circular walks opportunities. Links existing paths together in an area where the network is sparse and NW-SE route between roads along SW side of Haines Hill and branch disconnected. Provides walking STNH SW to minor road NW of Grange opportunities for residents of Hurst village and a link to network around Waltham St Farm. Lawrence.

Links existing paths together in an area where the network is sparse and SW-NE route from B3034 E of Bill STNH disconnected. Avoids extended road Hill to road W of Beech Wood. walking. Part of potential route N for Wokingham residents towards . 1 A path to link up byway. . 23, which c&es out intothe Basingstoke SWAL 1 Road, Riseley to footpath 17 in 1 / Swallowfield PC Trowes ~ane: Between Swallowfield Village SWAL and Farley Hill School. Swallowfield PC Between Riselev Villaae and SWAL sh~~l~~lsur~e~~in wallowf field Swallowfield PC (same for Farley Hill). Between end of FP from Riseley SWAL Part Lane to church and from church Swallowfield PC to Nutbean Lane. paths 15, 1'5~& 156, it proides off road routes from Swallowfield to Spencers Wood SE-NW route from Swallowfield and Shinfield. Also provides an off road Church along N bank of River route for the residents of Swallowfield to Blackwater (Broadwater) across reach the path network around Farley Hill. R.Loddon to join proposed Loddon With 168 below it completes the SWAL Valley path (see 15 above). Bridge Blackwater Valley Path as a true riverside over Loddon required. Includes W-E route and links it to the proposed Loddon branch along Park Drive from Valley Path. If completed, these paths Swallowfield village street to the would provide a continuous public transport riverside path. served regional riverside route sewing most of the towns of NE Hampshire, SW Surrey and mid Berkshire, and linking them to the Thames Path National Trail. SE-NW route from last riverside Waterside path. Avoids road walking. path on Blackwater Valley Path SWAL Provides circular walk opportunities for along N bank of R.Blackwater Swallowfield residents. See comments in (Broadwater) to road 16A above about Blackwater Valley Path. N-S route on W bank of River Waterside path. Provides local circular Loddon from existing riverside path walks opportunities. With other existing and near Kings Bridge under A33 via proposed paths in Berks and Hants would existing subway to district boundary form part of a Loddon Valley Path from the S of The Priory. Includes two confluence with the Thames at Wargrave to SWAL sections further S where the the source at Basingstoke. boundary crosses the river and a short N-S section on the E bank between the road at Stanfordend Bridge and the Hants County boundary. E-W path parallel to road on S side Provides off road connection between 4 SWAL through Great Copse and New paths. plantation. SWAL 31 BW - mounting blocks SWAL Calleva for A33 bridge Canterers Broadhinton to BroadwaterIHurst WF Park Road. Twyford PC WF High Street to River Loddon and A4. Twyford PC Twyford Railway Station to Silk Mill WF development in High Street. Twyford PC Twyford Brook behind Hurst Road TWY F needs a linking path. Twyford PC Wararave has vew minimal river WARG Wargrave PC frontage for the general public. New footpath sites within the WARG development of Park Place, Wargrave PC Remenham. Eliminates dead-end nature of Thames Route from A321 by minor road Path here, allowing circular routes and WARG junction across Hennerton better access to east bank of river in an backwater to Thames Path. area where access is otherwise very restricted. High scenic value. There is no Thames crossing between Henley and Sonning (10km). Creates direct riverside walk from Footbridge over Thames at former WARG Wargrave to Henley. Doubles walking Hennerton Ferry site. opportunities for both Wargrave and Shiplake residents. Links Berkshire and Chiltern paths networks. Waterside route. Links isolated path to S-N route along E bank of Wargrave village avoiding very busy road. Hennerton Backwater from existing WARG Creates circular walks from village. With footbridge to A321 opposite existing bridge (2D above), forms a link between path near Hennerton Farm. Berkshire and Oxfordshire path networks. W-E route along existing Off-road link for residents to reach oath "Countryside ~ccess"path from WARG network. Upper Wargrave to existing bridleway. Make Footbridae across Thames at High scenic value. There is no Thames wargrave Ferry crossing between Henley and Sonning (10km). Creates direct riverside walk from WARG Wargrave to Henley. Doubles walking opportunities for both Wargrave and Shiplake residents. Links Berkshire and Chiltern paths network. NE-SW route from Wargrave Station Links public transport to the path network. WARG along Loddon Drive to join existing Provides link from Wargrave village to path path. networ< and rlvers de walks to the west NE-SW route from Wargrave Station Kh4~& 4C above wo~ldprov ae clrcu ar WARG access road along bank and around walk and access to River odd on. STW to E bank of River Loddon. W-E route from at A4 to Connects village to path network to E. WARG junction of paths N of Weycock Hill (Part in RBWM). NW-SE route from A4 to minor road WARG Connects village to path network to E. at Scarletts Home Farm. A severe gap exists in the Northern Parishes in the open countryside. There are considerable amounts of paths between the and Know1 Hill but nothing between the branch line WARG Create a FP along the Loddon Drive. and the Thames at Sonning. Just such a Mr lllenden gap would be filled if Loddon Drive were included allowing free movement and by using public transport, principally the Henley branch line off the main Paddington -West connection. High scenic value. Fills gap in network along River Thames. There is currently no S-N route from minor road near WARG, off road route between Wargrave and Hennerton House to join path REME Henley BridgelRemenham on east side of network near . Thames. Avoids very busy and narrow road. High scenic value. Waterside path. There NE-SW route along S bank of River is currently very little access to the river at WARG, Thames from road at Wargrave Wargrave. This would help to fill the gap. SONN Station to existing path at Thames Links public transport to the path network. Drive. Provides link from Wargrave village to path network and riverside walks to the west. Waterside path. Provides direct & attractive off road route between villages of Twyford and Wargrave. With 48 above WARG, N-S route along E bank of River provides route for Twyford residents to TWYF Loddon from Loddon river to A3032. reach to Thames-side paths. Would form part of a Loddon Valley Path from Wargrave to Basingstoke. Path from FP 6 (Bearwood Path) to WBC WlNN Earley FP 15 on the west side of the Countryside Lower Earley Way. Service NE-SW from existing path SW of Provides off road link for Winnersh WINN Winnersh to road S of Sindlesham residents to reach river Loddon and path Mill. network to SW. Bridleway routes within Woodcray WOK1 BHS Manor Farm. This would allow access to Woodcray 4 BR link with Luckley Road via the Manor Farm (see above) by riders from Short access path (suitably BHS Wokingham Equestrian Centre, Heathlands upgraded) in Luckley Wood. Riding Centre and many small livery 104 stables on the south side of Wokingham, without the need for ridina on

Upgrade WOK1 FP 7 to BR BHS Path linking FP 16 to FP 14 and then WBC running west parallel to A329M to Countryside eventually end at Dinton Pastures. Service Links existing paths together in an area where the network is sparse and S-N route from road N of disconnected. Avoids extended road Wokingham over A329M to existing walking. Part of potential route N for path on N side. Wokingham residents towards Waltham St Lawrence. N-S route along W side of railway Off road path linking built-up area on S side linking Eastheath to path 18 above. of Wokingham to path network further S. Route from A321 across Woodcray Off road path linking built-up area on S side Manor Farm golf course, mainly WOK1 of Wokingham to path network further S. using existing drive, to W side of FlNC railway, then S to join existing path N of Silverstock Bog. Make WOWBW 30 into a circular There are many horses stabled along WOKW route linking up with Redlake Lane, Easthampstead Road with very little safe BHS using neighbouring fields. riding available. Safer horse access to the Nine Mile WOKW Ride end of Gorrick Wood with horse BHS box parking. BR from Heathlands Road to private Allows access to Wokingham Equestrian WOW road to Ludgrove School. Centre without usina Eastham~steadRoad. BHS Upgrade WOKW FP 10,11, 12, 14 WOKW and 16 to BRs. BHS New WOKW "Pipeline" BR, Upgrade WOKW WOWFP 18 and 34 to BR. BHS InIoKW E-W route from Easthampstead Provides an off road connection between Road along existing drive past paths E to W. Improves circular walks Ludgrove School to existing path S opportunities for Wokingham residents. of Chapel Green Farm. Link to pub. As part of the Sandford Farm development consideration be given to establishing a public right of way from the proposed retirement village access and for the developers to build this into their plan. A route starting at the junction of Mohawk Way the length of Beggars Hill Road be established as a public right of way. A route starting from the Aviation This would guarantee long term access to Museum car park to follow White Dinton Pastures and Hurst Network of Noodley TC Lane to the junction at Sandford Mill. Rights of Way. This path would route across fields to cross A route starting at the junction of the river Loddon and join onto Hurst Mohawk Way and Beggars Hill Noodley TC footpath 30. This will require consideration Road. .to a footbr-.. -age - over-- - the- R~ver- .- Loddon The path w~lneea to be lns~detne exlstlng A route starting from the right hand hedge back from the road giving a safe and side of the junction of Mohawk Way secure route to Sandford Bridges and Noodley TC and Sandford Lane. Dinton Pastures for people to walk. Currently this route is a busy narrow road. From Church Road, Earley An existing well-used, attractive path eastwards within strip of open space largely through mature woodland. A very NOOD then through High Wood to important direct east-west route linking Kingfisher Drive, Woodley. Earley with the south-lake area of Woodley. Creates a right of way over an existing and Route between Colemansmoor well-used path. Without public rights over WOOD Road and footbridge over River this short path, the PROW created from RA Loddon. Loddon Bridge northwards could become isolated.