AGENDA ITEM 3

MID AND WEST LOCAL ACCESS FORUM

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FORUM HELD IN THE KENNET ROOM AT THE CIVIC CENTRE, READING, ON WEDNESDAY 19 JANUARY 2011, COMMENCING AT 2.00 PM AND CONCLUDED AT 5.10 PM

Present: A Lawson (Chairman), Councillor Dr T Vickers (Vice-Chairman), Dr J C Bridger, Mr D A W Gardiner DL, Mr B Lambert, Mr C N B Marriage, Mr R O’Neill, Mr R R Sharp, Mrs D M Smith, Mr G V Smith, Mr P D G Todd, Ms S Wallington.

In Attendance: Ms E Baker (), Ms E Cox ( Council), R F Penfold (Secretary), Mr D Sussex (Natural ), Ms E Tweed ( Borough Council).

Apologies for Absence: Mr S Brook, Mr N Channer, Ms S Ellison, Mr J R Goddard, Councillor S Weeks.

1 member of the public was present.

50 SITE VISIT

Prior to the meeting, some Members walked, via the public path network, from the Civic Offices, Reading to the Kennet Meadows and back, led by the Chairman.

51 MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting of the Forum held on 29 September 2010 were approved.

4

52 MATTERS ARISING ON THE MINUTES

29/7 Public Participation – Footpath Level Crossings

Ms E Cox () and Ms E Tweed (Wokingham Borough Council) reported orally about the conditions at the footpath level crossings in their councils’ areas. Although there was a boarded walk between the rails at both of the crossings in the area of Wokingham Borough Council, there were a variety of circumstances to the crossings in West Berkshire, some of which required remedial action by Network Rail. Members urged the Council to pursue matters with the Company, where required.

Ms Cox undertook to circulate a written report, with photographs, of the crossings in the West Berkshire Council area to Members of the Forum.

36/11 Wokingham ROWIP Working Group

The Secretary circulated the following response from the Head of Neighbourhoods at Wokingham Borough Council:

“With reference to your letter of 12 October 2010, please find below a progress report for 2010 for Wokingham Borough Council’s Rights Of Way Improvement Plan, listed by numbers from the Statement of Action:

1.2 To improve public rights of way network information • The interactive map on the Wokingham Borough Council website has been updated.

2.1 To develop a better joined-up PROW network • We have received over £11,000 in Section 106 payments towards countryside access improvements. • £9309 contribution towards countryside access improvements secured from Bridge House Nursing Home, Twyford. • Ongoing work with Strategic Development Location planning groups to secure countryside access improvements. • The creation of a new bridleway, improved footpath surfacing, and byway surfacing at new Wokingham Cricket Ground, Sadlers End, . • A new footpath agreed near to the Emmbrook at Molly Millars Lane, subject to development proceeding. • Land to be ceded for a new public right of way created at Park Place, .

5

3.1 Encourage use of sustainable transport to work / school • Working with a local volunteer group and Reading University in to improve surfacing on a well-used path and also to allow cycling access. Funded through S.106 money.

3.3 Reduce conflict between users • Use of seasonal Traffic Regulation Orders to prevent vehicle access on byways prone to damage in winter. • Installation of extra signage on a number of rights of way indicating which users may use the right of way.

4.3 Create and implement a gap, gate, stile policy • Actively, working with parish councils to replace stiles with gates where possible.

5.3 Create a record of path furniture • Ongoing records kept. Working with landowners at Culham Court, Remenham where new fencing and consequently new gates were planned, to ensure correct specifications were met and gates were only installed where absolutely necessary.

5.4 Manage enforcement issues effectively • Proactive in resolving enforcement issues such as encroachment and ploughing/cropping. All reported encroachment issues (2009/10) have currently been resolved and regular ploughing/cropping offenders are monitored closely with assistance from the Ramblers Association.

5.5 Reduce illegal use of paths • Working with the police, Parish Councils and WBC Waste Services to consider Gating Orders for public rights of way prone to fly-tipping such as burnt out cars and anti-social behaviour.

6.1 Obtain funding from developers & grant bodies to improve countryside access

• See 2.1 above

6.2 Ensure development does not result in dead-end or extinguished paths • Criteria for when the Rights of Way Officer needs to be consulted on planning applications have been clarified. • All planning consultations received are responded to, either with standard informatives or specific requirements.

6.3 Ensure development does not adversely affect existing PROWs • Working closely with planners to ensure that any issues during the course of a development are resolved promptly.”

6

Members noted the response.

42 Reductions in Public Expenditure

The Forum noted a letter from Wokingham Borough Council, in response to the Forum’s letter about reductions in public expenditure, and a copy letter, circulated at the meeting, from West Berkshire Council to parish councils in its area, about encouraging the parish councils to work cooperatively with the Council on Rights of Way matters.

53 MEMBERS’ INTERESTS

The Forum was reminded of the provisions of Regulation 6(8) of the Local Access Forums (England) Regulations 2007 concerning disclosure of interests. Members declared interests as follows:

Item Subject Interest

9 Higher Level Stewardship Mr P D G Todd, as participant, or agent of participant, in a stewardship scheme.

13 Management of Commons Mr D A W Gardiner, as owner of Wokefield Common.

54 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The Forum received a report by the Secretary reminding it of its decisions, at its first meeting, regarding public participation at meetings.

No questions had been received prior to the meeting from members of the public.

NOTED

55 MEMBERSHIP OF THE FORUM

The Forum received a report by the Secretary advising it of its membership, and about its part reconstitution, with effect from 1 May 2011.

7

The Forum was reminded that, at the reconstitution due on 30 April 2010, 4 existing Members of the Forum had expressed an interest in serving for a further term and 2 new applications had been received by the relevant closing date. The Councils had appointed the 6 persons as non-local authority members of the Forum until 30 April 2013. Details of the Members are listed in Appendix 1 hereto.

The Chairman welcomed the new Members, Mr B Lambert and Mr G V Smith.

The report also referred to the arrangements made by the 3 councils to appoint persons to serve as non-local authority members of the Forum, for the period 1 May 2011 to 30 April 2014, in succession to the existing Members due to retire in 2011.

NOTED

56 CROSS BOUNDARY LIAISON

The Forum was reminded that, in accordance with the Guidance given by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for Local Access Forums, it had nominated persons to attend, as observers, meetings of the neighbouring local access fora.

Dr J C Bridger circulated, at the meeting, a written report on a meeting of the Countryside Access Forum , held on 21 October 2010, when that forum had discussed:

• Forestry Commission charges for equestrians; • Gating Order consultations; • Countryside Access Plan Working Groups; • review of Level Crossing legislation; • consultation on the Natural Environment White Paper; • a review of the Countryside Service volunteers; • providing access to Hampshire’s Heritage Project; • an update on Path Watch; • Countryside Recreation Network/Green Grid.

Mr R O’Neill reported orally on a meeting of the Countryside Access Forum held on 30 November 2010, when there had been discussion on improving the website provided by the County Council, interactive reporting of Rights of Way issues via the County Council’s website, the Oxfordshire ROWIP Delivery Plan, the County Council’s Guide to Working with Parishes and an circular walk around .

8

Mr R R Sharp spoke to a report, circulated with the agenda for the meeting, about the meeting of the Windsor & Local Access Forum held on 30 November 2010.

Mrs D M Smith reported that there had been no meeting of the Forest Countryside Local Access Forum since the last meeting of this Forum.

Councillor Dr T Vickers, acknowledging that he had been unable yet to attend a meeting of the & Swindon Countryside Access Forum , reported orally on that forum’s meeting on 3 November 2010, when there had been discussions about commons in Wiltshire, the local authority’s budget position, the lack of legal support for rights of way officers and the Forum’s response to the Local Transport Plan.

RESOLVED: That the reports of Dr J C Bridger, Mr R O’Neill, Mr R R Sharp and Councillor Dr T Vickers be noted.

57 WORKING GROUPS

The convenors of working groups reported about those groups.

Councillor Dr T Vickers advised that the Education & Communications’ Working Group had met to discuss the community engagement event (see Minute 60).

Mr C N B Marriage reported that the Development of New Access & Maintenance of Existing Rights of Way Working Group had met in October 2010. The Working Group was interested in promoting a new bridle path in Chieveley, and was having further discussions with the West Berkshire Council about that. The Working Group wanted to be associated with a project which was deliverable.

Ms E Tweed (Wokingham BC) referred to her Council’s response to the Working Group’s earlier enquiry.

The Chairman indicated that he intended to arrange a meeting of the Reading ROWIP Working Group in the near future.

A note by Dr J C Bridger, concerning the West Berkshire ROWIP Working Group , was circulated with the agenda. This referred to:

• Integrating parish plans into the ROWIP process • Presentation of West Berkshire ROWIP to West Berkshire Council’s Greener Select Committee.

9

Dr Bridger referred in her note to the decision, at the last meeting, about the monitoring of Rights of Way Improvement Plans by the ROWIP working groups. She asked particularly whether there would be a timetable for reporting on such reviews.

Mr R R Sharp reported that the Wokingham ROWIP Working Group had met on 5 January 2011, when it had drafted another letter for submission to Wokingham Borough Council, which draft letter was circulated at the meeting. Members suggested that the draft was amended so as not to refer to Traffic Regulation Orders.

RESOLVED:

1 That reports arising from monitoring of Rights of Way Improvement Plans be submitted by each of the ROWIP working groups to the Forum annually, when the Forum meets in the area of the council concerned.

2 That the letter, set out in Appendix 2 hereto, be sent to Wokingham Borough Council.

58 HIGHER LEVEL STEWARDSHIP

Des Sussex, from Natural England, addressed the Forum on the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme (HLS), and changes to the Scheme.

Mr Sussex pointed out that HLS had been the main means for the Government to enhance landowner’s stewardship of land, and secure some access for the public. Agreements under HLS were discretionary packages, and generally of 10-years’ duration, examples being hedgerow planting. However, as a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review in the autumn of 2010, changes had been made by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra). This major change had been a surprise to Natural England. Since October 2010, there were no new annual payments for permissive linear access or educational visits. This had affected a lot of potential applicants for grants under HLS. Existing agreements would, however, remain in place until they were time expired.

Grants would still be offered for capital works, some of which might assist permissive access or educational visits, eg improved access furniture. Nevertheless, any scheme would still need to demonstrate value for money. New “question and answer” packs were available for potential applications.

Mr Sussex commented on why Defra had changed the scheme. Primarily, it had been decided to reform the scheme to achieve maximum environmental benefits in return for the expenditure. The total budget on HLS would still be incrementally increased until 2014. However, those monies would be

10

focused on objectives about wildlife habitats, archaeological sites and ecology, rather than access. He commented that money was still available, but the “bar was high”. Mr Sussex pointed out that much information about this was available from the Natural England website.

Members posed questions to Mr Sussex, which he answered along the following lines:

• information about agreements was available from the Natural England website; • there would be no change to the criteria for access to HLS funding; • permissive access was no longer a primary reason for HLS; • there were about 20 HLS schemes in Berkshire, mostly in West Berkshire, although he was aware of a scheme at Farley Farm in the Borough of Wokingham; • there was liaison with the highways authorities concerning the rights of way network when relevant elements of HLS schemes were discussed, but arrangements had not yet been made about access to Rights of Way Improvement Plans; • an important element of HLS was the practical assistance to the farmer/landowner.

Mr Sussex concluded that the message he would take from the meeting was that he and his colleagues at Natural England needed to embed liaison with rights of way officers in their procedures regarding HLS applications.

The Chairman thanked Mr Sussex for his address.

59 READING BOROUGH COUNCIL - RIGHTS OF WAY

The Forum considered a report, by the Secretary, to which was appended a reply from the Acting Interim Director of Environment, Culture & Sport of Reading Borough Council to the letter sent to his predecessor in July 2010, about rights of way and related issues in the Borough, and to advise of a decision by the Council’s Cabinet about improvements to off-road routes.

Members recalled that, at the suggestion of its Reading ROWIP Working Group, the Forum had decided in May 2010 to write again to the Council concerning implementation of the Council’s Rights of Way Improvement Plan. The Council’s Acting Interim Director of Environment, Culture & Sport replied to the Chairman in a letter dated 21 October 2010.

Ms E Baker (Reading Borough Council) reported orally on further work undertaken by the Council.

11

The Forum was also advised that the Council’s Cabinet, at its meeting on 17 January 2009, had adopted proposals to allocate a combined total of £217,000 for improvements to the off-road network for pedestrians, and, where relevant, cyclists. The improvement works would be on the following footpaths:

• Footpath 1 – resurface section between Caversham and Reading Bridges (south bank of ) and the western end of Thames Promenade to Tilehurst Station, and associated bank repairs; • Footpath 2 – resurface section between town centre and A33; • Footpath 5 – resurface worn section from Fobney Lock to Milkmaid Bridge; • Footpath 1 – installation of barriers near Thames Avenue and Brigham Road, to deter illicit use by cyclists.

Members expressed some confusion as to why works were to be executed on Footpath 5 rather than Footpath 8, and requested that the Forum was consulted on the type of the proposed barriers on Footpath 1.

RESOLVED: That, whilst noting and welcoming the decision of Reading Borough Council to invest in improvements to the off-road network for pedestrians and cyclists, clarification be sought from the Council as why work was proposed on Footpath 5, but no work was proposed on Footpath 8, the condition of which was reported as poor in part, and requesting details of the proposed barriers to be installed on Footpath 1.

60 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EVENT

The Forum considered a report, circulated with the agenda, by Councillor Dr T Vickers, on behalf of the Education & Communications’ Working Group, about the proposed community engagement event to be held in May 2011.

The Working Group proposed that the event be held on the same day, and at the same venue, as the Forum’s [annual] meeting, which the Working Group suggested was at the Northcroft Leisure Centre, Newbury, so that the event could be preceded by a walk on the Speen Moor Walk. The Working Group submitted a proposed timetable and a range of workshop topics. It had been hoped that the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Natural Environment & Fisheries) would open the event, but Councillor Dr Vickers advised that the Minister was not available.

The Forum discussed potential attendees at, and the structure of, the event.

12

RESOLVED:

1 That the proposals for the community engagement event, as set out in the report of the Education & Communications’ Working Group, be approved in principle.

2 That the Education & Communications’ Working Group be authorised to progress the arrangements for the event, on behalf of the Forum.

61 LOCAL TRANSPORT PLANS

The Forum considered a report, by the Secretary, reminding it of the action taken to submit a response on behalf of the Forum to the West Berkshire Council’s Local Transport Plan, and inviting the Forum to consider submitting comments in respect of the Wokingham Borough Council Local Transport Plan.

Members recalled that the West Berkshire Council had published it draft Local Transport Plan (LTP) 2011-26, for consultation in October 2010. The draft LTP3 took forward the revised Transport Vision Statement and local transport goals which had been agreed following the first round of consultation, held at the end of 2009. It had also included a range of new LTP transport policies and a long-term transport vision for each of the 4 main geographical areas of West Berkshire.

The consultation had run until 19 November 2010. The Chairman and Vice Chairman had decided that the Forum should respond corporately to the draft plan, and views were canvassed from Members. The Chairman approved the submission of the comments, set out in Appendix 1 to the report before the Forum, to the West Berkshire Council, in the light of views expressed by Members.

The Forum also noted that Wokingham Borough Council had published its LTP3 for consultation in the autumn of 2010. In this connection, Mr R R Sharp, the convenor of the Forum’s Wokingham ROWIP Working Group, had drafted, in December 2010, a possible submission from the Forum to Wokingham Borough Council. Although consultation on that Council’s LTP was understood to have closed before Christmas, officers were confident that the Council would allow late observations from the Forum. The draft response was set out in an Appendix to the report before the Forum.

RESOLVED:

1 That action of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman in connection with the response to West Berkshire Council’s Local Transport Plan be approved and confirmed.

13

2 To adopt the comments set out in Appendix 3 hereto as a response to the Wokingham Borough Council Local Transport Plan.

62 WEST BERKSHIRE COUNCIL – PATH ORDERS

The Forum received a report, by the Secretary, reminding it that the West Berkshire Council had made, and/or given notice of, the following orders:

The West Berkshire District Council (Plum Manger, Long Meadow Plantation, Bradfield) Definitive Map Modification Order 2010;

The West Berkshire District Council ( Road to Hampton Road, Newbury) Definitive Map Modification Order 2010.

NOTED

63 MANAGEMENT OF COMMONS

The Forum received a report, from the Secretary, advising it of the responses, so far, from West Berkshire Council, to requests from the Forum to be consulted on issues relating to the management of commons in its area, and representation on the various commons’ committees. Members recalled that the discussions, principally at the meeting in September 2010, concerning those issues.

The Countryside Manager of the West Berkshire Council had responded by apologising to the Forum for the oversight in not consulting it on some matters, for example the proposed erection of fencing at Padworth Common. He sought to assure the Forum that this had not been deliberate and acknowledged that the Forum should have been consulted. He intended to approach the chairmen of the various commons’ committees (the advisory committees relating to Bucklebury, Padworth, Snelsmore and Wokefield Commons) to this effect.

Turning to the advisory committees, the Countryside Manger intended to write to all the chairmen of those committees, and make the case for the Forum to be enabled to send a representative to the various meetings. He observed that there was no constitution in existence which defined the composition of those committees.

On the other hand, the Greenham and Crookham Commons’ Commission had a constitution defined by Act of Parliament, and there was no provision for the Forum to attend meetings of the Commission, other than as a member

14

of the public. The Countryside Manager observed that Dr J C Bridger was a very active and valued member of the Commission, and he suggested that Dr Bridger might also represent the views of the Forum on this body. He suggested that approaches be made to the Chairman of the Commission to regularise that position.

RESOLVED: That the Greenham and Crookham Commons’ Commission be requested to recognise Dr J C Bridger, a Member of the Commission, also to be representing the interests of the Forum.

64 EQUESTRIANS AND THE FORESTRY COMMISSION

The Forum considered a report, by the Secretary, advising it of developments with the regional exercise concerning equestrian access to Forestry Commission land.

Members recalled that, at its last meeting, the Forum had noted a statement, submitted in response to an invitation to participate in an exercise relating to equestrian access for Forestry Commission land, about access for equestrians to Gorrick Plantation, one of 2 areas of Forestry Commission land in the Forum’s area.

Alan Marlow, the Chairman of the Hampshire Countryside Access Forum, and Chair of the working group of members of local access fora within the southeast region looking into equestrian access, had reported on the outcome of the regional exercise. The text of his report was reproduced in the agenda for the meeting. Mr Marlow felt that enthusiasm for the exercise, amongst the fora in the region, was limited, and he enquired how best to proceed.

RESOLVED: That, in the light of the proposed sale of Forestry Commission assets, the Chair of the working group of members of local access fora within the southeast region be urged to complete the project relating to equestrian access to Forestry Commission land, and produce a report.

65 REVIEW OF ENGLAND ACCESS FORUM

The Forum considered a report, by the Secretary, advising it on the current position regarding the review of the England Access Forum (EAF).

The Forum recalled that it had, in September 2010, in response to an invitation from the Chairman of the EAF and from Natural England, urged the retention of the EAF, in the light of the perceived benefits of the EAF.

15

Subsequently, the Chair of the EAF had written to chairmen of fora expressing concern that there appeared to be no progress made on the joint analysis with Natural England on the submissions made by fora, beyond the conclusion that the vast majority of fora would like to see EAF as a body to represent their views at national level and to champion access. He was, further, frustrated that there seemed a reluctance on the part of Natural England to commit itself to support the EAF financially. He contrasted that with the support for fora, and the EAF, evident in a letter from the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Natural Environment & Fisheries) .

Members expressed concern that the EAF appeared to be in terminal decline, because of a lack of funding, and a lack of enthusiasm for the Forum, on the part of Natural England. It was suggested that these concerns be drawn to the attention of the relevant minister, Richard Beynon MP. If appropriate, Mr D A W Gardiner undertook to convey the Forum’s views to Mr Benyon.

RESOLVED: That the Forum’s regret, that the England Access Forum might decline through lack of funding from Natural England, be drawn to the attention of the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Natural Environment & Fisheries).

66 WORK PROGRAMME OF THE FORUM

The Forum considered a report of the Secretary, inviting it to settle the work programme for the forthcoming year. The Forum was reminded that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs had suggested, in her guidance, that each forum should endeavour to agree an annual work programme, taking account of its work priorities.

RESOLVED:

1 That the following work programme be adopted:

a Meeting to be held in May 2011 • Part reconstitution • Adoption of Annual Report • Green Infrastructure (presentation by Councillor Dr T Vickers) • Monitoring report by West Berkshire ROWIP Working Group • Site visit • Community engagement event.

b Meeting to be held in September 2011

16

• Site visit • Monitoring report by Wokingham ROWIP Working Group • Environment Agency, about access to water, flooding risk to recreational land. c Meeting to be held in January 2012 • Site visit • Monitoring report by Reading ROWIP Working Group • Open-Spaces Society.

17

APPENDIX 1

MEMBERSHIP OF THE FORUM

The following are Members of the Forum for the period to 30 April in the year shown in the third column below.

Users of local rights of way or the rights in relation to access land

Dr J C Bridger Curridge, 2013 Mr B Lambert Newbury 2013 Mr A Lawson Reading 2011 Mr R R Sharp Woodley 2012 Mrs D M Smith Greenham 2012 Mr G V Smith Newbury 2013

Owners and occupiers of access land or land over which rights of way subsist

Mr S Brook Greenham 2012 Mr D A W Gardiner Lilley, Newbury 2011 Mr J R Goddard Thatcham 2012 Mr C N B Marriage Hermitage 2013 Mr P Todd Highclere, Newbury 2013 Ms S Wallington Thatcham 2011

Any other interests

Mr N Channer Newbury 2012 Ms S Ellison Thatcham 2011 Mr R O’Neill Reading 2012 Mrs M Pawson Tidmarsh 2013 (2 vacancies)

In addition, the appointing authorities have each nominated a councillor to serve as a Member of the Forum, as follows:

Reading

Councillor T Harris.

West Berkshire

Councillor Dr T Vickers.

Wokingham

Councillor S Weeks.

18

APPENDIX 2

LETTER TO WOKINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL

RIGHTS OF WAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN

The Mid and West Berkshire Local Access Forum wish to thank you for your letters in September 2010 and January 2011, regarding funding for the implementation of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP). The Forum is grateful for the response and has noted the areas where you believe it may be possible to gain funds towards improving the public right of way network. Your letter of 14 January, giving an update, is particularly helpful.

The Forum feels, however, that too much emphasis is being put on securing section 106 monies, since this is so often dependent on projects that may be many years away from fruition. We believe that it is important to explore all other avenues.

The Forum believes that the Council has an online database of sources of funding and will be able to make bids using community partnerships. It is the Forum’s understanding that these grant funding bodies include:

 Liveability

 Local Action for Rural Communities

 Leader Plus

 European

There are also funds available for local authorities from the Heritage Lottery Fund which cover the regeneration of parks, including walks and promenades, footpaths and entrances.

The Forum would like to know if all these funding opportunities have been or are being explored as a way of obtaining the resources to create new links and to encourage the usage of the rights of way network by all user groups, which is the cornerstone of the ROWIP. The Forum would also like to recommend that any newly created public rights of way are multi-user and take account of equestrian needs where practical.

It would assist the Forum to prepare for its spring meeting if you could respond to this letter by 31 March.

19

APPENDIX 3

COMMENTS OF THE MID & WEST BERKSHIRE LOCAL ACCESS FORUM ON WOKINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL’S DRAFT LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN 2011- 2026

The Local Access Forum (LAF) exists, as a statutory body under Section 94 of the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000, to advise Reading Borough Council, the West Berkshire Council and Wokingham Borough Council “as to the improvement of public access to land for the purposes of open-air recreation and the enjoyment of the area”.

We did not avail ourselves of the opportunity to comment on the earlier draft of the Wokingham Borough Council’s Local Transport Plan 2011 – 2026 (LTP3), so we take this opportunity to comment on some of the detail on Chapters 3,4,6 and 7.

Some of our Members represent the interests of people who wish to use the entire highway network (except motorways), as is their right, by non- motorised means. With increased motorised traffic, these people have been progressively driven off the highways, until it has become normal for “highway engineers” to see leisure use of highways on foot, by bike, on horseback or by horse drawn carriage, as a nuisance. If we are to be truly sustainable and fair to all road users, the Wokingham Borough Council’s LTP must consider the interests of these forms of travel first. If their confidence in the safety of the highway network for leisure is restored, they will also use it for utility journeys.

Chapter 3 – Promote Greater Equality of Opportunity The LAF notes that the LPT under this sub heading embraces some of our concerns but, we trust that this goal will take account of the increasing use of disabled buggies/scooters. These help people to reduce vehicular transport and greatly assist less able, often elderly people to access the highway network. However, there is a lack of suitable safe routes for these scooters in particular, also for wheelchairs, bicycles and pedestrians, on many routes used by vulnerable groups unable for various reasons to use motor vehicles. Because routes into and through the countryside often involve sections which are unsafe for these users, there is a clear equalities’ impact.

We also trust that this service delivery will assess the impact of LTP policies on equestrians, that is, those engaged in the sport/leisure industry and those who drive horse carriages. These legitimate users of the road network are usually not catered for but need to use the road network for going to and from livery yards, as well as for recreational purposes.

Chapter 3 – Improve Quality of Life and a Healthy Natural Environment We welcome the emphasis on a healthy natural environment. This should embrace the benefits from walking and cycling. We believe that these methods of commuting and informal recreational use of the rights of way

20

network (including by horse-riders and carriage drivers) can make a significant contribution to the Borough and to the welfare of the local population. Maintaining a healthy lifestyle by use of the highway (including rights of way) network and exercise in urban and country parks also contributes indirectly to a lively local economy.

Chapter 4 – LTP Goals The Forum welcomes these goals and believes many can be achieved. With regard to the flow when reading the plan, this section would have been best placed as chapter 3.

Chapter 6 – Highways Policy Option The Forum broadly welcomes the detail in this chapter although we feel it should contain a policy specific to creating highway networks for non- motorised users (NMUs) for utility and recreational purposes which would support sustainable travel, e.g. greenways, quiet lanes. We would like to see more sections of road, that are very lightly trafficked by vehicles, managed primarily for NMUs, with clearer signage and possibly a different maintenance regime, which would actively discourage use of these routes by vehicles, other than for access.

Chapter 6 – Public Transport The Forum broadly supports this goal but thought the chapter number should have been different from the highways’ policy option. The LAF would like see that where recreational routes pass railway stations or bus stops they should be actively promoted, in conjunction with transport providers, for whom recreational users can provide much needed off-peak revenue to help sustain essential services to rural communities. The carriage of bikes on rural buses should be encouraged, as happens in other countries.

Chapter 7 – Active Travel Goal Noting the desire to shift commuting journeys from congested roads to other forms of travel, the Forum would urge that public rights of way used for this are not “urbanised” more than necessary to achieve that laudable aim. Highest priority should be given to providing safe road crossings and sections beside busy or unlit roads for cyclists and pedestrians wishing to make commuter journeys this way. These routes need to be pleasant and safe for users to obtain potential “positive benefits for health”. They also need a higher priority in terms of maintenance. The significant impact on NMUs should not be overlooked here. Large vehicles, even on minor roads, are a major impediment to use of those roads by vulnerable NMUs, and to use of the rights of way network, which often cannot be used without using roads. There are widespread concerns regarding the problems arising from Heavy Goods Vehicles using the local road network. These often relate to road safety, and the impact on the natural and built environments. They have a huge impact on use by vulnerable NMUs (walkers, disabled scooters, cyclists, horse riders, carriage drivers), and on local communities. Fear of traffic on an often short journey between home and countryside means people often choose to take their car, instead of walking or riding from home or stable. Where possible, to

21

reduce carbon emissions, safe routes should be created from where people live direct to countryside.

Recreational use of the countryside often unavoidably involves a vehicular journey to access the start of a walk, bike or horse ride. Adequate parking facilities need to be provided for horse boxes, as well as cars, throughout the Borough, as often as possible at or near pubs, village halls and other places with toilet provision.

The Forum would expect to see elements of the linked Rights of Way Improvement Plan (RoWIP) delivered through the resources assigned to the LTP.

22