Lake District Local Access Forum

Lake District Local Access Forum: 18 October 2012 Agenda Item: 3

LAKE DISTRICT LOCAL ACCESS FORUM Minutes of the meeting of the Lake District Local Access Forum held in the Rankin Room, Victory Hall, Broughton in Furness, 6 pm.

PRESENT

Members: Carole Barr Ruth Kirk Vicky Bowman Stephen Pighills Mohammed Dhalech Malcolm Petyt Amanda McCleery Ken Taylor David Rawle Charles Sargeant James Thurlow Adrian Jones

Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA): Mark Eccles, Head of Park Management Stephanie Conway, Park Management Administrator David Robinson, Access and Recreation Developer Nick Thorne, Rights of Way Officer

APOLOGIES

John Crosbie Malcolm Atkiss Jonathan Brooks Pauline Goodridge Veronica McGloin Geoff Wilson

548 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 548.1 No declarations.

549 MINUTES 549.1 Members confirmed the minutes as a true record of the last meeting held on 26 April 2012.

550 MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES. 550.1 531.1 Go Lake Travel Programme is in the final stages. 532 Agreed:  James Thurlow confirmed he had spoken to Liam Briggs.  Dave Robinson confirmed he had spoken to Helen Reynolds about LAF ‘tweeting’. Helen advised the LAF to ‘tweet’ through the LDNPA’s own ‘tweet’ site and not have an individual one.  Dave Robinson has yet to speak to Mick Casey regarding the press release on the latest recruitment.  Carole Barr confirmed that an update from the Forestry Consultation Group was sent to all forum members via email.

Page: 1 Lake District Local Access Forum: 18 October 2012 Agenda Item: 3

533 Agreed: All actions completed. 534 Agreed: Action completed. 536 Agreed: Amanda McCleery is in the process of finalising the draft.

Agreed:  Dave Robinson to speak to Mick Casey regarding the press release on the latest recruitment.

551 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 551.1 No questions

552 RIGHTS OF WAY – HISTORY AND LEGISLATION 552.1 Nick Thorne gave an interesting and comprehensive presentation on the history and legislation of ROW.

553 COASTAL ACCESS 553.1 Jerry Rusbridge gave a presentation and update to the Forum on Coastal Access with particular attention to the second stretch in Cumbria - Whitehaven to Silecroft.

553.2 A full description of the Implementation Process was given. Weymouth was mentioned as being the only area that had run the full course of this process. The question of funding was raised by the Forum. Jerry explained that the funding up to Stage 8 comes from Natural England. At Stage 8, which involves the preparation and commencement of ROW, funding can come from any organisation who wishes to contribute. This raises a big issue concerning maintenance as funding is not forth coming.

553.3 Work on assessing accessibility on the second stretch in Cumbria, Whitehaven to Silecroft has already been started by NE with 60% of the work being within the National Park. One major problem at the present time is the accessibility to enable crossing the River Esk. A solution is yet to be found. NE is now at the stage of collating data and commencing negotiations with landowners. Once the data has been collated it is hoped that ‘walking the course’ will start in October leading up to Christmas 2012

553.4 LAF’s involvement is hoped to come from, giving input at meetings and supporting and promoting the scheme. Consultation is hoped to be in spring of 2013 and the opening of the stretch autumn of 2014 or summer of 2015. David Rawle is to continue to be the link between the Forum and NE.

554 WOODLAND PLANTING AND FENCING 554.1 This item (Item 12 on the agenda) was brought forward. Ken Taylor gave an account on the Kinniside Common fencing proposal and the site visit he had attended recently. A map was made available to the Forum, showing marked areas D, D2, E, and F, of proposed fencing and scrub creation.

554.2 Referring to the map, Area D. It is thought that a ROW exists on this area of SSSI which has a cliff face. It has raised doubts as to whether anyone walks the path. The

fence would have to go on the crest of the cliff and if a ROW does exist, realignment may have to be considered. Nick Thorne commented that re alignment could take 2- 3 years and that this particular path would be of low priority. From past experience Nick was sure there would be definite objection to any changes of alignment. Nick was interested in doing a site visit for himself. The planting would be scrub and the fencing should be viewed as permanent because the farmer wants to use the fence as stock control.

554.3 Referring to the map and Area D2. Ken felt that this area was of concern. Adrian Jones questioned the need for a fence and said he would like to speak to a colleague from the Forestry Commission who works in this area to get his opinion. Unfortunately The Friends of the Lake District want a response soon and Adrian would not be able to speak to his colleague for at least two weeks. The question was raised as to whether FLD had explored any other options. In addition the LDNPA have to authorise installation of gates and fence across a ROW.

554.4 Referring to the map and Areas E and F, there were no issues.

554.5 With the discussion in mind Ken Taylor will put together a response for the present time.

554.6 It was agreed that Ken Taylor and Geoff Wilson should continue to deal with the fencing and woodland proposals and send out formal advice on behalf of the Forum.

Agreed:  KenTaylor to send a response to FLD.  Ken Taylor and Geoff Wilson to continue to deal with woodland and fencing proposals.  Adrian Jones to find out further details regarding Area D2.

555 SUB GROUPS 555.1 Illegal and Inappropriate Use of the Countryside by MPV’s – Steve Pighills updated the group:  High Nibthwaite - signage has been sorted.  Bethacar Moor – there has been a slow response to the damaged route with respect to repair by Cumbria County Council  Walna Scar - Vast number of cars are still going up and parking beyond the fell gate  Steve attended a presentation by ‘tread lightly’ and was not impressed.  High Furness – Blawith and Subberthwaite has less activity this year. Could the reason be that motor cycle businesses are struggling with the present economic climate?  Although some areas are reporting a reduction in activity other areas are reporting an increase.

555.2 Lake District National Park Partnership – this is being reviewed at the present time. The Forum was asked to consider what they wanted to deal with, integrated transport and adventure capital were mentioned.

555.3 Dave Robinson discussed the County Countryside Access Strategy Review Paper. A project brief was made available to the Forum outlining the background, Business Case, Project Definition, Plan, Resource requirements, Project costs and risks. A lot of work is required over the next 9 months of which the Forum will be heavily involved.

555.4 It was suggested that a joint meeting should take place with Cumbria Local Access Forum.

Agreed:  Forum members to consider their role within the Lake District National Park Partnership.  Forum member to get involved in the County Countryside Access Strategy.  A joint meeting to be organised with Cumbria LAF.

556 WORK PROGRAMME 556.1 The work programme will replace the Sub Groups. As from today’s meeting the Sub Groups will no longer exist. 556.2 Carole Barr went through the wok programme with the Forum members asking for volunteers and allocating certain tasks to members. The allocation is provided in a table at the end of these minutes (see this meeting agenda item 8 for full details of the Work Programme)

556.3 Amanda McCleery asked about the availability of the Annual Report. Carole Barr confirmed it had been written and was ready to go for printing. The report should be available by September. It was suggested that the Report should be done as a PDF and emailed in order to save money on printing and postage. Dave Robinson will look into.

Agreed:  Carole Barr to finalise the work programme.  Annual Report to go into the public domain by the beginning of September.

557 DEFRA CONSULTATION ON LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF RIGHTS OF WAY 557.1. A link was sent to the Forum members in advance of the meeting. Nick Thorne commented that the document was large and that the reader needed to be well informed in order to make comment. Geoff Wilson was thought to be the ideal candidate to tackle the paper.

Agreed:  Carole Barr to talk to Geoff Wilson.  Nick Thorne to send Carole Barr the LDNPA’s response.

558 CUMBRIA LOCAL NATURE PARTNERSHIPS 558.1 Forum members had been given information to read and update themselves before the meeting.

559 NPAPA CONSULTATION REPORT 559.1 A link was sent to Forum members. An action plan is to be published.

560 UPDATES FROM FORUM MEMBERS 560.1 The new North West Chair Coordinator is Sally Dare 560.2 Coastal access and wild fire initiative – there is a Cumbria Wild Fire Group established. 560.3 Charles Sargeant had attended the recent Cumbria LAF meeting and site visit on invitation. He gave the Forum his account of the meeting. Malcolm Petyt who also attended said that the meeting had been impressive and well organised. 560.4 Ruth Kirk informed the Forum that the Events Tool Kit is to be launched on Friday 20 July 2012. 560.5 Charles Sargeant made 2 points relating to the Miles without Stiles.  The top mechanism on gates is not wheelchair user friendly. Dave Robinson commented that the issue was being looked at and that we have a member of public who is wheelchair bound and is working with the LDNPA to find a solution to the problem.  There are an increased number of puddles on the paths after the recent bad weather.

561 DATE OF NEXT MEETING 561.1 Thursday 18 October 2012. Ambleside Parish Rooms 1:00pm start

Member Volunteers for Annual Work Programme

TASK LAF LEAD Forum Annual Work Programme Create & review work programme Chair to lead, all members to contribute Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) CCAS/ ROWIP review Carole Barr/ David Rawle/ Ken Taylor/ James Thurlow

ROWIP annual action plan Carole Barr/ David Rawle/ Ken Taylor/ James Thurlow

Bridleway Strategy/ Paths for Carole Barr/ Vicky Bowman Communities (P4C)

Miles without stiles Ruth Kirk/ Mohammed Dhalech/ others? Access to water James Thurlow

Birk Hagg Wood/ Rydal Estate Steve Pighills/ James Thurlow access Countryside & Rights of Way Act related Provide required input to the All at relevant meeting exclusions & restrictions process as statutory consultee on applications Woodland and fencing proposals Geoff Wilson and Ken Taylor

Coastal Access

Cumbria Coastal access phase II David Rawle/ Others?

Rights of Way

Rights of way consultations Geoff Wilson to lead and coordinate response Fix the Fells Receive reports from Authority Geoff Wilson(?) to lead

Defra Rights of Way Legal Geoff Wilson and Carole Barr Framework consultation Providing advice to others

Event Management James Thurlow/ Ken Taylor/ Vicky Bowman/ Ruth Kirk S94 bodies Chair Representation

National Park Partnership Chair Cumbria Countryside Access Chair Partnership

Mechanically Propelled Vehicles Steve Pighills

Local Nature Partnership Pauline Goodridge Forum procedures and promotion Annual Report Chair and members Conduct Forum self-evaluation Chair Improve awareness of the work Chair/ Amanda McLeery of the Forum

Regional and national LAF work Chair Member recruitment All

Page: 7 Lake District Local Access Forum: 18 July Agenda Item: 8

LAKE DISTRICT LOCAL ACCESS FORUM WORK PROGRAMME 2012 - 2013

TASK ACTION LAF LEAD TIMESCALE Forum Annual Work Programme Create & review work a. Develop work programme for Chair to lead, all members to a. By July 2012 programme 2012/13 contribute b. Quarterly throughout the b. Review work programme at each year meeting

Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) CCAS/ ROWIP review Assist and advise CCC/ LDNPA/ Carole Barr/ David Rawle/ Ken By end of March 2013 YDNPA in reviewing Cumbria Taylor/ James Thurlow Countryside Access Strategy, ROWIP and access to water ROWIP annual action plan Advise the NPA on the development Carole Barr/ David Rawle/ Ken By end of March 2013 and progress of the 2012-13 ROWIP Taylor/ James Thurlow annual action plan Bridleway Strategy/ Paths for a. Identify LAF member(s) who Vicky Bowman/ Carole Barr By end of March 2013 and Communities (P4C) could lead on strategic approach on-going to bridleway network improvements and potential P4C funding bid b. Work with NPA and others on Vicky Bowman/ Carole Barr pilot area around Broughton/ Woodland to assess local community support Miles without stiles a. Limited mobility training event for Ruth Kirk/ Mohammed Dhalech/ a. October 2012 meeting members others? b. Advise the Authority on the focus Ruth Kirk/ Mohammed Dhalech/ b. By end of March 2013 of the Miles without Stiles/ limited others? mobility programme

Access to water Work with NPA on providing James Thurlow By end of March 2013 information on lake access for canoeing Birk Hagg Wood/ Rydal Liaise with Rydal Hall/ Rydal Steve Pighills/ James Thurlow By end of March and on- Estate access Estates/ NPA on managing access going through Birk Hagg Wood Countryside & Rights of Way Act related Provide required input to the NPA to provide annual report on All at relevant meeting On-going exclusions & restrictions applications handled by the NPA process as statutory and the Forestry Commission consultee on applications Woodland and fencing a. LAF member to gather Forum a. Geoff Wilson and Ken Taylor On-going proposals views and draft response. Site visits to be organised as appropriate b. Continue to work with Defra, b. Geoff Wilson and Ken Taylor On-going Natural England and NPA on strategic implications of woodland planting and fencing on open access Coastal Access

Cumbria Coastal access Work with Natural England and NPA David Rawle/ others? By the end of March 2013 phase II on coastal access route between and on-going Drigg and Silecroft Rights of Way

Rights of way consultations Forum to advise NPA on rights of Geoff Wilson to lead and Ongoing. way changes within NPA timescales. coordinate response Quarterly report on Feedback on decision to be sought consultations at Forum meetings

Fix the Fells Receive report annually on Fix the Receive reports from Authority Annual report to Forum in Fells programme Geoff Wilson(?) to lead January

Defra Rights of Way Legal Work with NPA on response to Geoff Wilson and Carole Barr August 2012 Framework consultation consultation Providing advice to others

Event Management To contribute to the Event Advisory James Thurlow, Ken Taylor, On-going Group and provide comments on Vicky Bowman, Ruth Kirk large scale organised recreational events S94 bodies Provide advice to S94 bodies where Chair On-going appropriate Representation

National Park Partnership Represent the LAF on, and provide Chair On-going advice to, the Lake District National Park Partnership Plan Cumbria Countryside Access Represent the LAF on, and support Chair On-going Partnership the Cumbria Countryside Access Partnership Mechanically Propelled Represent the LAF on the Steve Pighills On-going Vehicles management of MPV’s in the National Park and Cumbria Local Nature Partnership Represent the LAF and provide Pauline Goodridge/ others? On-going advice on access issues to the Cumbria Local Nature Partnership, once it is established Forum procedures and promotion Annual Report Produce an annual report detailing Chair and members By end of July 2012 the work of the LAF for the year

2011-12 Conduct Forum self- Circulate questionnaire to Forum Chair By end of March 2013 evaluation members Improve awareness of the a. Circulate Annual Report to Parish a. Chair/ Amanda McLeery a. August 2012 work of the Forum Councils and other local community organisations b. Press release of annual report/ b. NPA b. October 2012 appointment of new members Regional and national LAF Representation on Regional LAF Chair On-going work Chairs meetings and any other regional/ national initiatives Member recruitment Continually review procedures for All On-going member recruitment and suggest improvements where necessary

Page: 4 Lake District Local Access Forum: 18 October 2012 Agenda Item: 8b

FENCING OF NEW WOODLANDS ON OPEN ACCESS LAND

1 Background 1.1 The LAF has been consulted on many occasions now over proposals to plant new native woodlands on open access land. This flow of new schemes continues. The fencing is often required to meet the conditions of grant schemes such as Farm Woodland Premium Scheme and English Woodland Grant Scheme (managed by FC) and the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme (managed by NE). 1.2 Following submission a formal letter giving advice to NE and FC, a meeting was called by Simon Humphries (NE) to discuss progress. Ken Taylor attended this meeting. Notes of this meeting are attached. 1.3 It was agreed at the meeting that:  NE and FC will make sure that the Lake District LAF are consulted over new schemes which involve fencing of open access land (rather than relying on these being forwarded by the LDNPA)  Further consideration will be given to mapping of the data and who might ‘own and manage’ this information in the longer term.

Action: a) that Forum members take note of the discussion that are underway b) confirm the continued involvement of Geoff Wilson and Ken Taylor in reviewing specific cases and dealing with NE/FC in finding ways to record the data

Background papers Attached – see Minutes of meeting below. Author Geoff Wilson and Ken Taylor – Forum Members Date written 1 October 2012 Lake District Local Access Forum: 18 October 2012 Agenda Item: 8b

Notes of meeting on 23rd August, Friends of the Lake District office, Kendal.

Attendees: Ken Taylor, Lake District LAF Ian Brodie, Open Spaces society Chris Greenwood, LDNPA Dave Switzer, LDNPA Jack Ellerby, Friends of the Lake District Geoff Fewkes, Cumbria County Council Jim O’Neill, Forestry Commission Paul Vickers, Forestry Commission Gerry Rusbridge, Natural England Nick Dales, Natural England Simon Humphries, Natural England

Apologies: Jan Darrall, Geoff Wilson, Charles Ecroyd, Chris Reid

1. The meeting was held by way of follow up to the letter that was sent to Chris Reid in July providing advice to NE and FC. This covered a range of subjects and the meeting was to provide an update and to focus on possible solutions to recording the location, duration and responsibility for “temporary” fences on common and open access land.

2. Ken Taylor gave some background saying that there has been an increased flow of applications for planting and fencing, and whilst the LAF had no view on the planting but had concerns over recreation and access issues. Fences might be put up where they are not needed and that even though they are termed “temporary” they will become permanent by default. Jack Ellerby added that the Friends were concerned about general clutter on the fells including masts etc.

3. Nick Dales gave a presentation of a GI system that could be used by a number of people who were aware of fences etc and could upload this information on to the system. This could then be moderated and other pieces of information added e.g. duration of SoS consent, responsibility for removal etc. It was agreed that a system is needed which identifies the duration of a consented fence and highlights it when that time has expired.

4. Following the presentation, it was questioned whether such a system was overcomplicating matters and the following questions were raised:

 Who would “own” the system?

 What would it cost?

 How would existing information be uploaded and who would do it? Lake District Local Access Forum: 18 October 2012 Agenda Item: 8b

5. Alternatives were raised such as:

 Defra, My Environment

 Open Access web site (cost likely to be an issue?)

 Pool existing information and pass to CCC/LDNPA as the regulatory authorities (may be Data Protection issues)

6. It was felt that approx 90% of cases could be dealt with swiftly from information contained in recent applications, but we can’t progress until the data is in one place, and the evidence about where the fences are is gathered. Comparison was made with Fix the Fells where a volunteer or short term contractor was used to complete a limited piece of work, but that still leaves the question who would the information go to? It would be important to gather a comprehensive evidence base.

7. ‘Loss’ of Open Access Land. Gerry explained that the maps of CROW Open Country and Registered Common Land are due to be reviewed shortly (as soon as 2014 in some cases). NE has previously considered whether it might usefully review the CROW Mapping Methodology for England as part of this process. In theory, this would provide an opportunity to revise the descriptions of Open Country (Mountain, Moor, Heath & Down) such that woodland is not automatically excluded, but might be considered as part of Open Country in the right context. If such a change were to be put into effect, it would reduce the amount of CROW access land potentially lost as a result of tree planting schemes.

8. Fence Removal. It was suggested that both EWGS and HLS can pay for fence removal, but in the case of HLS, only if a scheme continues on the same land and it is included as part of the agreement. The question was asked if any follow up scheme could be made contingent on the first so if the fence was not removed, the new scheme could not proceed. Action Chris Reid

9. Consultation. It was agreed that the earlier consultation can take place the better. It was agreed that FC and NE would review the consultation guidance that is used as there have been occasions when advisers have agreed schemes with agreement holders and then others have been consulted leading to changes which can frustrate the process. There is also a need to consult the relevant forest design plan. Action FC and NE

10. The LAFs are not statutory consultees and the Park will check to see if consultations are routinely forwarded. Action Chris Greenwood.

11. Subsequent to the meeting , Ken Taylor agreed to pass details of schemes of which he is aware, and Jan added some more. Lake District Local Access Forum: 18 October 2012 Agenda Item: 8b Glenridding Common Coledale Armboth Fell – although I believe this was just a fence re-alignment St. John’s Common Burnt Horse, Lonscale Fell Bampton Common Langstrath Eskdale Nether Wasdale Kinniside Common Brackenthwaite Hows

Other schemes in the Lake District include: Armboth Longmoor Mungrisedale Matterdale Within Cumbia LAF area: Crosby Ravensworth Cross Fell Hartley Kaber and Winton

12. Questions relating to recording of fence details:

 Are we agreed to find a local (Cumbria) way forward in the absence (or in advance of) a national solution?

 Who should hold this information, bearing in mind the extended lifetime of the requirement to maintain and access?

 Can we secure some volunteer time for a short period of time to gather the existing information – if yes, who should lead on this?

Natural England will continue to discuss these questions and pursue how best to proceed, and would welcome comments from others. It was agreed that we should come together again, but no date was set whilst we consider these questions.

September 2012 Lake District Local Access Forum: 18 October 2012 Agenda Item: 9

AGENDA ITEM 9: CUMBRIA COUNTRYSIDE ACCESS STRATEGY AND ROWIP REVIEW

1. Introduction

1.1 The scope and remit of the Access Strategy and ROWIP review was presented to the LAF at the April 2012 meeting. Since then a working group has been set up to carry out this review. It comprises officers and members/ councillors from the three access authorities plus the Cumbria LAF chairman (who agreed that he would represent all three LAFs on the group and report back to the other Chairs).

1.2 All three access authorities have audited their achievements against the key actions in the existing Access Strategy and against the seven broad areas of improvement in the ROWIP itself. We have assessed what is outstanding and also whether these areas of work will be a priority in the future.

1.3 The spreadsheet attached includes details all these for the three authorities. (Please read but don’t print out. It is an A3 document and we will provide paper copies at the meeting).

2. Next steps

2.1 We have amalgamated the key actions and the broad areas for improvement into five broad priority areas and have written a draft strategy and future action plan based on these.

2.2 We had hoped that this would be ready to discuss at this meeting but our timetable has slipped slightly. We intend to consult with members from all three LAFs at a joint meeting in November (date to be finalised) and bring a draft strategy to the next round of LAF meetings in January 2013. This will also allow us to develop a wider public consultation exercise before the strategy is finalised in Spring 2013.

Author: David Robinson, Access and Recreation Developer Lake District Local Access Forum: 18 October 2012 Agenda Item: 10

LOCAL NATURE PARTNERSHIP UPDATE

Below is a copy of an update from Graham Jackson Pitt (Cumbria Wildlife Trust).

“I submitted an application to Defra for official LNP status at the end of June and this was successful. In early July Defra published a list online of the successful candidates and just this week I received an official letter from Richard Benyon MP (Natural Environment and Fisheries) confirming this. Over the next few weeks the Development Group who led the consultations etc., will be looking to establish some sort of secretariat (could be me, I don`t know yet?) for LNP to take forward some of the priorities outlined in the application submitted in June. This is likely to be on a very limited basis at most 2 days per week and short term due financial restrictions. I suspect that Cumbria Wildlife Trust will host this person. One of the priorities will be how we build the Partnership including identifying the best way to communicate with potential members. I suspect once the secretariat is in place there will be an email sent round all the orgs that took part in the consultation updating them further”.

Veronica McGloin October 2102 Lake District Local Access Forum: 18 October 2012 Agenda Item: 13

CONSULTATION IMPROVEMENTS TO THE POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY Response of the Lake District Local Access Forum (LDLAF) Question 1 Do you agree that there should be a brief, post cut-off period during which applications that pass a ‘basic evidential test’ (paragraphs 5.9 and 5.10) can be registered? Any post cut off period should take into account what would be a reasonable period of time for authorities to register applications. Question 2 Do you agree that during this period, local authorities should be able to register rights of way by self application, including any self applications made in the past, subject to the same tests and transparency as for any other applications? Yes Question 3 Are there are any other categories of rights of way that need to be protected by exceptions set out in regulations?  Routes where status changes at parish boundaries.  Routes in use where a landowner then obstructs. Question 4 Do you agree that these proposals would be effective in improving the process of recording rights of way? Yes the LDLAF welcomes proposals to simplify the current process. Costs to volunteers of making a claim should be minimised. For example having to provide copies of documents that a surveying authority already hold in their offices or archives. The LDLAF agrees that it should be the surveying authority and not the applicant that approaches landowners, if an application passes the Basic Evidential Test. The LDLAF also agrees that the requirement for newspaper advertisements relating to surveying authority notices of all types are minimised. The LDLAF believes the content of a Basic Evidential Test should be clearly specified and applied uniformly across the country. In the case of applications made on user evidence the number of required evidence forms should be relevant ie. if there is a claim for a bridleway and there is only four evidence forms but each one demonstrates regular and consistent use and there are only four riders in that location this should be sufficient to prove use. Surveying authority should be allowed to dismiss summarily any irrelevant objections. The Secretary of State should have the same powers to serve an order as surveying authorities do. Question 5. Do you think that more use could be made of electronic communications, for example, to make definitive map modification order applications online and to serve notice of rights of way orders? Lake District Local Access Forum: 18 October 2012 Agenda Item: 13 Yes as long as there are alternatives in place as not everyone has a computer, good broadband etc. Question 6 Are there any particular issues associated with these proposals which have not been captured and which we should consider? Yes that Inspectors are required to carry out a site visit. Question 7. Do you think that the mechanism set out above, would work effectively? Yes. Question 8 Do you think that there would be a residual risk that it would be in a local authority’s interests to decline to make an order in the first place? Yes this is a serious risk. Question 9 Do you think that the alternative mechanism set out above, would work effectively? Yes Question 10. Do you have any other suggestions for ensuring that cases go to the Secretary of State only once? No Question 11 Do you agree that applicants and affected owners should be able to seek a court order requiring the authority to determine an outstanding definitive map modification order application? Yes but the level of the current application fee means that many voluntary organisations cannot afford to do so. Question 12 Do you think this is an appropriate way to resolve undetermined definitive map modification order applications? Yes but a simpler more effective system should mean this point is not reached. Question 13 Do you have any suggestions for alternative mechanisms to resolve undetermined definitive map modification order applications? Possible time limits. Question 14 Do you have any suggestions on how a process might work, which would enable an appropriate diversion to be agreed and put into effect before the way is recorded and brought into use? It would make sense to agree a line of use before a claimed route is subject to a diversion if there is an issue with the historical route and an alternative route would be more practical as long as users as not adversly affected. Perhaps new provision in existing Highways law? Question 15 What aspects of data management systems for recording public rights of way need to be tackled? Lake District Local Access Forum: 18 October 2012 Agenda Item: 13 Authorities should ensure the Definitive Map is available electronically and any issue in providing this service be dealt with promptly so it doesn’t disappear off line for long stretches of time. Changes to the map should be easy to see and dated. A copy of each confirmed order should be made available to the public – ideally by placing it on the Internet and as hard copy available at the surveying authority’s premises as in many rural areas particularly broadband speed is very slow. Back up copies should be kept so information will not be lost forever such as in a fire or flood. Question 16 What are the key outcomes that need to be achieved in terms of data management systems? Information should be freely available to the public and at no cost. Question 17 Do you agree that the proposals identified in the section above should be applied to the policy and legislation governing public path orders? Largely yes but there are fundamental differences in the two types of path order, which need to be considered. Question 18 Do you think that more use could be made of electronic communications for public path orders, in similar ways to those suggested for definitive map modification orders in Question 5? Yes but as long as there are alternatives as not everyone has a computer or broadband. Question 19 Do you agree that enabling local authorities to recover their costs in full would incentivise them to pursue public path orders requested by landowners or managers? Yes, it may do so. Question 20 Would local authorities be incentivised sufficiently to enable retention of a right of appeal to the Secretary of State without the risk of local authorities shifting the burden and cost of order- making onto the Secretary of State? Not sure. Question 21 Should the proposed arrangements apply to all public path orders and not just to land used for agriculture, forestry, or the keeping of horses? Yes. Question 22 How could it be made clear what charges are levied for each stage of the public path order- making process and that the charges reflect the costs actually incurred? Not sure. Question 23 Do you think that landowners should have the option of outsourcing some of the work once a public path order is made in order to have more control over the costs? No. as standards might be compromised. Question 24 Lake District Local Access Forum: 18 October 2012 Agenda Item: 13 Might this have an impact on other aspects of rights of way work? Possibly authorities will have more to spend on other rights of way work, such as maintenance or processing definitive map modification orders. Question 25 Are there any alternative mechanisms that should be considered? Question 26 Under Option A, how do you think wider adherence to existing guidance might be achieved? Question 27 What do you think would be the best option to minimise the cost and delay to developers while safeguarding the public interest on public rights of way? Question 28 Are there other options that should be considered? Question 29 Do you think that enabling a single application form to be submitted through the Planning Portal website would improve the process?