DIRECTORATE OF CITY REQUEST FOR STRATEGY DECISION
Decision making level: Officer in Consultation Date: 11-09-2012
PROPOSED BRIDLEWAY BETWEEN RUFFORTH & KNAPTON
Decision Requested
1) To note the results of a recent Safety Audit and Pre -order Bridleway Consultation and use these to determine the alignment and nature of the final route between the villages of Rufforth and Knapton
2) Authorise the Assistant Director of Governance and ICT to make the required Orders, under the Highways Ac t 1980, to create a bridleway on the proposed alignment and, i) if no objections are received, to confirm the Order as an unopposed Order. ii) if objections are received and not withdrawn, to bring the proposal back to OIC for further consideration.
Reason
To enable the route to be constructed in its entirety now funding has been secured from various sources towards it s construction
Background Information
The City of York Council have been approached on numerous occasions by residents from Rufforth to look at the provision of a safe route for cyclists between the village of Rufforth and the main urban area the other side of the A1237. Following receipt of a petition back in 2007 the council commissioned Sustrans, the National Cycle Network charity, to undertake a feasibility study on route options between the two villages of Rufforth and Knapton. Since this study was completed numerous meetings have taken place with the relevant stakeholders primarily looking at alternative route alignments, landowner permissions and funding options. The group identified an approximate route which would utilise existing rights of way where possible to make its construction as simple as possible and to try to keep the costs as low as possible. A overview map of the rout e is shown as Annex A and comprises several distinct sections (these are shown in more detail in Annex B) : Section Description A Link from Rufforth village to the start of the PROW section B PROW linking Wetherby Road to the North of England Activity Centre NOEAC (Clay Target Centre) access road C NOEAC access road section D Cross-corner route junction with NOEAC access road to junction with Yorwaste access track at other side E Yorwaste access track to Moor Lane F Moor Lane to Northfield Lane G Northfield Lane to Knapton
Currently there are several options available for sections A, C, D and G. Sections A to D have been through a Stage 1 Safety Audit to flag up any issues which may influence the choice of route where we have one and are taken into account below when suggesting the preferred options for implementation. The audit is attached as Annex C. A Pre-Order (Bridleway) Consultation has also been undertaken with various stakeholder groups on the majority of the route. The results of the consultation are attached as Annex D.
Section A Option Description A1 Shared use path along the southern edge of the farmer’s field north of Wetherby Road between Algarth bungalow and the PROW* A2 Shared use path in the Wetherby Road northern verge from the edge of the Algarth bungalow site to the start of the PROW* A3 Cyclists reintroduced to the carriageway at the point where the PROW emerges onto Wetherby Road. This would require the Rufforth 30mph zone to be extended to beyond this point to slow traffic down enough that cyclists would be able to cross safely and wouldn’t feel intimidated when cycling the final section on-road. * Both options A1 and A2 would require a shared use link path to be constructed along the edge of Wetherby Road within the property boundary of Algarth bungalow to link the off-road options back into the village beyond the road bend (see Annex B – Section A plan). This strip has been included in a recent planning application for new houses on the bungalow site and will shortly be recommended by officers for approval. If the application is approved the applicant has indicated he would like to start construction fairly quickly. Ideally the off-road options are the more attractive solutions, especially as the majority of the remainder of the route is away from busy roads, however negotiations with the relevant landowners thus far have not proven to be fruitful (although some progress has been reported recently) therefore the less attractive on-road option may need to be implemented in the short term whilst further negotiations with the landowners continue. A brief has recently been issued requesting that the feasibility of extending the 30mph zone be investigated.
Section C Option Description C1 Use the NOEAC access road from the point where the cross- field PROW emerges onto it from the west to the point where the Harewood Whin cross-corner path is proposed to diverge away from it to the east C2 Provide an off-road path running parallel with the NOEAC access road to remove the potential for conflict between drivers and other path users The original proposal was to use the existing access road as this has a fairly good surface (there are some minor defects which could be addressed). In the Pre-Order Consultation responses which can be found as Annex D there is a response from Mr. Thompson, the owner of the NOEAC, in which he states that he doesn’t feel that his customers sharing the road with cyclists, walkers and horse riders would be safe – the most busy times for the gun club would coincide with the times when the path would probably be used the most (weekends), and he suggests the parallel path option is the only one which should be considered.
Section D Option Description D1 Provide a new cross-corner route on Yorwaste land to bring the route at least 100m away from the NOEAC site to reduce the possibility of horses being spooked by close-proximity gunfire. D2 Use the NOEAC access road to traverse the corner and rejoin the northern Yorwaste access track the other side of the corner Throughout negotiations the cross-corner route has always been the preferred route especially for horse riders. The council’s insurance and legal teams have both confirmed that this would be their preferred option as it is further away from the NOEAC site therefore the noise from gun shots should be reduced, thus reducing the potential for horses to be spooked and unseat their riders. An option of providing both route D1 and D2 has been suggested to give cyclists and pedestrians who don’t want to climb the banking on the cross-corner route a flat option however there are objections to this from both the NOEAC manager on safety/security grounds as well as the prospect of additional maintenance cost for the council, and the farmer who also uses the access road with large agricultural vehicles to get to his fields. During the pre-order consultation it was suggested that due to the potential instability of the surface of the former landfill site the use of bitmac may not be suitable and that crushed stone may be better to reduce maintenance liabilities. This has been discussed with Sustrans, who would be constructing the path, and they are confident that with the amount of stone being made available to them by Yorwaste they can over- specify this section of the path to ensure it doesn’t suffer damage due to any movement of the ground due to settlement. Sustrans also confirmed that Yorwaste undertake regular surveys of levels on the landscaped sections to check for settlement and there is very little reported.
Section G Option Description G1 Use the existing at-grade crossing of the A1237 near the Knapton Main Street junction G2 Provide a field edge path running along the western side of the A1237 up to the existing underpass partway between Knapton Main Street and the Wetherby Road roundabout. A bridleway exists between the eastern end of the underpass and Knapton Main Street. In the short term the at-grade crossing may need to be used to complete the eastern end of the route, however, negotiations are still ongoing with the owner of the field alongside the A1237 which, if successful, will enable option G2 to be provided in the longer term.
Preferred Options For section A the A1 off-road route would be the preferred long term solution, however, as the negotiations with the relevant landowners are proving to be a long-winded process this option may not ever come to fruition and even if it were to be successful may take many months. Bearing this in mind it is recommended to pursue the A3 on-road option in the short term to enable a complete route to be provided whilst negotiations on the off-road option continue.
For section C the off-road C2 option has now been costed up at approximately £30K to £38K depending on the specification provided. The original costings by Sustrans were done with a presumption that we would be able to negotiate with the NOEAC owner to use his access road therefore no provision has been made for construction of a parallel route. If an additional funding source to construct the off-road option cannot be found then further negotiations may be required with the NOEAC owner to investigate means of raising awareness and/or means of slowing his customers down. If the latter option has to be pursued the terms of the Deed of Grant agreed between North Yorkshire County Council and the NOEAC in 1992 for use of the access road will probably need to be rewritten with CYC having to contribute towards the future maintenance of the access road and take on the safety liabilities of users of the road which currently sit with NOEAC.
For section D only the cross-corner D1 option should be pursued with dual provision i.e one side for horse riders with a natural stone or grass surface and a parallel bitmac path for cyclists and walkers. Ramps which have no more than a 5% gradient will be used so that potential users are not put off by the steepness of the route. A cattle grid will need to be provided along with signing to indicate that the NOEAC access road beyond the point where the cross-corner path diverges away from it is for their customers only and is a no-through route for other users.
For section G the at-grade crossing, G1 should be used for the route in the short term with negotiations with the landowner west of the A1237 continuing towards provision of the longer term G2 grade-separated solution.
Funding Three sources of funding for the route have already been identified: 1) Yorwaste – there is an outstanding Section 106 condition relating to the previous expansion of the Harewood Whin landfill site. This condition stipulated that Yorwaste should provide a bridleway from the north-east corner of their site to the south west corner, however, this didn’t go as far as stating an exact alignment. £75K has been allocated by Yorwaste to provide their section of route.
2) Yorventure – a bid was recently submitted by Sustrans for landfill tax funding towards the scheme, this was successful and £45K (inclusive of VAT) has been secured towards the route’s construction. The conditions of the grant state that the route needs to be completed by May 2013 otherwise the funding will be withdrawn.
3) CYC – council officers have agreed to fund the legal costs to change the status of those sections of the route which are currently designated as footpath and create the new sections of bridleway along the route so that cyclists, horse riders and walkers can all use it in its entirety. This should cost somewhere in the region of £6K . Officers are also looking at measures at the western end of the route to reduce traffic speeds so that cyclists can rejoin the carriageway for the remaining short section of route until a safer off-road alternative can be secured. The central NOEAC access road section currently has no funding source, however, this may be able to be afforded from the LTP Capital Programme if some of the larger, more complicated schemes, are potentially not going to be completed as planned this financial year.
A possible fourth source of funding from Natural England’s “Paths for Communities” fund is being investigated by Rufforth Parish Council which if successful is proposed to be used to fund the off-road measures at the western end of the route (Option A1).
Consultation Process
Relevant landowners have been consulted throughout the process. Relevant stakeholder groups have been consulted on the bridleway alignments and the result of these consultations included as Annex C.
Statutory Powers
The City of York Council, as Highways Authority of the area, has the appropriate powers under the Highways Act 1980 to make the required legal orders for sections B, C (part), D and E, and also associated Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 to undertake the works on section A.
Ward Members and Political Party Views
Member Comments (Verbatim) Ian Gillies Having chaired the group, and had many discussions (Ward Member with those concerned, I am supportive of the progress and and the contents of the report. Conservative Group) Ann Reid, Lib I am happy with the recommendations in the report. I Dem Group would particularly support pursuing the G2 option in order to provide a grade separated crossing of the A1237 in the long term. Andy It is encouraging to see progress at long last on this D’Agorne, project. I support the observations of David Nunn in Green Group going for Option 1, with suitable gradients, bollards spaced far enough apart to allow for trailers and trikes such as those used by disabled riders. I do have concern about the cost and environmental impact of using tarmac rather entirely crushed stone especially if settlement is likely as can be seen on the Sustrans paths towards Terry’s and the Knavesmire. Tarmac surface 2.5m wide will create more run-off and be more attractive to abuse by motorcycles. It may be appropriate in high wear locations such as across bridges and bends but I am not convinced it should be applied to the whole route. I support the comments about extending the 30mph at the point where the route emerges near the village. Gateway treatment, rumble strips, white line edge markings etc can all help to visually narrow the road and help to ensure appropriate speed in the village and at the point where cyclists, horses and pedestrians may be crossing to access or leave the route.
Financial Programme Implications
Legal costs of Bridleway Orders to be met by CYC which should be somewhere in the order of £6K. Works to enable the Rufforth 30mph zone to be extended will also be met from CYC budgets, at present these costs are not known but should be somewhere in the order of £10K. The central NOEAC access road section may be able to be accommodated out of the LTP Capital Programme if there is slippage elsewhere with other schemes, this is being investigated with the Capital Programme Manager.
Level of Risk 1-3 Acceptable 16-20 Action Plan 4-8 Regular Monitoring 21-25 Registered as a corporate risk 9-15 Constant Monitoring
Internal Consultation
Development Control - The council’s Development Control section (Erik Matthews) was consulted on whether planning permission would be required for the various sections but advised it wouldn’t be for the sections which form part of the Yorwaste site as they would merely be satisfying the section 106 condition from a previous application to extend the landfill site. Insurance – Recommend that the route is taken as far away from the NOEAC site as possible and that signs are erected at various locations forewarning potential users that they will probably encounter gun shots on this section. Legal - The land on which the bridleway is to be created is part of a larger area of land held by Yorwaste on lease from ourselves. Yorwaste with our consent will undertake the construction of the bridleway, and subsequently dedicate it, to the extent they are able to under their leasehold ownership, to the highway authority. On expiry of their lease in 2029 or earlier, the land including the bridleway will revert back to the City Council. Sustainable Transport Service – this team have been leading on the scheme and have done a great deal of the administration to bring it to this point. The route helps contribute to several policies including improvements to rural accessibility, encouraging sustainable travel, potential improvements to road safety if cycle and walking trips are removed from sections of Wetherby Road Property Services - Have no objection to the proposed route of the public bridleway from points A to D on the plan. They note that Yorwaste are also considering converting the existing grazing field which the public bridleway will skirt (Section B), into a woodland area with pond which can be accessed by the public from the bridleway. They can provide a letter to Yorwaste, or a deed of variation to the lease if necessary to confirm that they have no objection to the bridleway and woodland area. Regarding the additional option for a permissive cycle and footpath along a flatter route (D2), again they have no objection in principle to this. They note that the owner of the adjacent shooting club has raised concerns regarding security of his premises if greater numbers of people are passing by, and also the potential conflict of cyclists and pedestrians with farm/delivery vehicles as the road is narrow, unlit and potholed etc. They will leave others to make the judgement on D2’s suitability for public use. Property Services contd. Again they can provide a letter of consent to Yorwaste for this section. The Pre-Order consultation letter does not say whether we intend to put the path alongside the existing road, or improve the road itself. Under the terms of the deed of easement under which they have access along the road, the shooting club are responsible for maintaining it with a contribution from CYC according to our use of it. If the permissive path leads to more use of the road then CYC’s maintenance responsibility will increase accordingly.
Implementation Status
Work to commence: Some sections of the route where there is only one option are due to be commenced shortly to make the most of the better construction conditions during the summer months. The Yorventure Grant funding stipulates that route sections B to F must be completed by May 2013 to ensure payment of the grant.
Wards Affected: • Rural York West
Report Author : Manager Responsible :
Andy Vose (Transport Planner) Ruth Stephenson , (Head of Sustainable Transport) City of York Council 9 St. Leonard’s Place York, YO1 7ET [email protected]
01904 551608
For further information please contact the author of the report
(c) Crown copyright and database rights 2012 Ordnance Survey 100020818 Proposed Rufforth to Knapton Bridleway - Annex A Map Notes: 0 310 620 930 1,240 1,550 Date: 15/08/2012 Author: Andy Vose Metres Start of PROW
Option A2 (path in highway verge)
Option A1 (field-edge path)
Option A3 (extended 30mph zone)
Strip protected for potential future shared use path as part of planning application for new houses
G
u
n
C
l
u
b
A
c
c
e
s
s
R
o
a d
Public footpath proposed to be converted to Bridleway status
Field Proposed to be Converted to Rufforth Woodland Paradise
WETHER BY ROAD Option C1 (route to use access road) Option C2 (dual track running parallel with road - half bitmac / half stone) Option D2 (use access road around corner)
Option D1 (ramp up and over the corner of the landscaped landfill site) Repairs required to bridleway bridge
E xisti ng tr ack r equir ing m inor surf acing impr ovem ents
M
o
o
r
L
a
n
e
( e
x
i s
t i n
g
b
r i d
l e
w
a
y
)
ts en m y ve a o ew pr dl im ri g b in ng ac ti rf xis su e or to in ed M ed ne Option G1 (existing at-grade crossing and link paths)
Option G2 (field edge path to existing underpass and bridleway link to village) ANNEX C Stage 1 RSA
Rufforth to Knapton Cycle Route
Stage 1 Safety Audit
Safety Audit Ref.: 12 / 005
CYC ‘CEDAR’ JOB CODE: DEC 07010022
The Safety Audit Team ( Leader first ) Eric Wragg IEng, FIHE, MCIHT, MSoRSA C.Y.C. Transport Projects Roger Webster C.Y.C. Transport Projects Steve Burrell MCIHT, MSoRSA North Yorkshire Police
Audit / Site visit(s) undertaken: Date: Thursday 28 th June 2012 Time: 1000 hours Weather: Fine
The safety audit was based on documents and drawings supplied by: Name: Andy Vose Tel: Team: CYC Sustainable 01904 – 551608 Transport Service
Document or Drawing Title Drawing Reference No.
HA 80 s 106 Agreement – Land at Harewood Whin Proposed Alternative Public Bridleway Route
Rufforth to Knapton Cycle Route Options Study
Injury Accident Records There have been 3 injury collisions on the B1224 between Rufforth and the entrance to Harewood Whin, all on bends, two losing control. Specialist Specification Photographs
L:\GROUP\Transport Planning\Cycling issues & projects \New Routes\Rufforth to Acomb\Rufforth to Knapton Cycle Route Stage 1 RSA.docx Safety Audit Ref.: 12 / 005
Safety Audit Team Statement
Rufforth to Knapton Cycle Route Stage 1 Safety Audit
We certify that we have examined the drawings and documents supplied with the sole purpose of identifying any features of the design which could be modified, included or removed, in order to improve the safety of the highway. Problems identified have been noted in this report together with suggested safety improvements which we recommend should be implemented.
We have not been involved with the design of the scheme:
Signed: Eric Wragg IEng, FIHE, MCIHT, MSoRSA SA Team Engineer Leader Date: City of York Council
Signed: Roger Webster SA Team Engineer Assistant Date: City of York Council
Signed: Steve Burrell SA Team Traffic Management Assistant Date: North Yorkshire Police
Although not part of the safety audit team some useful information on safety issues which could affect horses in particular was requested and received from Catriona Cook of the British Horse Society and Katie Ellis , Exercise Pathways Officer, Sport & Active Leisure Team, City of York Council. The safety audit team would like to thank them both for their input.
Please note that a ‘Priority’ rating is given against each Safety Audit recommendation. These are categorised according to the following numbered hierarchy:-
1 The matter requires urgent attention.
2 The matter requires serious consideration.
3 An issue of lesser priority which still requires attention.
The following Safety Audit Report includes a section headed Designer’s Response, which the Designer should complete, sign where required, and then return to the Safety Audit Team Leader . It is expected that the Designer’s Response will be completed and returned to the Safety Audit Team Leader within two weeks of receipt of the Safety Audit
______L:\GROUP\Transport Planning\Cycling issues & projects\New Routes\Rufforth to Acomb\Rufforth to Knapton Cycle Route Stage 1 RSA.docx Page 2 of 9 Version 1.5 - January 2006 GK-2 Draft - Printed on 06/09/2012 @ 15:26
Safety Audit Stage 1 and Designer’s Response
Rufforth to Knapton Cycle Route SA Ref : 12 / 005
Ref. Problem Recommendation Priority Designer’s Response
A General
A1 The report to the Rufforth to Acomb The surface should be suitable for 2 Although a limestone dust surfaced path would be Steering Group prepared by Sustrans equestrians, cyclists and pedestrians, cheaper to initially construct the ongoing maintenance recommends a high quality solution to the particularly where there is a gradient. liability and need to re -dress regularly will offset any two sections that do not currently exist as This could mean both a hardened savings. If there was a spilt limestone dust surfaced path passable routes; along the Yorwaste field surface for cyclists and a softer surface and a natural path, horse -riders would prefer to use the edge and the route over the landfill site and more suitable for horses situated next to limestone path to the natural path. The use of the also the existing public footpath from the each other. limestone path by horses would cause the path to B1224 to the gun club access road. A deteriorate at a faster rate. The provision of a split path cheaper option is suggested if funding is which is part bitmac for cyclists and walkers and a natural not available to provide a limestone dust surface for horse riders should require less long term surface. Although this surface is not maintenance and be more attractive to the appropriate considered a problem for horses it may be user groups , horse riders being averse to riding on bitmac for cyclists and pedestrians, particularly due to it being slippery surface for horses . over the landfill site. In this case they may elect to stay on the gun club access road.
L:\GROUP\Transport Planning\Cycling issues & projects\New Routes \Rufforth to Acomb\Rufforth to Knapton Cycle Route Stage 1 RSA.docx Rufforth to Knapton Cycle Route SA Ref : 12 / 005
Ref. Problem Recommendation Priority Designer’s Response
B B1224
B1 The Rufforth end of the proposed bridleway Option A4 in the report should be 1 Use of an on-road option for the missing section between is currently a public footpath and is discounted as using the carriageway is the existing PROW and the built-up edge of Rufforth accessed via the B1224, a single clearly likely to be hazardous to all users village although not an ideal solution may need to be carriageway road which carries the national of the facility. created in the short term to achieve a complete route speed limit. It is a busy road with fast whilst negotiations are ongoing with landowners for an off- mixed traffic and has a series of blind road alternative. Measures to reduce vehicle speeds on bends and there have been a number of the affected section will be investigated and implemented injury collisions along here associated with before the route is opened. Feasibility work on these the bends. Option A4 in the report suggests aspects will be commissioned as soon as possible. using the carriageway but it is not clear how cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders reach the beginning of the facility safely as there are no footways and only narrow grass verges. It is unlikely that horse riders in particular will use the facility if they have to ride on the carriageway to access the facility.
B2 An alternative option B6 suggests using An alternative route avoiding the 1 This option has been discounted as the conversion of the the access road to the Yorwaste site which carriageway should be sought from existing PROW to bridleway status is a much better connects with the gun club access road. Rufforth to the Yorwaste access road, alternative and should be achievable. This will involve users of the facility having otherwise this option should be to use an even greater length of the B1224 discounted. carriageway to access it as this is further away from Rufforth than the existing public footpath mentioned in A1.
______L:\GROUP\Transport Planning\Cycling issues & projects\New Routes\Rufforth to Acomb\Rufforth to Knapton Cycle Route Stage 1 RSA.docx Page 4 of 9 Version 1.5 - January 2006 GK-2 Draft - Printed on 06/09/2012 @ 15:26 Rufforth to Knapton Cycle Route SA Ref : 12 / 005
Ref. Problem Recommendation Priority Designer’s Response
B3 In order to facilitate the use of the If the 30 mph speed limit is extended 1 Engineering features such as the creation of a village carriageway the report suggests extending along the B1224 then there should be gateway will be necessary to encourage speed reduction. the 30 mph from Rufforth along the B1224 consideration given to speed reducing The fact that drivers have left the road in the recent past as far as the start of the bridleway. It is features to reinforce the change in indicates that 60mph probably isn’t an appropriate speed suggested in the report that this will help to speed limit. limit for the bends on the approach to the village anyway. reduce acceleration and braking; however in practice speeds are unlikely to reduce significantly without some other speed reducing features. Police enforcement of the speed limit will only take place if the Police support the extension of the limit which cannot be guaranteed. This proposal does not fit DfT guidelines for 30mph speed limits and would be likely to fail, without significant engineering features. This is an area which already suffers from low compliance into and through the village. The imposition of the 30mph speed limit further away from the village environs could well see poorer compliance, higher speeds in the village and a further reduction in safety. This could also leave a serious road safety issue for the CYC to fix.
______L:\GROUP\Transport Planning\Cycling issues & projects\New Routes\Rufforth to Acomb\Rufforth to Knapton Cycle Route Stage 1 RSA.docx Page 5 of 9 Version 1.5 - January 2006 GK-2 Draft - Printed on 06/09/2012 @ 15:26 Rufforth to Knapton Cycle Route SA Ref : 12 / 005
Ref. Problem Recommendation Priority Designer’s Response
C The Proposed Bridleway
C1 There is an existing track which runs past There should be a clear indication that 2 Signing will be used to notify path users that they should the gun club and is in reasonable condition. the private road running past the gun not use the gun club access road. It is proposed to put in However this has been discounted as part club is not part of the bridleway. a cattle grid as well so that no horse riders can try to use of the scheme for a number of reasons; the access road. there is an issue with the noise of guns firing which could startle passing horses and the issue with security as at the moment the track is private and used only by customers and staff of the gun club; if it were a public right of way then there is the possibility of more people having access to the club which could be a security issue. There is also the issue with safety as users of the track could wander into the gun club and distract the shooters. The team were able to enter the site without being challenged although we were met by the owner and no shooting was taking place at the time, but if the route were to run past the gun club then it is likely there would be objections from the gun club and the police.
C2 The alternative route over the landfill site The alternative route over the landfill site 2 The route shown is as far away from the gun club as can still runs very close to the gun club (around should be as far away from the gun club be achieved with 5% ramps and avoiding equipment 100 metres to the shooting range) so the as is practical, taking into account the which relates to the site’s former status as landfill. There noise from discharging weapons could still gradient which should not exceed 5% (1 is a belt of trees between the gun club and the proposed be an issue for horse riders. in 20) path which will help provide acoustic and visual screening once the trees are more established. There will be signs along the route warning users that they may encounter gun shots so they can make an informed decision as to whether they want to use the path or not.
______L:\GROUP\Transport Planning\Cycling issues & projects\New Routes\Rufforth to Acomb\Rufforth to Knapton Cycle Route Stage 1 RSA.docx Page 6 of 9 Version 1.5 - January 2006 GK-2 Draft - Printed on 06/09/2012 @ 15:26 Rufforth to Knapton Cycle Route SA Ref : 12 / 005
Ref. Problem Recommendation Priority Designer’s Response
C3 The report mentions that the route over the The facility over the landfill site should 2 There is a fence along the edge of the landfill site which landfill site will be fenced off from the live be fenced on both sides. will prevent users straying onto the gun club access road, side of the site, however there is no there is also a belt of trees. The land either side of the indication that it will be fenced off from the path is quite rough and boggy in places so the vast gun club side. It is possible that users of majority of users will stick to the path anyway. the facility could wander off the route and onto the gun club access road and the gun club.
______L:\GROUP\Transport Planning\Cycling issues & projects\New Routes\Rufforth to Acomb\Rufforth to Knapton Cycle Route Stage 1 RSA.docx Page 7 of 9 Version 1.5 - January 2006 GK-2 Draft - Printed on 06/09/2012 @ 15:26
Safety Audit Stage 1 and Designer’s Response
Rufforth to Knapton Cycle Route SA Ref : 12 / 005
Project Designer
I certify that I have considered the recommendations made by the safety audit team and have either agreed with the recommendations and proposed a course of action or where I have disagreed with any recommendation a reason for that disagreement has been given.
Signed: Andy Vose Project Designer ( Name Andy Vose Ext. 1608 Date 16/08/12
Line Manager
I have considered the designer’s responses to the recommendations of the safety audit team and am in agreement with them
Signed: Line Manager ( Name Ext. Date
Safety Audit Team Leader
I have seen the designer’s responses to the recommendations and am satisfied that this safety audit process has now been completed.
Designer’s Response Seen By (Safety Audit Team Leader) Date
L:\GROUP\Transport Planning\Cycling issues & projects\New Routes \Rufforth to Acomb\Rufforth to Knapton Cycle Route Stage 1 RSA.docx
Annex D
Bridleway Pre-Order Consultation Letter and Responses City Strategy 9 St Leonard’s Place YORK YO1 7ET
Tel: 01904 551481 Fax: 01904 551412 Email: [email protected] Ref: PPO Yorwaste BW Creation
Date: 20 July 2012
Dear
Proposed Bridleway Creation at Harewood Whin, Rufforth, York OS Grid Ref: 453759 451936
City of York Council is proposing to create a public bridleway from Point A to Point E as shown on the attached plan.
The proposed bridleway is part of an off-road route that will eventually link the village of Rufforth, with Knapton and beyond. The new route will also link in with the proposed new Park and Ride site at Upper Poppleton, York.
From Point A to Point B the proposed bridleway will be created over the current public footpath, known as Public Footpath, Rufforth No 6. Part of this section of the route runs through a field that is currently grazed by cattle, it is proposed to fence off this section of the path, this will also remove the need for the path furniture currently located along the route, although vehicle bollards will be installed to prevent unauthorised access. The width of this section of the path will be 5 metres, 2.5 metres of which will be tarmac surface.
From Point B to Point C the bridleway will continue along the tarmac access road. At Point C there are 2 options for the route.
Option 1 : The proposed bridleway, with crushed stone/natural surface, will veer off to the east to progress up (gradient 1:20) and over this section of reinstated tip site to Point D. This route will be for use by walkers, horse-riders and cyclists. It proposed that this route will have a natural and crushed stone surface, although there may be scope to construct a 2.5 metre wide tarmac path, with natural/crushed stone surface adjacent. The route will be fenced (post and rail) on its south and the south-eastern side to prevent access to the ‘live’ parts of the tip site. Accessible gas vent locations will be also be fenced to prevent unauthorised access. Bollards will be installed at either end of this section of the path to prevent vehicular access.
Option 2 : In addition to the above it is proposed to create a permissive path, for walkers and cyclists only. This route (broken black line on the attached plan) will continue in a northerly direction along the tarmac access road, and will then lead off in an easterly
Director: Bill Woolley direction along the northern boundary of the tip site to Point D. This path will run on the level and will have a tarmac and crushed stone surface.
Measures will be taken to prevent horse riders from using this route. The reason for wanting to prevent use by horses is that the route passes in close proximity to the North of England Activity Centre, where clay target shooting occurs and it is thought that sudden gun shot noise may startle horses.
From Point D the route will cross the Foss Dyke by way of a bridleway bridge which is already in place, but needs some remedial work to the approach and timber work, and proceed along the northern boundary of the tip site to link in with the existing bridleway on Moor Lane (Public Bridleway, Knapton No 1) at Point E.
I would be grateful to have your comments on the above proposal, by 10 th August 2012. I would especially appreciate your views regarding Option 1 and Option 2; ie whether you think Option 2 is necessary.
If you require further information regarding the above, then please do not hesitate to contact me at the above office.
Yours sincerely
Alison Newbould Rights of Way Officer Encs
Director: Bill Woolley
454000 bridle bridge D ± E
C 452000 452000 B
A
Proposed Bridleway Creation at Harewood Whin, Rufforth, York OS Grid Ref: 453759 451936
Scale1:5,000 Drawn By: Date: Public Rights of Way Reference: Drawing No. 9 St. Leonards Place, York, YO1 2ET Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Telephone: 01904 613161 Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. City of York Council 100020818
454000
Consultee Date Comments (verbatim)
USER GROUPS/LANDOWNERS ETC
Mark Bradshaw - 09/08/12 I would like to make the following comments:- Landowner with 1. Is there a need for this as it is not a link joining with any other routes, so once right of access at either Knapton or Rufforth they will have to 'retrace' their route? along the lane to adjacent land 2. I think it unnecessary to make such a wide tarmac track between points A and B, a crushed stone track is more than suitable for mountain bikes, walkers and horses. 3. A 2.5m tarmac track between points A and B would also encourage anti social use by motorbikes and also motor cars given the opportunity. 4.Option 2 would be unpractical as this route is for access traffic to North of England Activity gun club and my farm traffic and would impose unnecessary risk to all users. 5. I would not accept any liability of any 'spooking' of horses by farm machinery given the very close proximity of your proposed bridleway to farm access routes and farmland. 6. The new route should be clearly signed. 7. Preventative measures should be taken to avoid straying from the proposed route, ie separately fenced or cattle grids etc. Stephanie 06/08/12 Rufforth with Knapton Parish Council supports you proposal for Option 1. This Warden - Clerk to decision has been reached on the understanding that the owner of the gun club Rufforth and continues to raise objections to Option 2 with yourselves on the bases of Health Knapton Parish and Safety and Security which could derail the project and give rise to further Council protracted delays. We are keen that this long awaited PROW should proceed as quickly as possible with the funds secured from Yorwaste and Yorventure. Philip 03/08/12 Thank you for your letter & plan regarding the above proposed Bridleway Thompson – creation, you have requested my comments for the two "Options". I think to Director, North of point out a little history regarding the Bridleway/path may be of benefit to all England Activity concerned. The Bridleway was originally part of the 106 agreement between Centre Yorwaste (Tenants) and York City Council having being granted permission for more landfill. The deal was to supply a Bridleway/path for public use from Rufforth to Knapton, but the definitive route was never agreed back in 2003/4. I personally and a neighbour farmer Mark Bradshaw were never consulted regarding the route even though we are adjoining land owners! I highlighted a huge Health & Safety and security issue and strongly objected to the proposed route around my southern boundary. A committee was formed 2004/5 because of this and the representations were as follows
Nick Smith - ( Manager Harewood Whin )Yorwaste Jenny Hill - Planning officer Yorwaste Paula Dunn - Footpaths & bridleways Y.C.C Colin Valentine - Rufforth P.C Helen Butterworth - Rufforth P.C Stuart Cariss - Hessay P.C Paul Holloway - Transport Planning Y.C.C Barry Otley Philip Thompson - North of England Shooting & Activity Rufforth Janet Hopton - ( Chair person ) Cllr Rural West ( at the time )
After several minuted meetings discussing my concerns for NO ROUTE TO PASS by my entrance & boundary, it was, quote,"All agreed that an alternative route should be sought", possibly over Harewood Whin at a later date.
Option 2 clearly states that it intends to pass around my entrance & boundary with pedestrians & cyclists, this contravenes the meetings and minutes, and I would like to know who has had subsequent meetings overturning the decision? Also having Option 2 as well as Option 1 would create two lots of expense in maintenance !
Option 1 is my choice route but with all three (pedestrian's, horses, cyclists) using it, but I must emphasise some very serious issues to be considered by Y.C.C before a route is decided please.
In 1988 the Shooting Ground was granted permission for a right of way along Tinker Lane to the Ground by North York's County Council and now York City Council who are the land owners. The track was originally a gravel surface and was given a hard surface of Tarmac paid for by the Shooting Ground! The permission was given for a single vehicle road to the shooting ground and is also used by Yorkshire Water (sewage works)and the local farmers for access to land.in 1990 a footpath was constructed by Yorwaste along side the road so it could merge back onto the path to Rufforth, this was I emphasise separate not on my road . The recommended standard width of a Bridleway/path is 5m wide 2.5m gravel and 2.5m tarmac. The route from Rufforth to the point "Drain" on the map is 5m wide and then from the "Drain" to point B, through to point C on the map it is intended to use my access road. I feel this is ludicrous as my road is 4m wide and 3.5m wide up to point C, how can this be safe for the public?
The shooting ground can expect every week wed's up to 100 car movements 8.30am - 5.30pm, Sat's 100-200 car movements 8.30am- 6.00pm, Sun's up to 150 car movements 8.30am - 3.00pm, the remaining days of the week are sporadic movements up to approx 10-20 cars per day 9.00am - 5.00pm.
The dual use of my road will have disastrous consequences for the public & customers as there is a 90 degree blind corner between point "drain" & C, my customers have enjoyed free access since 1988 and they have never had to negotiate mothers & toddlers, prams & bikes, dogs & horses on the same road! I personally am a qualified Safety Officer for my business and I cannot agree to the dual use on the basis it is too dangerous for all concerned. I don't think public safety should be compromised because of money!
My proposal is to adopt Option 1 for all three users (pedestrians/ramblers, cyclists, horses) and from point "Drain" on the map to have a cattle grid to usher all concerned onto a new fenced gravel & tarmac track 4 - 5m wide to run along side my road through to point C where it then goes over the tip to point D. The cattle grid will slow down cars and the entrance/exit point at the "Drain" will give safe visibility splays both left & right for the public to cross the road.
Which ever route is implemented by Y.C.C I would request a copy of all the risk assessments regarding the Health & Safety issues please and a letter confirming that myself personally and my business are indemnified from any Public Liability claims. I think using the road for vehicles only is very straight forward, when the public and horses are introduced ,it is a totally different situation!
One point that may be of interest to the Y.C.C, back in 1990 Yorwaste had plans drawn up to move the road at point B to C as it was deemed too narrow for farm machinery & lorries and it was intended to move the road further into their site to enable the construction of a new road 5m wide and with 45 degree bend instead of the 90 degree we have now, and the old road was to be landscaped and trees planted to continue the restoration from phase 1 to screen Rufforth from the tip. This was never implemented and no one has complained but how can anyone justify adding pedestrians children dogs & Horses and cyclists as well? I still maintain public safety should not be compromised because of money, and it's not fare on my established business and customers to encumber us with this, again because of money
Keith Wighton - 31/07/12 We have no objections to make, but would comment as follows: Harrogate Please ensure vehicle bollards have sufficient width between them for a horse to Bridleways pass safely, that they are preferably of a man made material with no sharp Association edges and of a sufficient height for a horse to readily see then, if panicked.
Please ensure the tarmac width of 2.5 metres is to one side to leave the other 2.5 metres wholly available for riders to use. It is no good if the tarmac strip is down the middle with the two narrower widths to each side.
On the section where the route is to be post and rail, the rails need to be on the side(s) where the riders will be rather than the posts. If the other way round, riders could catch their legs on the posts and be dragged off. Option 1 - We would prefer a natural crushed stone surface overall rather than any tarmac.
Option 2 - Not necessary in our opinion.
With regard to the bridleway bridge refurbishment, although I have not seen this, please ensure it is of sufficient width ( 5 feet at least), has parapets/barriers of a sufficient height and kick boards if possible. Catriona Cook - 29/07/12 The BHS supports the bridleway creation and thanks you for all the work that Local British has gone in to it. We also agree with the comments made by the BBT re Horse Society surfacing etc. Guy Widdowson - 26/07/12 Following our conversation earlier today about the creation of this bridleway, I Yorwaste Ltd confirm Yorwaste has no objection to the proposal. David Nunns - 10/08/12 I confirm we have no objection in principle to the upgrading and widening of Local Ramblers Rufforth FP.6 in the manner you are proposing.
As the proposed maximum gradient on your proposed route C-D is 1 in 20, we do not see the necessity for Option 2, especially as we do not believe the owner of the North of England Clay Target Centre is willing to support such a permissive path so close to his Centre.
The current path through the edge of the wood in the vicinity of Grid Ref. SE 5356 5178 can be very wet and appropriate drainage work would need to be undertaken. We query whether the NE end of FP.6, from where the path meets the lane (SE 5366 5185), could utilise the roadside verge for horse riders.
One recalls that the original Tinker Lane, set out in the 1794 Rufforth Enclosure Award was 24’ wide.
Similar considerations apply to your section B – C.
Whilst that part of the route near to C lies adjacent to an active part of the site, that part nearer D appears to lie over a reinstated section of the site.
We would prefer your section C – D to be as high up the hill as possible, subject to a maximum gradient of 1 in 20, to give some views over the surrounding area.
Although outside this proposal, we would like to see eventual public access to the hilltop in this area, as promised in the 1980’s.
It may be preferable for your point D to be moved further along the track (SE 5415 5221) nearer to the bridle bridge.
Has point D been chosen due to a change of ownership at that point?
The path over the 1st restored block is not shown on your map, but if one looks at the gas vents over this block, we understand that the land has already dropped and exposed greater lengths of piping.
We therefore support the use of crushed stone to Sustrans Standards for the walkers / cyclists half of this section (C – D), as it is likely that the ground levels over this part of the restored block will fall over the years perhaps resulting in more rapid deterioration of bit-mac than crushed stone.
The length from the Foss to Knapton BW.1 will need some surface improvement to bring it up to Sustrans Standards, as it is seems to be rough hard-core at present.
The 2 blocks on the west side of the Bridle Bridge would need moving to allow adequate space for tricycles, similarly for the spacing of any bollards along the route.
Lady Elizabeth 24/07/12 The Byways and Bridleways Trust supports the creation of a public bridleway at Kirk – Trustee Harewood Whin (options 1 and 2). I have three further comments: Byway & 1. It is important that the bollards to prevent vehicle access are specified in Bridleway Trust the Order, as they are limitations on the public right to the full width. 2. 2. Surfacing; tarmac is not horse friendly and bridleways normally afford relief from the hard roads. Crushed stone is acceptable provided that the surface is fine enough. Therefore from point A to point B, the tarmac part of the surface should be on one side, not down the middle, so as to allow a reasonable width of stone surface for the horses. From point C to point D, if option 2 is adopted, that makes it possible to be kinder still to the horses, and perhaps provide for the greater part of its width a softer surface (the British Horse Society can advise), leaving a narrow strip at one side for hard surface. 3. I concur with your reasoning about sudden gunshot noises. Mr Colin 23/07/12 I have considered the Pre-Order Consulation for the Bridleway from Rufforth and Valentine - around Harewood Whin, and think that the Option 2 is highly desirable, and is Resident likely to see much higher useage of the Bridleway. UTILITIES KCOM 27/07/12 No buried plant or equipment in the identified area. Cable & Wireless 02/08/12 No objection. NEDL 03/08/12 Plans show apparatus in the location.