Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2007 ­ 2012 Engaging with the community As part of the consultation process for the Rights of Way Improvement Plan the County Council ran workshops for families to come along to share their experiences of the local countryside.

The Authority ran a children’s colouring competition throughout the consultation period, giving children the chance to win days out at Nottinghamshire attractions such as White Post Farm for the best countryside posters. Nottinghamshire Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2007­2012 Overall Winning poster design Name: Lucy Marriott Town: Warsop

Engaging the Community Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2007 – 2012

Published November 2007 N o t t i n g h a m s h i r e

R i g h t s

o f

The plan is also available as a CD­ROM and can be downloaded from W

www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk a y

I m

For further information and copies please contact: p r o v e

Communities Department, Countryside Access m

Nottinghamshire County Council e n t

Trent Bridge House P l

Fox Road a n

West Bridgford 2

Nottingham 0 0

NG2 6BJ 7 ­ 2 0 1

Or e­mail [email protected] 2

This publication can be made available in alternative formats and languages to ensure it is fully accessible. Foreword

I am delighted to introduce you to the very first Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) for Nottinghamshire. This is a new duty for us under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

With no coastline or mountains to visit, I see public rights of way in this county as the key to informal countryside recreation providing the gateway to walking, cycling, horse riding, mountain biking, bird watching and so much more. There are nearly 2700 km of paths for both residents and visitors to enjoy providing access to some of Nottinghamshire’s best countryside and heritage.

However, our rights of way network provides so much more than a walk in the countryside. Our towns and villages have local paths and these often extend from one settlement to another. With sustainability and health both high on local and national agendas, our paths are increasingly being used as routes to school, work and the shops. ‘Green exercise’ is the new jargon.

We discuss this new thinking on rights of way in the Plan, but also address the increasing demands for a path network that is legally defined and well maintained. We need to look for value for money in all the work that we do. This Statutory plan will therefore, for the first time, offer policy statements and address priorities.

We have consulted widely with many key organisations and individuals, both during the production of the Plan and the draft consultation process. I would like thank all those who gave their time and expertise towards the development of Nottinghamshire Rights of Way Improvement Plan. i Over the next five years, we will strive to implement the key actions of this Improvement Plan by identifying further funding and resources to make Nottinghamshire’s rights of way network more accessible and enjoyable for residents and visitors.

Thank you re nghamsh Nott i i i ghts R of Way Improvement P lan Councillor Stella Smedley

2007­2012 Cabinet Member for Environment Nottinghamshire County Council

Foreword Executive Summary ii Why are we doing it?

Nottinghamshire County Council is required under section 60 of the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000, to prepare and publish a Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) by November

2007. In summary the ROWIP must contain the following: Nottinghamshire

� An assessment of the extent to which local rights of way meet the present and likely future needs of the public

� an assessment of the opportunities provided by local rights of way for exercise and other forms of open­air recreation and enjoyment of the authority's area Rights � an assessment of the accessibility of local rights of way to blind and partially sighted people and others with mobility problems of Way � a Statement of Action. This will outline strategic actions the authority proposes to take for the

management of rights of way, and for securing improvements to the network. Improvement

What does it cover?

This is a new duty for Highway Authorities and takes forward the principles of the Countryside Commission’s Milestones Initiative aiming to get the existing, historic public rights of way network into a good and useable condition. Plan 2007­2012 However, the Statutory Guidance also states that the Plan itself should not contain information on site specific assessments but draw broader, general conclusions which will be the focus of a business plan for specific delivery on the ground.

Though undoubtedly a major element of access to the countryside, the local rights of way network alone does not show the full picture. There are many other routes that are used by the general public for informal countryside access that are not legally recorded as definitive public rights of way. This is recognised in the Statutory Guidance and, as a result, this ROWIP also considers the wider network of

Executive Summary permissive routes, public open spaces and countryside sites.

Nottinghamshire’s countryside access vision

Rights of way and countryside access have a key role in helping deliver and complement the Council’s key priorities in ‘All Together Better’. This ROWIP will serve as the over­arching focus for the protection, creation and enhancement of countryside access in Nottinghamshire.

The Authority will develop and manage this countryside network for all, enabling opportunities for the widest possible type and number of users contributing to Nottinghamshire’s economy, health, social well­being and environment.

To realise this vision the Authority needs to focus on achieving the following aims through the ROWIP:

1. To protect, maintain and seek to enhance the network for all lawful users 2. To improve access to the network for all, including those with visual impairment and mobility problems, by adopting the principle of the least restrictive option 3. To improve the safety and connectivity of the metalled road network with the rights of way network 4. To increase awareness of accessing the countryside and the understanding of the wider benefits arising from its use, such as leading an active and healthy lifestyle, and making a positive contribution to the local economy iii 5. To provide a revised and updated definitive map and statement, with particular reference to the resolution of map anomalies and support for the ‘Lost Ways’ project 6. To enhance and increase community involvement in managing and improving the network.

What have we done?

Nottinghamshire In undertaking the statutory assessments the County Council has considered national, regional and local research, and best practices from other authorities. National research by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Countryside Agency provided an overview but the Authority quickly established the need for local quantitative and qualitative data on rights of way issues. This data has been supplemented by the County Council’s own experience in managing the public rights of way network. The knowledge and experience of Nottinghamshire’s Local Access Forum members has also proved to be an invaluable contribution to this Plan. Rights

The draft Plan was subject to a 12­week public consultation from February to May 2007. Over 200

of comments were received from 65 individual responses. A summary of the responses are available to

Way view on www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk . The responses were considered by County Council officers and discussed with the Local Access Forum during July and August 2007. The draft Plan was amended Improvement accordingly. The ROWIP was formally adopted by the County Council at its meeting on 1st November 2007.

What did we find?

Plan The public consultation process showed that the public rights of way network (PROW) in this county is viewed primarily as a recreational resource but highlighted how important the network is in accessing

2007­2012 essential services. The most popular activities are cited as walking and cycling, although horse riding is a popular activity in Nottinghamshire, arguably higher than the national average.

The assessments suggest there is particular demand for circular walks and rides close to where people live. Where people do travel further a field the most popular locations are the honeypot areas of Sherwood Forest and Clumber Park.

Walkers, riders and cyclists are classified as vulnerable road users and their primary requirement is to be

Executive Summar y in a ‘safe’ and traffic free environment. Where the rights of way network meets the road network PROW users usually have to cross at road level with no traffic light controls or refuges, and in rural areas footways and managed verges are sporadic.

Some of the key problems faced by users and land managers of the rights of way network include:

� Poor waymarking and signage – can cause problems with identifying the status and following the correct line of a public right of way � Obstructions – non reinstatement of cross­field paths after ploughing, non removal of crops, overgrown vegetation etc are all deterrents to usage � Difficulty in negotiating structures – many stiles and gates are in states of disrepair and gates have latches that are difficult to open � Poor connectivity of the network – many potential circular routes involve crossing busy roads or a high percentage of road walking / riding � Lack of off­road provision for cyclists and equestrians – limits the possibility of identifying circular rides without the need for riding along busy roads � Litter, control of dogs and dog fouling – lack of respect for the countryside and public rights of way network causes concern for landowners and deters users.

Key issues

There are various pressures and changes which contribute in trying to manage a modern day rights of way network, for example, changes to farming practices, increased residential and business iv development, an increasing number of definitive paths and an increasing population. Because of these pressures there is a need to manage the existing network more efficiently, pro­actively and objectively. The County Council needs to prioritise its limited resources and work more strategically to provide long term improvements.

At the heart of the document is the desire to provide ‘access for all’. The assessments found a number Nottinghamshire of barriers, both perceptual and physical to people with disabilities. Some of these barriers are due to the geology and topography of the county and are very difficult to remove. However, there are a number of local, ‘simple’ tasks which can be achieved, such as replacing stiles with kissing gates. Any ‘accessibility’ improvements to the network equates to better access for everyone regardless of their needs. Rights The ROWIP highlights the high number of applications for definitive map modification orders (DMMO) i.e. adding new routes or recording higher rights over paths already included in the definitive map and statement. Also the CROW Act 2000 sets a deadline of 1st January 2026 for applicants to claim rights of of way created before 1949 using documentary evidence (this includes all applications submitted as a Way result of the Lost Ways project1). Therefore this cut­off date means the number of DMMO applications is going to grow significantly. Additionally within the definitive map there are an estimated 700 ‘map Improvement anomalies' to be resolved. The ROWIP sets out procedures to deal with the high number of applications and discusses the need for further resources.

Rights of way often are affected by planning and development. It has been found that planners and developers do not always fully consult or take into consideration the needs of all PROW users. Often Plan users end up with a token number of badly designed paths when development takes place. The Plan points to the need for Access for All, ‘designing out’ crime and nuisance and providing an attractive 2007­2012 path, certainly not any less convenient than the original line of the path.

There are a number of sites and routes across the county offering informal recreational opportunities over and above the definitive rights of way network. The type of access varies from large ‘Open Access’ sites designated as Open Country (CROW Act 2000) to small routes owned by private landowners.

1 The CROW Act 2000 set a deadline of 1st January 2026 to register forgotten ‘historic’ rights of way on the definitive map. By historic it means those that were in existence before 1949. The Government gave the job of co­ordinating this work to the Countryside Agency (now Natural England).

Executive Summary Permissive routes can be beneficial to all users in providing missing links in the PROW network, offering recreation in the County’s large forestry areas for families and groups and providing safe routes away from the busy road network. However, the Plan found that there is a general lack of information as to where these permissive routes and sites are.

The wider community plays an important role in helping the County Council achieve its aims and objectives in managing Nottinghamshire’s rights of way network. The Authority works with a number of organisations and individuals on the Parish Partnership Scheme, Farm Partnership Scheme and general voluntary tasks improving rights of way. Benefits are wide ranging and it is an effective way of assisting both the Council with its responsibilities and helping farmers and landowners with theirs.

Clearly rights of way maintenance and an up­to­date definitive map are fundamental in ‘keeping paths open and available for the public to enjoy’. Nevertheless, the Plan recognises that the promotion of the network is essential in highlighting the opportunities, increasing usage and maximising the potential of rights of way for both recreational and utility type journeys.

Policy and procedures

One of the most important considerations in developing the ROWIP for Nottinghamshire is to ensure that it addresses key themes and complements the aims and objectives of existing county plans and strategies. As with other local level strategies, the aims and objectives of the ROWIP have been designed to assist delivery of core national and regional policies identified in Planning Policy Guidance and Regional Spatial Strategy. The ROWIP complements Nottinghamshire’s Local Transport Plans v (LTPs) and it is the intention to fully integrate the ROWIP with the LTP by 2011.

The preparation of the ROWIP has also offered an opportunity for the Authority to prepare and present a summary of the key rights of way issues taking into account both established and new legislation and working practices. These are supplemented by a series of policies relating to network improvement, community and partnership working, definitive map and planning and development. They will guide

Nottinghamshire the Authority, land managers and all stakeholders in the maintenance and management of public rights of way in the county.

What happens next?

Under the CROW Act 2000, the Authority has a statutory duty to prepare and publish a Rights of Way Improvement Plan, but not to implement it. Accordingly, no additional funds have as yet been Rights allocated to Highway Authorities for this purpose.

of The Statutory Guidance makes reference to the concept that the ROWIP will become a distinct chapter

Way of the Local Transport Plan. The aims, objectives and actions of the ROWIP will contribute to those of the LTP and will form the basis of the work funded through the LTP's Integrated Transport Measures

Improvement programme.

The Statement of Action will become critical in business planning to which specific improvement works can be attached.

Plan The County Council will report progress through annual progress reports and work with the Nottinghamshire Local Access Forum in identifying key issues and priorities. 2007­2012 The actions in the Plan are ambitious and challenging but with the backing of national and local government, key organisations and agencies, land managers and the general public they are attainable. Many of the actions are dependent on further resources and funding. However, by encompassing the ethos of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan, by providing best value, many of these actions are achievable.

Executive Summary Contents vi

Page

List of tables and charts ix Glossary x Nottinghamshire 1 Introduction 1 1.2 Types of public right of way 1 1.3 Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2 1.4 ROWIP legislation 3 1.5 Statutory role 3 1.6 Local Access Forum 3 Rights 1.7 Previous policies and documents 4 1.8 Milestones 4

1.9 Greenwood and Sherwood Access Studies 4 of

1.10 Pilot Greenwood area Rights of Way Improvement Plan 4 Way 1.11 Nottinghamshire’s vision and objectives 5 1.12 Nottinghamshire’s countryside access vision 5 Improvement 1.13 Aims 5 1.14 Research and consultation 6

2 Scene setting 7

2.1 The Plan Area – Nottinghamshire 7 Plan 2.2 Coalfields 9

2.3 Farming 9 2007­2012 2.4 Forestry and heathland 9 2.5 Natural and man­made barriers 9 2.6 Nottinghamshire’s landscape and geology 10

3 Policy Context 11 3.2 National 12 3.3 Regional 13 3.4 Local 13

Contents 3.5 Nottinghamshire’s Community Strategy 13 3.6 Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Joint Structure Plan 15 3.7 Local Transport Plans for Greater Nottingham and 16 North Nottinghamshire 3.8 Nottinghamshire Minerals and Waste Development 17 Framework 3.9 Local Development Framework 18 3.10 Other Initiatives and Strategies 18

4 Assessment of Countryside users and their needs 19 4.1 Walkers 19 4.2 Dog walking 21 4.3 Horse Riding 22 4.4 Carriage Driving 26 4.5 Cycling 26 4.6 Motor Vehicles in the Countryside 29 4.7 Illegal motor vehicle use 32 4.8 Access for All 32 4.9 Physical barriers 34 4.10 An inclusive network 35 4.11 Farmers and land managers 35 4.12 Summary of countryside users key needs 37 vii 5 Assessment of the network 39 5.1 The County Network 39 5.2 Making the Assessment 44 5.3 Local Consultation 46 5.4 Current dissatisfaction 47 5.5 Analysis of current use in the assessment areas 47

Nottinghamshire 5.6 Results and analysis of the assessments 48 5.7 Key findings from the assessments 49 5.8 Summary of key findings from assessments 50 5.9 Comparison with Nottinghamshire’s actual 2006 BVPI 52 figures 5.10 General findings from the network assessments 53 5.11 Accessibility audit in Warsop 54 Rights 5.12 Wider access 56 5.13 Key findings for wider access 60

of 5.14 Quiet Lanes 60 Way 6 Policies and Procedures 63

Improvement 6.2 Maintenance and enforcement 63 6.3 Signposting 64 6.4 Waymarking 64 6.5 Gates, stiles and barriers 65 6.6 Surfacing 66

Plan 6.7 Ploughing and cropping 67 6.8 Bridges 68

2007­2012 6.9 Enforcement to remove obstructions and 69 other nuisances 6.10 Vegetation encroachment 69 6.11 Community and partnership working 69 6.12 Definitive Map and Statement 71 6.13 Public path orders 74 6.14 Right to apply 75 6.15 Planning and development 75 6.16 Dedication and creation agreements 76

Contents 6.17 Widths of new routes 77 6.18 Extinguishment 77 6.19 Gating orders 77 6.20 Looking for opportunities 78 6.21 Open Access 82 6.22 Publicity and promotions 84

7 Statement of action 87 7.1 Introduction 87 7.2 Layout 88 7.3 Statement of Action tables 89

Appendices 101 Appendix 1 101 Appendix 2 102 Appendix 3 104 Appendix 4 105 Appendix 5 106

Acknowledgements 110

viii Nottinghamshire Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2007­2012

Contents Tables page Table 1 PROW classifications and waymarks 1 Table 2 ROWIP contribution to Community Strategy Objectives 14 Table 3 ROWIP contribution to LTP2 objectives 16 Table 4 Surfacing needs of different user groups 25 Table 5 PROW network breakdown by percentage and length 40 Table 6 Socio­economic data for Elston, Gringley, Sutton Bonington and Warsop areas 46 Table 7 Total length of PROW surveyed in each grid square 48 Table 8 BVPI results for network assessments 49 Table 9 Network provision, problems found, average distance per problem and average number of faults per failed route in each area of the Network Assessment. 51 Table 10 Average distances for routes that passed and failed in rural areas 51 Table 11 Average distances for routes that passed and failed in urban and semi urban areas 52

Charts page Chart 1 How the ROWIP relates to existing legislation and policy 11 ix Chart 2 PROW in Nottinghamshire by percentage of network 42 Chart 3 PROW in Nottinghamshire percentage by length of path 42 Chart 4 Nottinghamshire BVPI scores 2002­2007 52

Nottinghamshire Maps page Map 1 Nottinghamshire regional context and district boundaries 8 Map 2 Stable and livery distribution across the county 24 Map 3 Byways in Nottinghamshire 31 Map 4 Density of PROW within Nottinghamshire 41 Map 5 Density of PROW in Nottinghamshire available to Rights equestrians and cyclists 43 Map 6 Network assessment area overview 45 of Map 7 Church Warsop area highlighting ease of potential Way accessibility improvements 55

Improvement Map 8 Market Warsop area highlighting ease of potential accessibility improvements 55 Map 9 Rights of way network south of Newark highlighting poor connectivity 58 Map 10 Rights of way network south of Newark overlaid with

Plan permissive access routes, highlighting how permissive access can improve connectivity of the existing rights

2007­2012 of way network 59 Map 11 Potential access routes for Sherwood Living Legends lottery bid 81 Map 12 Open Access land in Nottinghamshire 83

List of tables, charts and maps Access for all Access for all is an aspiration term used to describe public access that is suitable for all members of society in its widest sense. For example, by replacing a stile with a kissing gate greatly improves the experience for people with limited mobility or by providing information in a format which suits an individual’s particular need. BHS British Horse Society. National charity representing needs and interests of horse riders. A statutory consultee on DMMOs and PPOs. Bridleway A public right of way for walkers, users of mobility vehicles and those on horseback or leading a horse. Cyclists also have a right of way, but must give way to walkers and horse riders. A bridleway can run along a way where certain individuals have a right to drive other vehicles, such as a farm access drive. BVPI 178 Best Value Performance Indicator 178. A national performance indicator used to measure the ‘ease of use’ of public rights of way. Byway / Byway Highway with vehicular rights, mainly used by walkers, riders and cyclists. Open to All Traffic / BOAT CLA Country Land and Business Association, organisation safeguarding the interests of those responsible for land, property and business throughout rural England and Wales. CoAg Countryside Agency, now part of Natural England x Conservation Walks Permissive walks/rides provided by landowners under the Environmental Stewardship Scheme, operated by Defra. CROW Act Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

CSS County Surveyors Society, represents local authority chief officers with Nottinghamshire responsibility for Strategic Planning, Transportation, the Environment, Waste Management and Economic Development. CTC Cyclists’ Touring Club. National organisation representing the needs of cyclists and working towards better cycling provision. A statutory consultee on DMMOs and PPOs. Rights DDA Disability Discrimination Act 1995/2005

Definitive map The legal record of public rights of way, detailing their position and status. of

and statement Way Defra Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Improvement DMMO Definitive map modification order modifies or reclassifies PROW’s already recorded on the definitive map or legally records previously unrecorded public rights.

Entec Consultancy commissioned to research current and future demand associated Plan with public rights of way, and to develop methods of assessment for utilisation

by highways authorities. 2007­2012 Footpath A public right of way on foot only, this includes use by people in wheelchairs and mobility scooters where physical conditions allow. Footway Surfaced roadside pavement. GLASS Green Lane Association, national user group dedicated to researching and protecting the UK's ancient vehicular rights of way and promoting sensible driving in the countryside.

Glossary of terms Green Lane A descriptive term for a way. Normally used when the way is bounded by hedges or stone walls and the surface is not, or does not appear to be, metalled or otherwise surfaced. Greenway Recreational route open to the public which may not be a public right of way. Usually available to walkers, cyclists and horse riders. No motor vehicular rights of access. Sometimes known as Multi­user routes / trails. Highway Authority Public body responsible for maintenance of all highways, usually the Local Authority. IPROW Institute of Public Rights of Way Management, professional body representing the interests of individuals involved in the management of public rights of way in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. LAF Local Access Forum, Statutory body established under the CROW Act 2000 to provide strategic advice to safeguard the character, and improve access to and enjoyment of the countryside. A statutory consultee on the ROWIP. LDF Local Development Framework, a folder of local development documents that outlines how planning will be managed in the area. LEMO Legal event modification order is an event which is used to effect a change on the definitive map and statement such as diversions, creations, side road orders but not DMMOs. xi List of Streets A record kept by the Highway Authority of all routes in their area which are publicly maintainable. Lost Ways The CROW Act 2000 set a deadline of 1st January 2026 to register forgotten 'historic' rights of way on the definitive map. By historic it means those that were in existence before 1949. The government gave the job of co­ordinating this Nottinghamshire work to the Countryside Agency. LPA Local Planning Authority, usually the District or Borough Council. LTP Local Transport Plan. Strategic plan covering highways and transport within Nottinghamshire.

Rights Metalled road A road with a hard surface of bitumen or tar (sometimes known as tarmac road). The term is normally used in reference to the publicly maintained ‘road’ network i.e. A, B, C and surfaced unclassified roads. of

Way Multi­user Recreational route open to the public which may not be a public right of way. route / trail Usually available to walkers, cyclists and horse riders. No motor vehicular rights

Improvement of access. Sometimes known as Greenways. Natural England Formed when Countryside Agency, English Nature and Rural Development Service came together in 2006. NCC Nottinghamshire County Council Plan NCN National Cycle Network, a network of safe and attractive routes to cycle,

2007­2012 running throughout the UK. NERC Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. NFU National Farmers Union. Represents farmers and growers in England and Wales. Open Access Land opened as part of the CROW Act 2000, giving a right of access on foot. OS Ordnance Survey. The national mapping agency of Great Britain.

Glossary of terms P3 Parish Paths Partnership Scheme. National partnership scheme between Highway Authorities and local parish councils whereby parishes maintain, enhance and publicise their local rights of way network through funding from the Highway Authority. Pedals Local campaigning organisation representing the needs of cyclists and working towards better cycling provision. Permissive path Path with no definitive access rights, but made available to the public by the landowner on a permissive basis. Type of use may vary dependent upon permission given. PCT Primary Care Trust. NHS local care trust. Poaching Surface damage due to trampling by cattle, usually found around supplementary feeders, gates and stiles. PPO Public path order. The legal process to create, divert or extinguish a footpath or bridleway. Private right Private right of access, not a public right of access. In some circumstances there maybe a private right for vehicles and public footpath or bridleway rights on the same line. PROW Public Right of Way. Quiet Lanes Rural routes carrying light levels of vehicular traffic in rural areas that can be xii used to link off­road routes. RA Ramblers Association. National charity working for walkers. A statutory consultee for DMMOs and PPOs.

Restricted Byway A new classification of public right of way, replacing RUPPs. Access rights for Nottinghamshire walkers, cyclists, horse riders and carriage drivers. No right of access for mechanically propelled vehicles. Rural Payments An executive agency of Defra responsible for making Government payments to Agency /RPA farmers through the single payment scheme. RUPP Road Used as a Public Path. A classification still used on the definitive map but gradually being phased out. Now reclassified by the CROW Act 2000 as Rights Restricted byway.

Rural Rides Nottinghamshire County Council annual run programme of guided cycle rides. of Way Side Roads Order A statutory order to close or change junction arrangements between a side road and a main road, usually as part of a road building or improvement scheme. Improvement SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest, a statutory conservation designation denoting a protected area in the United Kingdom Sustrans A charity working on practical projects to help reduce motor traffic, including the National Cycle Network and Safe Routes to Schools. Plan

Toll Rides Permissive horse­riding route whereby users pay the landowner a fee in return 2007­2012 for the provision of off road riding opportunities on private land. TRF Trail Riders Fellowship. National organisation representing trail bike riders. A statutory consultee for DMMOs and PPOs. UCR Unclassified County Road. A road recorded (on the List of Streets) by the Highway Authority as 'maintainable at public expense', and normally having vehicular rights. May also be a definitive public right of way (e.g. Byway).

Glossary of terms 1. Introduction 1

1.1.1 Nottinghamshire has an extensive network of public rights of way (PROW), nearly 2700 km of footpaths, bridleways and byways. Wider countryside access is provided through Open Access, country parks and permissive routes. The opportunities for outdoor recreation and wider utility access are numerous; for example, through walking, horse riding and cycling. By the very nature of PROW, the majority of this access is in an attractive traffic free environment, providing N o t

a welcome relief from the road network. t i n g h

1.1.2 The paths in this county are geographically spread and vary in type, status and surface. They a are provided in both rural and urban settings and importantly they also link these two m s h

environments together. Different classes of PROW are available for different classes of user, i r e

with all routes available to pedestrians. The surface of a path can also indicate the type and R i

level of use. g h t s

1.1.3 The PROW network offers excellent travel opportunities and complements the wider transport o f

network. Many paths, urban and rural, provide communities with links to the transport network W a

enabling access to essential services and facilities, public transport and recreation. They y

I

provide a viable and valuable alternative to the car for short journeys and are a particular asset m

in encouraging social inclusion. p r o v e

1.2 Types of public right of way m e

Table 1 – PROW classifications and markings n t

Status Used by Waymark used P l a

Public Footpath Walkers (inc. push chairs, n

2

wheelchairs, mobility scooters) 0 0 7

Public Bridleway Walkers, horse riders and cyclists ­ 2 0 1 2

Restricted Byway * Walkers, horse riders. cyclists and carriage drivers Byway Open to all Traffic Walkers, horse riders. cyclists, carriage drivers and road legal motorised vehicles

* A new classification of public right of way introduced by the CROW Act 2000, replacing Roads Used as Public Paths. No right of access for mechanically propelled vehicles. Introduction Chapter 1 1.2.1 Rights of way are both a significant part of our heritage and a major recreational resource. It is only in relatively recent times that the true value of public rights of way has been recognised by Central Government and the population at large. This is reflected historically (pre­war) through the lack of legal protection and under funding. Only recently (2002), through the well­ publicised foot and mouth outbreak, did the true value of countryside access to the rural economy become known.

1.2.2 The highway network we have today has developed over hundreds of years with the Fosse Way crossing the county dating back to Roman times. Historically the network was used locally for travelling between settlements, markets, employment and access to land. This network was used by those walking, riding or on horse and cart and was primitively surfaced before the advent of improved road building techniques and tarmacadam. As modern transport developed the utility needs of this network reduced and in many cases these public highways were lost on the ground but not legally hence the legal maxim ‘once a highway always a highway’.

1.2.3 Over the years the recreational use of footpaths, bridleways and old carriageways increased and this was recognised by the introduction of legislation protecting these ‘old’ rights.

1.2.4 Rights of way have been developed through necessity i.e. travelling from A to B. This coupled with the fact that development has taken place to serve the needs of industry, housing and infrastructure, means that routes do not always match today’s users’ needs. For example, creating a circular ride or a riding route without having to use the busy road network is often 2 difficult.

1.2.5 Added to this are the various pressures and changes which contribute in trying to manage a modern day rights of way network, such as:

• farming practices have changed Nottinghamshire • increased residential and business development • the population is increasing • pressures on conservation and bio­diversity • people are striving for more privacy • the fear and threat of crime

Rights • as a nation we are more affluent • we have more time to enjoy recreational pursuits

of • the type and amount of recreational pursuits are increasing

Way • the transport infrastructure resource has grown providing increased opportunities but also problems and severance Improvement • anti­social behaviour problems have increased • the network the County Council has to manage increases year on year.

1.2.6 Because of these pressures there is a need to manage the existing network more efficiently, pro­actively and objectively. The Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) has now provided Plan the Authority with an opportunity to consider how to plan the modern day needs and pressures on the public rights of way network. 2007­2012 1.3 Rights of Way Improvement Plan

1.3.1 The ROWIP will assess the adequacy of the county’s rights of way network and wider countryside access in meeting current and future demand. The plan will provide the Authority with a statutory and strategic plan outlining Nottinghamshire’s aims and objectives for the development and management of a modern public rights of way network. The ROWIP also includes a statement of action that will detail actions for the implementation of the Plan, for

Chapter 1 Introduction example, applying a countywide signing and waymarking programme. It is not intended to address individual issues on specific footpaths, bridleways and byways in the Plan. Specific actions will be subject to a different decision making process and included in the Authority’s annual work programme.

1.4 ROWIP legislation

1.4.1 Under Section 60 of the CROW Act 2000, all highway authorities including the outer London boroughs must prepare and publish a ROWIP by November 2007. This section of the CROW Act commenced on the 21st November 2002 with the publication of Statutory Guidance.2 In summary the ROWIP must contain the following:

• An assessment of the extent to which local rights of way meet the present and likely future needs of the public • an assessment of the opportunities provided by local rights of way for exercise and other forms of open air recreation and enjoyment of the authority’s area • an assessment of the accessibility of local rights of way to blind or partially sighted people and others with mobility problems • a Statement of Action. This will outline strategic actions an authority will make for the management of rights of way, and for securing improvements to the network taking into account identified issues which have arisen from the above assessments.

1.5 Statutory role 3

1.5.1 Nottinghamshire County Council, in fulfilling its role as highway and surveying authority, has a statutory responsibility for the management and maintenance of Nottinghamshire’s public rights of way network.

1.5.2 Public rights of way are highways and are legally protected – it is a criminal offence to obstruct N o t

a public right of way. The Authority’s principal duty is stipulated by primary legislation. The t i n

Highways Act 1980 section 130, states that the Authority is ‘to assert and protect the rights of g h

the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway’ and ‘to prevent, as far as possible, the a m

stopping up or obstruction of’ any highway. s h i r e

. To summarise Nottinghamshire County Council has a statutory role as: R i g h t

• A highway authority to maintain routes on the ground and to keep them open and free s

from obstruction o f

• a surveying authority to map all of the county’s paths on the definitive map W a y

• an access authority to look after and promote the new open access sites and rights. I m p r Local Access Forum meeting o

1.6 Local Access Forum v e m e

1.6.1 Nottinghamshire’s statutory Local n t Access Forum was established in P l July 2003 to advise the County a n

Council, the Countryside Agency 2 0

and other bodies on all matters 0 7

relating to countryside access. The ­ 2

City of Nottingham has its own 0 1

forum. There are currently 17 2

independent members who represent areas of interest rather than an organisation or body. Public meetings are held quarterly

2 Rights of Way Improvement Plans, Statutory Guidance to Local Highway Authorities in England, Defra, November 2002. Introduction Chapter 1 and various, more technical meetings are held on an ad­hoc basis. A sub­group was set up in 2004 to deal specifically with the production of Nottinghamshire’s ROWIP. This has proved very fruitful and the group will continue to help develop and manage the county’s strategic access network. See www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/countryside for further information.

1.7 Previous policies and documents

1.7.1 Preparation of the Nottinghamshire ROWIP builds upon previous strategies and documents.

The three main documents are:

1.8 Milestones

1.8.1 In March 1999, in response to the Countryside Commission’s Milestones Initiative, the County Council produced Nottinghamshire’s Milestones Statement. This document set out clear targets for improving and managing the county’s public rights of way network. This inaugural strategic document followed the Commission’s recommendations to set out objectives and annual targets. The statement was divided into three sections; legally defined, properly maintained and well publicised. As a result of this initiative the Authority was successful in securing extra definitive map, publicity and enforcement officers.

1.8.2 The ROWIP has replaced the Milestones process taking into account wider issues than just fulfilling the County Council’s statutory rights of way duties. 4 1.9 Greenwood and Sherwood Access Studies

1.9.1 In March 2003, two Countryside Agency grant­aided ‘Access Studies’ were published by Nottinghamshire County Council. They were the pre­cursor to the ROWIP concept and were highlighted as good examples of local access consultations. These studies reviewed the

Nottinghamshire provision of and the demand for countryside access opportunities, assessed any shortcomings and suggested appropriate improvements. This exposure helped the County Council to become one of the eight authorities nationally to produce a pilot ROWIP, which was published in March 2004.

1.10 Pilot Greenwood area Rights of Way Improvement Plan Rights 1.10.1 After the commencement of the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000 Defra required the Countryside Agency to conduct an exercise in developing best practice guidance

of for use by all local highway authorities in developing their own rights of way improvement

Way plans. As a result, the Countryside Agency selected one highway authority or partnership of authorities from each of its eight regions in England to take part in an exemplar ROWIP

Improvement exercise. Nottinghamshire County Council was the highway authority selected for the East Midlands region.

1.10.2 The exemplar rights of way improvement plan exercise, or pilot plan, required each authority to produce a draft Rights of Way Improvement Plan for all or parts of its area, taking into account

Plan the statutory guidance released by Defra in November 2002 and interpretations of the legislation by the Countryside Agency. 2007­2012 1.10.3 Nottinghamshire’s Plan, along with the other regions has since been used to highlight good practice on the ‘Institute of Rights of Way Management Good Practice Guide’. It is available at www.iprow.co.uk. The plan has been used to help develop this full Rights of Way Improvement Plan.

Chapter 1 Introduction 1.11 Nottinghamshire’s vision and objectives

1.11.1 The overall corporate vision for the county is set out in Nottinghamshire’s Community Strategy – ‘All Together Better 2005­2009’. The strategy was adopted in September 2005 by a partnership of over 70 key organisations in Nottinghamshire, which includes the County Council, the Police, District and Borough Councils, the community sector, Primary Care Trusts and the county’s Fire and Rescue service.

1.11.2 The five key priorities from the community strategy ‘All Together Better’ are:

• Safer and stronger: making Nottinghamshire safer, building a strong sense of community and enriching lives • Healthier: improving health and wellbeing • Learning and earning: helping everyone to reach their potential • Cleaner and greener: protecting and improving the environment • Travel and access: travelling easily and safely and being able to access all the services people need.

1.12 Nottinghamshire’s countryside access vision

1.12.1 Rights of way and countryside access have a key role in helping deliver and complement the Community Strategy’s key priorities. The Countryside Access vision is “to develop, promote 5 and protect a local rights of way network that meets the present and likely needs of the public for outdoor recreation, exercise and access to services”. This Rights of Way Improvement Plan will serve as the over­arching focus for the protection, creation and enhancement of countryside access in Nottinghamshire.

1.12.2 The Council will develop and manage this network for all, enabling opportunities for the widest Nottinghamshire possible type and number of users contributing to Nottinghamshire’s economy, health, social well being and environment. To realise this vision the Authority needs to focus on achieving the following aims:

1.13 Aims

1.13.1 The aims of the ROWIP recognise the Council’s two key statutory duties to assert and protect Rights the rights of the public to use and enjoy the public rights of way network, and to maintain an accurate and up to date definitive map. These aims need to recognise the interests of agriculture, forestry and other land uses in the management of the public rights of way of network. Way Improvement 1.13.2 The aims are:

1 To protect, maintain and seek to enhance the network for all lawful users 2 to improve access to the network for all, including those with visual impairment and mobility problems, by adopting the principle of the least restrictive option Plan 3 to improve the safety and connectivity of the metalled road network with the rights of way

network 2007­2012 4 to increase awareness of the network and the understanding of the wider benefits arising from its use, such as leading an active and healthy lifestyle, and making a positive contribution to the local economy 5 to provide a revised and updated definitive map and statement, with particular reference to the resolution of map anomalies and support for the ‘Lost Ways’ project 6 to enhance and increase community involvement in managing and improving the network.

Introduction Chapter 1 1.13.3 Nottinghamshire County Council will deliver the vision, by working with and involving our partners and stakeholders. Furthermore, the strategic development of the network will not stop at this plan; the council will build upon this framework with the production of a business plan for the longer­term management of countryside access.

1.14 Research and consultation

1.14.1 A major part of the production of Nottinghamshire’s Rights of Way Improvement Plan is the assessment of people’s opinions about current access, what they want from it and how they use the county’s rights of way network. In undertaking these assessments the County Council has considered national, regional and local research, and best practices from other authorities. National research by Defra and the Countryside Agency provided an overview but the Authority quickly established the need for local quantitative and qualitative data on rights of way issues. This data has been supplemented by the County Council’s own experience in managing the public rights of way network. The knowledge and experience of Nottinghamshire’s Local Access Forum members has also proved to be an invaluable contribution to this Plan. See Appendix 1 for a summary of local consultation.

6 Nottinghamshire Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2007­2012

Chapter 1 Introduction 2. Scene setting 7

2.1 The Plan Area ­ Nottinghamshire

2.1.1 Nottinghamshire is situated in the heart of England and is located in the East Midlands region of the country. The shire and unitary authorities of Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, North N

Lincolnshire, Doncaster, Rotherham and Derbyshire, as well as Nottingham City border the o t

county. t i n g h

2.1.2 The ROWIP area covers the County Council’s administrative area shown in Map 1. a m

Nottingham City Council is required to produce its own ROWIP although the county and city s h i

council produce a joint Local Transport Plan (Greater Nottingham area). The county is made r e

up of seven districts ­ Ashfield, Bassetlaw, Broxtowe, Gedling, Newark and Sherwood, Mansfield R i and Rushcliffe. g h t s

o

2.1.3 The shire county of Nottinghamshire covers an area of 208,000 hectares with a population of f

nearly 760,000 people. The largest concentration of people is found in the ‘Greater W a

Nottingham’ conurbation (Broxtowe, Hucknall, Gedling and Rushcliffe districts). y

I m p

2.1.4 Other heavily populated areas of the county include the market towns of Mansfield, Kirkby in r o v

Ashfield, Sutton in Ashfield, Newark on Trent, Worksop and Retford. In general terms, these e areas place substantial pressure on the surrounding countryside through, for example, land m e n

take and associated ‘anti­social’ problems for landowners and managers. t

P l a

2.1.5 In contrast, approximately a fifth of the population live in the smaller rural towns and villages in n

2

the county. In essence Nottinghamshire’s rural countryside is made up of a low density 0 0

population making some areas very remote. 7 ­ 2 0 1 2

Scene setting Chapter 2 Map 1 Nottinghamshire regional context and district boundaries

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey materials with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown copyrights. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. (Nottinghamshire County Council) (100019713), 2007

8 N o t t i n g h a m s h i r e

R i g h t s

o f

W a y

I m p r o v e m e n t

P l a n

2 0 0 7 ­ 2 0 1 2

Chapter 2 Scene setting 2.2 Coalfields

2.2.1 The former coalfields of Nottinghamshire have largely disappeared. However, the impact of their existence still survives both positively and negatively. Direct negative impact on employment and health are particularly noticeable in the north of the county whilst the former ‘pit tips’ are now a haven for recreation and biodiversity. There are also disused railway lines serving the former collieries which are now valuable green corridors reaching into both urban and rural areas. A few of these have been developed into useful linear access links. Other ‘mothballed’ railway lines still exist and potentially have an important role to play in improved countryside access.

2.3 Farming

2.3.1 As with much of the East Midlands, Nottinghamshire’s rural countryside is predominantly made up of arable­farmed land with the notable exception of forestry in the centre of the county. Nottinghamshire’s landscape has evolved significantly over the last couple of hundred years, the inclosure process of the 18th and 19th centuries perhaps having the largest impact. The landscape changed dramatically with the loss of medieval open fields and commons to the enclosed and private fields we see today. The inclosure process not only allotted land to private individuals but also involved the setting out of many of Nottinghamshire’s present­day public carriageways, bridleways and footpaths. More recently, particularly the period following the Second World War, Government policy of the day increased subsidies to farm production which saw the removal of many hedgerows. This created larger fields and changed the county’s landscape. 9

2.4 Forestry and heathland

2.4.1 Forestry continues to play an important role in Nottinghamshire. The former ancient forests and heathland of Sherwood Forest have mostly given way to non­native coniferous plantations. However, the harvesting of timber has now taken second place to recreational forestry sites Nottinghamshire such as Sherwood Pines and other large tracts of Forest Enterprise managed land. To further bolster these recreational areas much of this land has been dedicated as Open Access Land under section 16 of the CROW Act 2000.

2.4.2 Nottinghamshire is also famous for the ‘Dukeries’ estates in the north of the county. These five

large ‘man made’ estates have also shaped the county and the ROW network with a distinct Rights sparse network of definitive paths in these areas. The exception is the former estate of the Duke of Newcastle at Clumber which is owned and managed by the National Trust and offers

excellent recreational facilities for all. of Way 2.5 Natural and man­made barriers Improvement 2.5.1 Natural and man­made corridors create a variety of linear components in Nottinghamshire’s landscape, including roads, rivers, canals and railways. These corridors offer both access opportunities and real problems; the River Trent in the county offers some superb access and tourism opportunities along its banks but conversely creates significant severance for

communities accessing services and recreation with only a handful of river crossing points in Plan the county. 2007­2012 2.5.2 Moreover, the county’s road network again offers great opportunities and problems. The road network has enabled Nottinghamshire to prosper economically with excellent links within the county and beyond, such as the M1 motorway and A1 trunk road. However, these roads can restrict access for non­motorised users i.e. walkers, cyclists and riders through either making it impossible to cross due to the physical barrier, safety (real and / or perceived) and generally being an unpleasant experience to cross.

Scene setting Chapter 2 2.5.3 Although a shadow of its former self the railway network still has a large presence in the county with the major mainline routes of the East Coast Mainline, and the Midland Mainline. Even the former Great Central Railway partly survives in the county. Added to this are the Gainsborough, Grantham, Lincoln and Worksop branch lines and the surviving freight only lines. Once again these lines offer opportunities and problems to the PROW network; railways can contribute to social inclusion and sustainable transport but they can also create barriers for the network.

2.5.4 As with the road network railways can offer a physical barrier and a safety issue, for example, there are 19 definitive bridleways (and many more footpaths) crossing the county’s railways by ‘at grade’ level crossings. There is also increasing pressure to close unstaffed railway crossings and in the 1950’s and 60’s many crossings were closed or downgraded to exclude higher rights users such as horse riders and vehicles. Examples do exist in this county of rights of way being severed by railways creating two potential cul­de­sac paths.

2.6 Nottinghamshire’s landscape and geology

2.6.1 The popular image of Nottinghamshire is often of forestry and sandstone. However, the county benefits from a diverse range of landscape types from limestone to heavy clay. This local distinctiveness influences both the use and maintenance of public rights of way.

2.6.2 These landscapes provide a variety of backdrops and areas in which to walk and ride and often influence people’s decisions on where to go. For example, the Sherwood area obviously 10 attracts a large number of users due to its character (and the provision of facilities) but can cause problems through the erosion of paths. This can be due both to the large number of visitors and the geology of this area – well drained sandy soils.

2.6.3 The heavy clays of the Mid­Nottinghamshire Farmlands can also cause problems to the surface of rights of way in this area. The dark clay soils have poor drainage and as a result can cause

Nottinghamshire heavy waterlogging making walking and riding difficult in places. Expensive localised surfacing and drainage work can sometimes help but is ultimately confounded by the area’s geology.

2.6.4 For further information on the county’s landscape character areas refer to the County Council’s Countryside Appraisal summarised in Appendix 2 and 3. Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2007­2012

Chapter 2 Scene setting 3. Policy Context 11 3.1 One of the most important considerations in developing the Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) for Nottinghamshire is to ensure that it addresses the key themes and complements the aims and objectives of existing plans and strategies significant to the county.

3.1.1 Throughout this Plan ROWIP policy statements are quoted, and items in the Statement of Action are attributed to the relevant policy statement, as well linking to the policies of the Nottinghamshire other relevant plans. Policy statements are related to each of ROWIP’s six main aims (prefix’s A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, and A6). A full list of ROWIP policies are listed in Appendix 5.

3.1.2 There are a number of plans and strategies on a national, regional and local level that relate to the ROWIP which can have an impact on the management of the PROW network and

Countryside Access in Nottinghamshire. In addition, previous internal plans and reports from Ri

NCC’s Countryside Access team have also identified areas for improvement in fulfilling ghts statutory duties and responsibilities in respect of the county’s PROW network. of

Chart 1 How the ROWIP relates to existing legislation and policy Way

Existing PROW legislation Improvement DEFRA statutory ROWIP Guidance CROW Act 2000 Highways Act 1980 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

Regional Rights of Way National Policy Regional Spatial Strategy Plan Planning Policy Statements Regional Environment Strategy Improvement Plan 2007­2012

Local Local community strategy ‘All together better’

Local Transport Plan Local Development Others Joint Structure Plan Greater Nottingham Local Frameworks Greenwood Sherwood Nottinghamshire and Transport Plan Districts Cycling strategy Nottingham North Nottinghamshire Minerals and Waste Natural England Local Transport Plan

Policy Context Chapter 3 3.1.3 Identifying and reflecting the policies in other relevant documents will give the ROWIP the best chance of delivery and lend weight to funding bids from both the highway authority and the bodies with complementary aims and objectives. It also provides potential opportunities for partnership working, the pooling of resources and the delivery of Best Value.

3.1.4 The following strategies and documents have been considered in the course of the development of the ROWIP:

• National Planning Policy Guidance 17 (2002) • National Planning Policy Guidance 13 (2001) • National Planning Policy Statement 7 (2004) • Regional Spatial Strategy 8 (RSS8) (2005) • Regional Environment Strategy (2002/2003) • Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan (2006/07 to 2010/11) • North Nottinghamshire Local Transport Plan (2006/07 to 2010/11) • Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Joint Structure Plan (2006) • Nottinghamshire’s Community Strategy (2005 to 2009) • Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan (2005) • Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Waste Local Plan (2002) • Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (1999­2006) 12 • Bassetlaw Local Plan Deposit Draft (2001) • Mansfield District Local Plan (1998) • Ashfield Local Plan Review (2002) • Gedling Borough Replacement Local Plan (2005) • Broxtowe Borough Local Plan (2004)

Nottinghamshire • Rushcliffe Borough non statutory Replacement Local Plan (2006) • District Local Development Frameworks (in progress).

3.2 National

3.2.1 National policies and guidance that are relevant to the ROWIP are: Rights • Planning Policy Guidance 13 (PPG13) – Transport • Planning Policy Guidance 17 (PPG17) – Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation of • Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7) – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Way

Improvement 3.2.2 National planning policy is reflected in regional and local plan policies. The main considerations at national level are the effect of developments on public rights of way, the promotion and development of sustainable transport options and the benefits of recreation to health and communities.

Plan 3.2.3 The core objectives of PPG13 are to integrate planning and transport at all levels in order to reduce car usage, promote more sustainable transport choices and to promote accessibility to

2007­2012 jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling. Each of these is intrinsically linked to the aims and objectives of the ROWIP.

3.2.4 Paragraph 32 of PPG17 states ‘rights of way are an important recreational facility, which local authorities should protect and enhance. Local authorities should seek opportunities to provide better facilities for walkers, cyclists and horse­riders, for example by adding links to existing rights of way networks’. This statement supports the statutory duty placed on Highway Authorities by government legislation and outlines the shift towards ROWIP’s and general improvements to the PROW network.

Chapter 3 Policy Context 3.2.5 Numerous sections of PPS7 are relevant to the ROWIP. Paragraph 26 relates to the countryside around urban areas and states that ‘planning authorities should aim to secure environmental improvements and maximise a range of beneficial uses of this land….this should include improvement of public access’.

3.2.6 Paragraph 32 encourages LPAs to set out policies regarding equine enterprises, which also links indirectly to the need to recognise the importance, in many instances, of farm diversification into non­agricultural activities (Paragraph 30). Whilst this does not relate directly to the ROWIP it should be noted that this support of such schemes could increase the potential of negotiating permissive off­road routes in order to provide more recreational opportunities and increased connectivity of the PROW network.

3.2.7 Paragraph 34 highlights the importance of tourism and leisure activities for many rural economies and suggests Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) should support developments that may benefit this in their policies, where appropriate.

3.3 Regional

3.3.1 In line with Government policy, regional policy focuses on the promotion of more environmentally friendly travel methods and the facilitation of this through the promotion of the health benefits of walking, cycling and riding, and the increase and improvement of current access provision.

3.3.2 Regional Spatial Strategy 8 (the East Midlands Regional Plan) provides a long­term 13 development strategy for the East Midlands region up to 2021. Delivery of the ROWIP can positively impact upon the delivery of the following Regional Core Objectives detailed in Policy 1 of the Draft Regional Plan (consulted upon September­December 2006):

• The reduction of social exclusion • The improvement in health of the regions residents Nottinghamshire • Improvement in accessibility to jobs, homes and services.

3.3.3 Policy 45 recognises the need for behavioural change in order to meet traffic reduction targets with the guidance suggesting Local Transport Plans, Local Development Frameworks and Development Plans should ‘include measures to encourage an increase in cycling and walking’, including the provision of safe routes. Rights

3.3.4 Policy ENV 4 of the Regional Environment Strategy (August 2003) again focuses on the health of benefits of outdoor exercise and aims ‘to ensure all East Midlands people have sustainable Way access to a diverse, well managed environment’. It identifies the key means of achieving the

policy aims as the completion of rights of way improvement plans, development of access to Improvement open country and the promotion of local wildlife rich green spaces and the environmental benefits and health gains that can be derived from Health Initiatives.

3.4 Local Plan 3.4.1 The objectives of the national and regional legislation and Government guidance are delivered through the series of strategies detailed below. 2007­2012 3.5 Nottinghamshire’s Community Strategy – All Together Better 2005­2009

3.5.1 The strategy was adopted in September 2005 and was written in partnership with over 70 key organisations within the county, including the emergency services, District and Borough Councils, Primary Care Trusts and the Community Sector. It sets out a number of measurable targets in order to deliver its five key objectives (see overleaf).

Policy Context Chapter 3 Targets include:

• Reducing the number of deaths and serious accidents on Nottinghamshire’s roads, particularly those involving children • Work to ensure that all children and young people have opportunities to enjoy themselves, broaden their experience, and improve their health and wellbeing • Increase participation of all age groups, particularly older people, in sport, leisure, culture and physical activity • Work to ensure that schools are at the centre of local communities • Conserve and enhance the County’s outdoor environment, countryside and wildlife • Widen transport choice in public transport, cycling and walking and improve the major bus stations that serve our communities.

Table 2 ROWIP contribution to Community Strategy Objectives

Community Strategy objectives ROWIP Contribution Safer and stronger – Reduce the number of Assist with delivery of traffic reduction targets through road deaths and serious accidents on promotion, development and where possible creation of Nottinghamshire’s roads, particularly off­road routes to local facilities and schools using those involving children. PROW and the wider access network. 14 Improve community facilities and resources. Consultation with communities at the early stages of development proposals affecting the existing and potential PROW network.

Enrich people’s lives and our community’s Promotion and improved maintenance of routes encompassing culture and heritage. cultural and heritage features and facilities.

PROWs enable users to access and understand both the built and natural environment, culture and heritage.

Healthier – Increase participation by older Enhancement and improved maintenance of the existing PROW N

o people in sport, learning and l eisure activities. network will improve access to services and facilitate increased t

t demand for recreation. Pay particular attention to provision of i n

g Reduce health inequalities and improve life barrier free routes and delivering the least restrictive option. h

a expectancy. m The promotion of exercise through riding, cycling and walking s h

i Work to ensure that all children and young schemes such as the Guided Walks and the Rural Ride r e people have opportunities to enjoy themselves, Programmes. Also the continued development of promoted

R

i broaden their experience, and improve their routes and promotional publications such as ‘Exploring g

h health and wellbeing. Nottinghamshire on Horseback’ and ‘Exploring the Robin Hood t s

Line’. o f

W PROWs provide opportunities for a whole range of sporting a y

activities, from jogging, access to water based activities, cycling, I m climbing and horse riding to motor sport. p r o

v Learning and earning – Work to ensure that Accessibility improvements on links to schools and further e 2 m 0 schools are at the centre of local communities. education establishments. 0 e 7 n t ­

2

P Work with partners to deliver ‘safer routes to schools’ projects 0 l 1 a identified in LTP. 2 n

PROWs provide excellent opportunities to study the built and natural environment and are themselves an important part of our history and heritage.

Chapter 3 Policy Context Cleaner and greener – Improve the physical Identify more efficient working practises to deliver better quality environment in local communities. service and improve Best Value performance.

Conserve and enhance the County’s outdoor Improved communication with LPAs to reduce the impact of environment, countryside and wildlife. planning applications on existing and potential PROW network.

Rights of way link users with the natural environment, while the network itself provides a green corridor and refuge for flora and fauna.

Seek to establish links with landscape, conservation and reclamation sections of NCC with a view to improving best value in the delivery of landscaping works.

Travel and access – Work to tackle congestion Continue to seek funding that has been allocated for the and its associated pollution. improvement and promotion of cycling and walking.

Widen transport choice in public transport, Continuous development of the National Cycle Network. cycling and walking and improve the major bus stations that serve our communities. Improve existing links and seek to create new links with public transport provision.

3.5.2 Delivery of these targets can be assisted directly through the implementation of the ROWIP and its own aims and objectives (specifically detailed in the table on the previous page), which have 15 been formulated from the National and Regional planning guidance detailed earlier in this chapter, and specific ROWIP guidance from Defra and the PROW Good Practice Guide.

3.6 Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Joint Structure Plan (Adopted February 2006)

3.6.1 The Joint Structure Plan sets out the strategic land use policies to guide the scale and location Nottinghamshire of development in Nottinghamshire and the City of Nottingham. The key policies within the plan that link to the ROWIP are as follows:

3.6.2 Policy 1/3 Planning contributions – Requires developer contributions to meet planning obligations, including open space provision, sport and recreational facilities and other infrastructure. Rights 3.6.3 Policy 2/6 Wildlife habitat creation – Seeks opportunities to make provision for (sustainable) public access and recreation to areas of nature conservation value where appropriate. of

3.6.4 Policy 2/13 River corridors – Seeks to maintain and enhance the multi­functional importance of Way river corridors, including recreational opportunities and landscape character. Improvement

3.6.5 Policy 5/4 Measures to assist cyclists, pedestrians and people with restricted mobility– Requires developments to incorporate measures to improve accessibility for people with restricted mobility and to improve facilities for cyclists and pedestrians.

3.6.6 Policy 5/5 Linear routes – Protects disused railway lines, canals and other linear features from Plan development where it is considered appropriate to do so. 2007­2012

3.6.7 Policy 6/3 Recreational routes – ‘Public rights of way and other recreational routes will be provided, maintained and where possible improved. Where such facilities are provided as a result of development the developers will be required to make provision for their ongoing maintenance. Where development results in the loss of a public right of way, an alternative route of an appropriate character will be required. Priority will be given to developing routes linking urban areas to the countryside and the reuse of former railway lines and other transport features such as canals’.

Policy Context Chapter 3 3.6.8 The new Structure Plan will be replaced in due course by the Regional Spatial Strategy

3.7 Local Transport Plans for Greater Nottingham (2006­2011) and North Nottinghamshire (2006­2011)

3.7.1 The Local Transport Plans (LTPs) that cover Nottinghamshire have the key objectives of:

• Reducing congestion • Improving accessibility • Improving road safety • Improving air quality and increasing environmental protection • Regeneration • Improving quality of life • Improved maintenance of the existing highway network.

3.7.2 Implementation of the ROWIP can clearly assist in the delivery of each of these key objectives to varying degrees through improvements to and better management of the existing PROW network, increasing opportunities for access and further development of promotional programmes and material encouraging walking, riding and cycling.

3.7.3 To assist with implementing the ROWIP parallel with the LTP, the LTP provides a funding contribution to the annual budget for PROW work to assist with delivering specific projects. 16 Following the submission of a ROWIP progress report in the LTPs for Greater Nottingham and North Nottinghamshire, it is the intention to fully integrate the ROWIP into both plans at the end of the existing LTP 5­year period in 2011.

Table 3 ROWIP contribution to LTP2 objectives re nghamsh Nott LTP2 objectives ROWIP Contribution

i i i A. Better manage The LTP has a major focus on reducing traffic growth and encouraging use of alternative and where possible transport. Clearly improvements to the PROW network, particularly i n the urban fringe reduce the problems will encourage greater use and provide an alternative option and thus reduce the need to of congestion. travel by private motorised vehicles.

ghts R B. Improve Public rights of way are available to use for all, they are free to use and link all members accessibility and of the community with friends, relatives, essential services and leisure facilities. It is social inclusion. important to develop policies to increase access to the network for people with disabilities

of and to encourage people from different ethnic and social backgrounds which are

Way traditionally under represented in usage of the PROW network.

Improvement C. Improve road The PROW network can offer a viable and more pleasurable alternative to the metalled safety. road network. However, the fragmented PROW network means users often need to walk, ride or cycle along busy roads i n order to find a continuous route. The ROWIP will look at road crossings and roadside verge improvements to provide safer links between PROW’s. an P

l D. Better air quality Air pollution can be reduced by encouraging alternative modes of travel and transport. and protection of The PROW network provides a sustainable and less intrusive alternative to private 2007­2012 the environment. motorised vehicles (walking, cycling and riding) with obvious environmental benefits.

E. Support Public rights of way are at the heart of regeneration. Improvements to the PROW and regeneration and wider access network, for example the creation of new routes along former railway lines or neighbourhood creation of countryside sites on former colliery land, will enhance regeneration areas by the renewal. attracting external investment and wider interest – thus helping them become more accessible and attractive to live, work and play.

Chapter 3 Policy Context F. Enhance people’s Work to maintain and enhance public rights of way can lead to improvements in health quality of life. and well being, particularly in areas on the urban fringe through providing access to services, recreation, education, history, biodiversity and sporting activities. Improved interpretation and promotion of the PROW network and the related user programmes (rural rides, guided walks etc) can help to increase people’s quality of experience and overall usage of the PROW network and the wider access provision in the county.

G. More efficient As with wider transport and highway infrastructure the ROW network will be maintained and effective following the same principles of best value – in a cost effective and efficient manner. maintenance.

3.8 Nottinghamshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework 3.8.1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires all local planning authorities to have substantially replaced their Local Plans with Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) by 2008. For the County Council this will mean replacing its Minerals and Waste Local Plans with new minerals and waste Development Plan Documents. Separate documents will be produced for minerals and waste and will cover the following areas: • core strategy • development control policies • site specific allocations • proposals map.

3.8.2 Supplementary Planning Documents may also be produced. These new documents will all 17 guide future minerals and waste development in the county. 3.8.3 The current status of the Local Plans and progress in the preparation of the new documents are as follows:

3.8.4 Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan (Adopted December 2005) & The Nottinghamshire and Nottinghamshire Nottingham Waste Local Plan (Adopted January 2002) 3.8.5 The above plans set out the County Council’s approach towards mineral extraction and waste management within the county (the Waste Local Plan also covers Nottingham City). They include a comprehensive range of general environmental protection along with policies outlining future provisions. Rights 3.8.6 Minerals 3.8.7 Policy M3.26 of the Minerals Local Plan relates specifically to Public Access. It states that of ‘planning permission will not be granted for minerals development which would temporarily or Way permanently disrupt public rights of way unless alternative routes of at least equivalent interest

and quality are available’. Improvement 3.8.8 The sub­section on public access also encourages Mineral operators, where possible, to enhance the public rights of way network through their developments. 3.8.9 Preparation of new minerals Development Plan Documents is due to commence in 2007. 3.8.10 Waste Plan

3.8.11 Policy W3.26 of the Waste Local Plan relates specifically to public access. It states that ‘planning 2007­2012 permission for a waste management facility which would temporally or permanently disrupt public rights of way will not be granted unless alternative routes of at least equivalent interest or quality are available’. 3.8.12 This policy approach is the same as applies to mineral extraction as set out above in Policy M3.26. 3.8.13 Preparation of a new joint County and City Waste Core Strategy and development control policy

Policy Context Chapter 3 documents is underway and general public consultation on issues and options began in October 2006. Preparation of a Site Specific Document will follow. 3.9 Local Development Frameworks 3.9.1 As noted above all local planning authorities will have substantially replaced their District Local Plans with new documents prepared under the new Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) by 2008. A significant change in this transition is the introduction of a more pro­active role for LDFs in shaping the way developments take place, with considerable emphasis placed on community involvement from the earliest stages in the planning of new developments. 3.9.2 Each of the seven District Authorities within Nottinghamshire are in the process of producing LDFs. There appears to be a general recognition at District level of the importance of the PROW network and wider access provision as a recreational resource, and a realisation of how protection and enhancement of this can assist greatly in delivering other targets such as healthier lifestyles and reduction of traffic levels. 3.9.3 This can only help in improving links and partnership working with District Authorities in respect of planning applications and the granting of planning permission for developments affecting existing and potential public rights of way. 3.10 Other Initiatives and Strategies 3.10.1 In line with Nottinghamshire’s Community Strategy – ‘All Together Better’, detailed above, there are a number of other initiatives and strategies that link to key aims of the ROWIP. 18 3.10.2 The Strategic Plan for Greenwood Community Forest (September 2000) outlines ten specific Countryside Access Proposals, all of which are directly supported by policies, proposals or themes within the ROWIP. 3.10.3 The Nottinghamshire Cycling Strategy (2006/07 – 2010/11) includes objectives such as the promotion of cycling for health benefits, identification of cycle routes in rural areas and Nottinghamshire improvement of accessibility in areas where there are low levels of car ownership or high levels of congestion. 3.10.4 The East Midlands Public Health Network offers guidance and support in the promotion of improving health through becoming more physically active with their ‘emphasis on physical activity’.

Rights 3.10.5 Natural England is currently preparing an ‘outdoor recreation strategy’ with a view to producing a consultation paper in 2007. The strategy will cover the following areas: of • promotion, and marketing the outdoors Way • providing information

Improvement • healthy lifestyles • monitoring use of outdoor space • planning and transport • tourism and leisure

Plan • managing the land to improve and extend access • engaging the interest of young people 2007­2012 • providing for disabled groups, and • other matters which are influenced by or impacted on by outdoor recreation.

3.10.6 Aspects of the ROWIP also link to Natural England’s 4 ‘Walking the Way to Health’ initiative, which encourages more walking for health reasons, and the ‘Diversity Review’, which investigates social inclusion and equal opportunities in countryside access.

4 For further information visit www.naturalengland.org.uk Chapter 3 Policy Context 4. Assessment of Countryside users and their needs 19

4.1 The main aim of the users’ needs assessment is to ‘assess the extent to which local rights of way meet the present and likely future needs of the public’. This chapter outlines the key findings for different users of the countryside and public rights of way. The statement of action (Chapter 7) has been determined based on the findings of the overall needs assessment together with the network assessment in Chapter 5. Nottinghamshire

4.1.1 Walkers

4.1.2 Walking is the most common form of transport and recreation. It is vitally important for informal exercise and the associated health benefits, helping the environment and of course, it’s free! Rights

4.1.3 The GB Day Visits Survey 2002/03 5 found that walking is, in itself, the second most popular

activity with over 780 million­day trips per year (eating / drinking out is the first). Moreover, of

walking accounts for 1.5 billion trips as the main mode of transport on a day out – fifteen Way times more journeys than cycling. It is estimated by the Ramblers Association that walkers contribute approximately £6.14 billion to the rural economy. 6 Improvement

4.1.4 During the last four General Household Surveys7 walking consistently came out as the most popular physical activity (albeit the most popular leisure activity is watching television!).

4.1.5 Walking is by far the most popular activity carried out on rights of way and other countryside Plan access in both the UK and Nottinghamshire, as demonstrated by the following: 2007­2012 • An ICM Research survey in 2000 8 demonstrated that 77% of UK adults say they walk for pleasure at least once a month

5 GB Day Visits Survey, The Countryside Agency, 2002/2003. 6 The Economic and Social Value of Walking in England, Christie and Matthews, The Ramblers Association, 2003. 7 General Household Surveys, Office for National Statistics. 8 Walking for Pleasure, ICM Research, 2000.

Assessment of Countryside users and their needs Chapter 4 • The Nottinghamshire County Council Employee Countryside and Public Rights of Way Survey (2005)9 showed that 73% of respondents said that the main reason for using PROWs was for walking • The NCC Country Shows Surveys (2005)10 identified that 65% of respondents said that the main reason for using PROWs was for walking • The Environmental Research on Recreational Needs of the Public Relating to Rights of Way (2004)11 concluded that walking is the most common reason for using the PROW network in the Greenwood Area (90% of respondents).

4.1.6 Walking is undertaken for many reasons and walkers are perhaps the most diverse of users. Walking can be split into two main categories – utility and recreational. Utility walkers are those who walk for practical reasons such as accessing employment, schools, shops and services. Recreational users are those that use the network for pleasure, for example, rambling, sight seeing, health benefits and dog walking. Recreational users can be split further in two main sub­groups; casual or informal walkers who enjoy circular walks up to 5 miles, normally close to their homes although they may also occasionally travel and walk further; and ‘serious’ walkers who are looking for more of a challenge taking into account the terrain, navigation and enjoying walking in very remote locations often in groups.

4.1.7 In theory 100% of the rights of way network is available for use for walkers and they also encounter fewer problems than riders and cyclists. This network is reasonably well distributed in the county with a few exceptions (for example, the former Dukeries’ estates). As a rule most 20 people want to and will walk close to their homes and in Nottinghamshire this is focused on the city boundary and the county’s market towns. Comments from both the ‘members of the public’ and the ‘users group representatives’ focus groups highlighted that the majority of their PROW use is close to home. The assessments and survey work suggests that there is particular demand for circular walks of varying lengths close to where people live. Targeting resources where people live will ensure better provision and quality of life to the widest range of users

Nottinghamshire thus increasing social inclusion and reducing the demand for the private car.

4.1.8 A large number of walkers also use the network solely for recreational purposes and sometimes this means travelling further afield and enjoying walking experiences in rural areas whether it’s off the beaten track or in one of the county’s honeypots such as the Sherwood Country Park area. The Nottinghamshire Walkers Survey 12 found that 37% of respondents travelled between 6 and 10 miles (with 68% of all survey respondents travelling by car), in order to Rights access the path network. The most popular locations were cited as Sherwood Forest and Clumber Park. Again, there is demand for circular walks – tourism stakeholders highlight a significant demand for circular walks up to 4 to 5 miles long. of Way 4.1.9 Findings from the Nottinghamshire Walkers Survey suggest that only 15% of respondents

Improvement walked less than 3 miles. Compare this to the NCC Countryside and Rights of Way Employee Survey where 54.1% walked less than 3 miles. This difference can be accounted for when further analysis of the surveys is undertaken; The NCC Employee Survey was widely distributed to NCC employees ­ from ‘all walks of life’. 72% of respondents to the Nottinghamshire Walkers Survey walk as part of an organised walking group. Plan 4.1.10 A large number of walkers (23%) cite keeping fit as the main reason for using Nottinghamshire paths ­ despite the high number using their cars to access the walk. Interestingly the 2007­2012 Department of Health (2004)13 estimated the costs of physical inactivity in England at £8.2 billion annually. Moreover, walking is a form of exercise that is within the physical capabilities of the majority of people. 14 9 NCC Employee Countryside and Rights of Way Survey, Nottinghamshire County Council, 2005. 10 NCC County Shows Surveys, Nottinghamshire County Council, 2005. 11 Environmental Research on Recreational Needs of the Public Relating to Rights of Way, Report for Nottinghamshire County Council, Faber Maunsell, February 2004. 12 The Nottinghamshire Walkers Survey, Nottinghamshire County Council, 2006. 13 At least five a week: Evidence on the impact of physical activity and its relationship to health, Department of Health, 2004. 14 Allied Dunbar National Fitness Survey, Allied Dunbar, 1992.

Chapter 4 Assessment of Countryside users and their needs 4.1.11 Nearly half of those questioned for the NCC Countryside and PROW Employee Survey use the network several times a year, however, the Nottinghamshire Walkers Survey showed that 40% of the respondents walked one to three times a week.

4.1.12 When asked about whether anything prevents NCC employees using the network, 28% stated lack of time. The Nottinghamshire Walkers survey differed inasmuch as the answers were more technical, with 16% suggesting overgrown path as a limitation. Again this can be accounted for by the type of respondent.

4.1.13 Like cyclists and horse riders, walkers are classified as vulnerable road users, and the primary requirement for walkers is to be in a traffic­free environment. In an urban setting pedestrians are reasonably well catered for in terms of footways and controlled road crossing points. Yet in the more rural areas, the potential conflict with vehicular traffic is arguably higher. In rural areas footway provision is sporadic and at the points at which the rights of way network meets metalled highways walkers usually have to cross at grade. This normally means no traffic control or refuges, or even having to walk along the carriageway to connect to an onward route.

4.2 Dog walking

21 Nottinghamshire Rights of Way Rights of way are well used by dog walkers Improvement 4.2.1 It is estimated that there are around 6.5 million dogs in the UK with 20% of all households owning a dog). 15 It goes without saying that large number of these households take their dog out for a walk. It has been suggested that around one third of all rights of way users are dog walkers.16 Plan 4.2.2 Walking a dog in the countryside is a traditional activity which brings enjoyment and pleasure

to a lot of people. However, dog walking can be associated with negative aspects to both other 2007­2012 users of the network and land managers, for example, dog fouling, dogs running loose with livestock, aggressive dogs and dogs disturbing wildlife.

4.2.3 An issue highlighted by all stakeholders during the ROWIP consultations was that of dogs fouling on rights of way. In recent years through education and attitude changes urban

15 Pet Food Manufactures Association, 2003. 16 IPROW: The Good Practice Guide, Institute of Public Rights of Way Management, 2006.

Assessment of Countryside users and their needs Chapter 4 footways tend to be ‘dog mess’ free. Not only can dog fouling on rural public rights of way be unpleasant it can cause infections to both humans and animals. Provision of dog bins is highlighted as good practice but they can be difficult to manage because of the resources needed to empty them on a regular basis.

4.2.4 Information provision can help to educate dog walkers and the Countryside Agency have recently produced a leaflet named ‘You and your dog in the countryside’ highlighting opportunities and responsibilities. The Council is keen to promote responsible and good behaviour and will continue to promote and distribute this message.

4.2.5 Of course there are many positives and benefits in dog walking. For example, owners are getting exercise; dog walking is a form of stress relief; it encourages social inclusion through interaction with others; provides confidence when out walking alone; and assistance dogs help people with disabilities access the countryside.

4.2.6 The needs of dog walkers are similar to all other users who want traffic­free routes, circular walks, clearly marked paths and an attractive environment. In our consultations dog walkers noted the difficulty of using stiles with dogs. Some provision has been made locally by to provide dog gates. This is provided by a land manager’s good will, there are no powers or duties to provide this type of facility. The primary requirement of the County Council is to adopt the principle of the least restrictive option so that everyone will benefit from the removal of stiles and other barriers.

22 4.3 Horse Riding N o t t i n g h a m s h i r e

R i g h t s

o f

W a y

I m p r o v e m e n t

P

l Riding is a popular pastime across the county a n

2 4.3.1 Horse riding is a popular pursuit in Nottinghamshire. There are a large number of livery 0

0 stables throughout the county, many of which are concentrated in ‘equestrian hotspots’ such as 7 ­

2 Blidworth and Epperstone. One possible reason for this is the availability of suitable grazing 0

1 land, byways and bridleways, and other riding opportunities such as Forest Enterprise land 2

(although riding is restricted to those riders who have paid for an annual permit). Interestingly there are some excellent bridleway networks for horse riders in the north of the county but with little evidence of use on the ground. 17 This may be due to the low density population and perhaps the availability and cost of liveries.

17 NCC Clarborough Surveys, Nottinghamshire County Council, 2005.

Chapter 4 Assessment of Countryside users and their needs 4.3.2 It is difficult to estimate numbers of horses and riders in the county. During the development of Nottinghamshire’s Pilot ROWIP it became apparent that there is a need for accurate numbers and locations to enable the Authority to target and prioritise bridleway improvements. Following on from the pilot a distribution study was undertaken. The methodology involved gathering information from farriers and equestrian businesses, cold calling at livery yards and general questionnaires. However, the responses received were insufficient to enable a fully meaningful analysis. Work will continue on this study including the feasibility of working with Defra and the National Equine Database.18

4.3.3 The Nottinghamshire County Council Equestrian Survey (2005/06)19 provides only a partial picture of equestrian distribution. Map 2 highlights the location and frequency of respondents’ stables and liveries (the darker the green the more respondents) together with the base layer of bridleways and byways. The map shows high numbers of horses stabled in parts of Ashfield, Warsop, Blidworth and Worksop areas. Despite the good network in the north of the county the maps show relatively low numbers of horses. The map also highlights the areas of the county poorly served by bridleways; the Sutton in Ashfield area reveals a high number of horses but little in the way of bridleways and byways; there is limited access by paid permit on Forest Enterprise managed land but few other opportunities.

4.3.4 In terms of equestrians travelling to sites and areas which provide good access, the opportunities are limited and necessitate the need for expensive horse boxes or trailers. NCC’s Equestrian Survey suggests that the majority of horse riders ride locally (80% of riders said they rode from their stable). The Rights of Way Use and Demand Study20 found that when compared with other users, horse riders are disproportionately active. The NCC Equestrian 23 Survey showed that 51% of respondents – a total of 229 riders ‘hacked’ on Nottinghamshire’s rights of way network 1 to 3 times a week for an average of 4.46 miles.

4.3.5 National statistics vary between studies and organisations. A report by Defra and the British Horse Industry Confederation21 estimated that: N o t

• 2.4 million people ride t i n

• There are between 600,000 and just under a million horses g h a

• The horse industry’s gross output is approximately £3.4 billion per year. m s h i r

An equestrian survey undertaken by BETA22 (a trade association) found that around 4.3 million e

R

now ride annually spending approximately £4 billion per year on horse related activities. i g h t s

o f

W a y

I m p r o v e m e n t

P l a n

2 0 0 7 ­ 2 0 1 2

18 Central Government is working in collaboration with the enquine industry in order to establish a National Equine Database that will record details of every horse issued with a passport. 19 The NCC Equestrian Survey, Nottinghamshire County Council, 2005/06. 20 The Rights of Way Use and Demand Study, Entec, 2001. 21 Joint research on the horse industry in Great Britain, Defra and the British Horse Industry Confederation, 2004. 22 National Equestrian Survey, BETA, 2006.

Assessment of Countryside users and their needs Chapter 4 Map 2 Stable and livery distribution across the county

24

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey materials with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown copyrights. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. (Nottinghamshire County Council) (100019713), 2007 Nottinghamshire 4.3.6 Other figures do vary from the above but what can be taken from all these reports and figures is that the popularity of horse riding is on the increase, so the demand for and pressure on facilities including the available PROW network will increase. As with other activities undertaken on rights of way, horse riding offers excellent leisure and health opportunities. Particularly significant are the riding opportunities offered to people with disabilities and ‘older’ riders. There are a number of disabled riding schools in the county and where possible the Rights Council will identify improvements (e.g. gates, latches, signage etc.) in the network to support these establishments. of

Way 4.3.7 When asked what limits or prevents equestrians from riding on the county’s bridleways and byways, ‘lack of bridleways near to stables’ was the most popular response. The ‘lack of

Improvement circular routes’ was also a major concern. Unlike walkers, equestrians can only access 31% (in length) of Nottinghamshire rights of way network and where there is a relatively good network this is often severed by the metalled road network which ultimately deters riders. Even a small temporary obstruction can prevent an equestrian continuing their journey, whereas a walker may be able to step around it. Plan 4.3.8 Network improvements for all users can be achieved by focusing on improving existing provision

2007­2012 and road safety, as well as researching the potential for resolving incorrectly recorded routes. The County Council has powers to create new paths by agreement and / or by order. Although the difficulties of creating new access is well documented.23 The Council will use these powers where there is a clear public benefit and the benefits are relative to the overall costs (see section 6.16.1 on creation orders).

23 Environmental Research on Recreational Needs of the Public relating to Rights of way, for Nottinghamshire County Council, Faber Maunsell, February 2004.

Chapter 4 Assessment of Countryside users and their needs 4.3.9 The Nottinghamshire Pilot ROWIP (2004) recognised that with the need to exercise, horse riders must, ideally, venture daily onto the bridleway and byway network and other off­road routes. However, even in an area of good off­road provision there is no other alternative but to use the metalled road network. Many riders do not ride onto urban roads out of choice even though there is more potential conflict with vehicular traffic in a rural setting. During the Network Assessments of this ROWIP several roadside verges were identified as potentially providing good linear access for horse riders. Not all roadside verges are suitable for equestrian use, obstacles such as roadside signage and drainage can make access difficult or impossible. Where improvements are proposed by the County Council, it is suggested this undertaken in consultation with equestrian users and the Local Access Forum.

4.3.9.1 The pilot plan and ROWIP consultation also picks up on this theme. It is a duty under section 71 of the Highways Act 1980 for Highway Authorities to ‘provide in or by the side of a made­ up highway a grass or other margin as part of the highway’ where this is ‘necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of ridden horses’.

4.3.10 The NCC Equestrian Survey also confirmed that crossing the metalled road network is a significant barrier to riders. Where rights of way meet the road network, riders usually have to cross at grade with no traffic light controls or refuges. The potential of interaction with traffic is certainly more of a risk to horse riders when compared to other users. There are only three Pegasus controlled crossings in the county, which have been provided as part of major road schemes where a bridleway has been severed. Smaller scale improvements can also be an advantage such as providing ‘boxes’ or at least a safe area between a bridleway gate and the road. 25 4.3.11 The Equestrian Survey highlighted that other improvements such as the removal of upgrowth and overgrowth, improved gates and associated latches, general signing and waymarking will open up and enhance the network available for equestrians. Information provision, highlighting both opportunities and responsibilities, is also an important issue.

4.3.12 The type of surfacing on bridleways and other off­road routes can be a particular concern for N o t

riders and their horses (and other users). Riders generally prefer the surface of bridleways to be t i n

a natural surface which provides some ‘give’. A high percentage of bridleways in this county g h

are on arable land and by their very nature are a natural surface. Other bridleways are on a farm tracks, some of which are surfaced and a few are on forest access roads. Traditionally m s h

some bridleways have been surfaced with stone or red shale (a locally sourced by­product from i r e

coal mining) and because of their historical context these are normally accepted by users. R i g h

4.3.13 Concern normally arises when a natural or a historically surfaced bridleway is surfaced for a t s

wider range of different user groups. There are a few definitive bridleways in this county where o f

this has happened and these now provide opportunities and benefits for all user groups W a

particularly those with limited mobility. In addition there are some multi­user tracks such as y

I

those owned and managed by Sustrans and other organisations and authorities which have m p

been surfaced to accommodate a wide number of users and to reduce future maintenance r o

costs. See section 6.6 for further details on surfacing. v e m e

4.3.14 The table below highlights some of the requirements for route surfacing by different user groups. n t

P l 24 a

Table 4 Surfacing needs of different user groups n

2

User group Surfacing preferences 0 0

Utility and leisure walkers Hard, all weather surfacings 7 ­ 2

Recreational walkers Surfacings in keeping with the character of the route 0 1

Utility and leisure cyclists Smooth well maintained surfaces 2

Recreational cyclists Hard surfacings are preferred, except by mountain bikers. Horse riders and carriage drivers Soft surfacings free of small loose stones and chippings, including glass.

24 On the right track: surface requirements for shared use routes, CA 213, The Countryside Agency, 2005.

Assessment of Countryside users and their needs Chapter 4 4.3.15 Surfacing may also be necessary in certain areas to accommodate a high number of horse riders where a significant amount of poaching or erosion has taken place, resulting in access becoming difficult for all users.

4.3.16 Over the past few years the County Council, in partnership with others such as Sustrans and Scott Wilson Pavement Engineering Ltd, have been trialling various surfacing initiatives for their suitability taking into account user needs, maintenance and the initial capital cost. These initiatives include soil stabilisation products and the use of recycled tyres. The Council is also looking at a natural product which retains moisture, providing a semi­hard surface. See section 6.6 for the Council’s policy statement on surfacing.

4.4 Carriage Driving

4.4.1 Carriage driving, though not widespread, does occur in small numbers on the county’s byways and on the tracks available (through a paying permit system) in Forest Enterprise sites. The low level of use may be partly due to the expense and space needed for keeping horses and storing carriages. Another likely factor is the inherent dangers of carriage driving on the metalled highway network to connect up the limited and fragmented carriageway network (Byways, Restricted Byways and unsurfaced unclassified roads) in Nottinghamshire. There is certainly little evidence of use on the county’s public carriageway network.

4.4.2 The carriage driving community share many of the attributes of horse riders in terms of being vulnerable road users. Because they tend to take up more road space than ridden horses, 26 motorists are less likely to try and squeeze past them, yet due to the lack of connecting ‘traffic­ free’ carriageways in the county they are likely to drive for significant distances on the metalled road network.

4.4.3 Other constraints to their needs are identified as the condition of routes such as vegetation encroachment and surface condition; and other restrictions including gates and barriers. re nghamsh Nott 4.5 Cycling i i i ghts R of Way Improvement an P l 2007­2012

Cyclists enjoy a bike ride along a bridleway.

Chapter 4 Assessment of Countryside users and their needs 4.5.1 Cycling has long been a popular and low cost method of transport, and the mountain biking phenomenon of recent years has enabled far greater cycle access to the countryside in general. The construction of the National Cycle Network routes 6, 15 and 64 through Nottinghamshire using a mixture of rights of way, permissive access and roads, contributes to the increasing popularity of cycling in the area. Nationally, cycling has been in decline correlating directly with an increase in the number of car journeys taken and safety on roads. Nevertheless, there has been a small resurgence in recent years with greater recognition of the benefits which cycling can bring, particularly as it’s a relatively inexpensive form of transport. Central Government policy and the introduction of Local Transport Plans has enabled authorities and other organisations to introduce cycling strategies and in turn improved facilities.

4.5.2 Nottinghamshire has always had a close association with cycling, being the home of Raleigh Cycles. The Greater Nottingham area includes a large cycling population probably due to the large number of students and good cycling infrastructure.

4.5.3 The Newark area is also popular with cyclists, with up to 10% of work journeys taking place by bike25 . In Retford and Worksop, cycling accounts for 4% of journeys to work compared to the national average of 3%26. The districts of Gedling, Mansfield and Ashfield still have relatively low levels of cycling which may be related to the topography (NCC Cycling Strategy 2006­ 2011).27

4.5.4 A study undertaken in 2005, the East Midlands Personal Travel Survey28 confirmed that there are relatively high levels of cycle ownership throughout the county. 42.1% of Nottinghamshire’s respondents declared that they owned a bicycle. The relatively high figures for cycling in this 27 county are not only applicable to utility journeys to work and services but also relevant to leisure and recreation. Nearly 80% of respondents cited leisure and exercise as being the main purpose for riding on Nottinghamshire’s bridleways and other off­road routes (Nottinghamshire ROWIP Cycling Survey 2006). 29

4.5.5 In summary: Nottinghamshire

• 32% of the population own a bicycle (UK Day Visits Survey 1996)30 • At least one bicycle is available to 47% of homes (National Travel Survey 2005)31 • 1.6 million people ride daily (UK Day Visits Survey 1996) • 5.4 million ride at least weekly (UK Day Visits Survey 1996) • 17 million of us ride occasionally, equivalent to some 30% of the population (UK Day Visits Rights Survey 1996). of

4.5.6 Again, cyclists, like walkers and horse riders are classified as vulnerable road users, and the Way primary requirement is to be in a safe and traffic­free environment. In an urban setting it is argued that cyclists are relatively well catered for in terms of cycle tracks and shared­use Improvement footways, and with controlled road crossing points, yet in the more rural areas, the potential conflict with vehicular traffic remains. In non­urban areas on­highway provision is very limited and at the points at which the public rights of way network meets highways, cyclists usually have to cross at grade with no controls or refuges, or cycle along the carriageway to connect to

an onward route. Plan

4.5.7 The potential interaction with vehicular traffic is certainly less of a risk to cyclists than to horse­ 2007­2012 riders. Whilst cyclists tend to travel quicker along or across the carriageway than walkers, the

25 North Nottinghamshire Local Transport Plan 2006 to 2011, Nottinghamshire County Council, 2006. 26 2001 Census, National Statistics, 2001. 27 NCC Cycling Strategy 2006­2011, Nottinghamshire County Council, 2006. 28 East Midlands Personal Travel Survey, Transport & Travel Research Limited, 2005. 29 NCC ROWIP Cycling Survey, Nottinghamshire County Council, 2006. 30 UK Day Visits Survey, The Countryside Agency, 1996. 31 National Travel Survey 2005, Department for Transport, 2005.

Assessment of Countryside users and their needs Chapter 4 smaller proportion of public rights of way or other off­road routes accessible to them mean that cyclists are likely to risk interacting with vehicular traffic for a greater distance in order to connect to the onward traffic­free route.

4.5.8 Due to the diverse range of cycles now available, especially with the prevalence of mountain bikes, the needs of each cyclist will vary with regard to route provision away from the metalled highway, as described below. In general terms for the average cyclist the need is for reasonably good (but not necessarily sealed) surfaced routes to enable the wheels to grip, and adequate width for cyclists to pass one another and other sorts of user with the minimum of disruption to either party’s journey. The NCC ROWIP Cycling Survey 2006 identified that improving the surfacing of an ‘off­road cycling’ route is a key priority for the respondents.

4.5.9 Mountain bikers on the other hand are looking for challenging routes with differing conditions relating to surfacing and topography. Cycling on bridleways is a relatively new entitlement. Before the late 1960s, a cyclist who rode on a bridleway committed trespass. This was changed by the Countryside Act 1968 enabling the public to legally ride bicycles on definitive bridleways – provided they give way to walkers and horse riders. Given that rural Nottinghamshire is predominantly an arable­farmed county very few bridleways are suitable for general cycling apart from the very committed, enthusiastic few. However, a few bridleways have been surfaced for all users. In these instances they do enable a wider section of the community to use these routes ­ for example, family cyclists, utility cyclists, people with mobility problems and anyone who wishes to remain relatively clean when out walking.

28 4.5.10 These surfaced routes may detract from the enjoyment of some, who wish to use bridleways and other routes for the character and rural environment they offer. Furthermore, many horse riders haven’t got the flexibility and the means to travel the county to find suitable bridleways. There needs to be balance when considering the current and future needs of all users when planning improvements for cyclists; principally in relation to the surfacing and ‘improvement’ of rural bridleways and byways. Nottinghamshire 4.5.11 In a research paper to the Rights of Way Law Review, Palmer (2003) suggested that the rural bike rider can be placed in several categories as follows:32

• Family Groups, who need the security of knowing that they are unlikely to get lost or meet major difficulties (steep hills etc.)

Rights • Casual and Occasional Cyclists, who have similar needs to family groups • Ramblers on Two Wheels, who are usually more map­literate and so will probably venture onto the local rights of way network and tend to be more accepting of the variable of conditions they will find Way • Active Lifestyle riders are usually looking for a good surfaced circular route

Improvement • Serious Enthusiasts. The Cyclists’ Touring Club (CTC) suggest that the key need of the serious enthusiast is a route of up to 5 hours duration, over terrain suited to their interest. This is validated through research using household surveys and focus groups by Entec (Rights of Way Use & Demand Study 2001) which reveals that mountain bikers (as distinct from those who may ride a mountain bike) prefer more challenging, unsurfaced routes. Plan 2007­2012

32 Extract from ‘Environmental Research on Recreational Needs of the Public relating to Rights of way’ – for Nottinghamshire County Council, Faber Maunsell, February 2004.

Chapter 4 Assessment of Countryside users and their needs 4.6 Motor Vehicles in the Countryside

29 4x4 driving on a byway

4.6.1 Access for motor vehicles is widespread throughout the county via the metalled highway network and is therefore the main focus for the highway authority regarding resources and spending. Nottinghamshire 4.6.2 Motor vehicles can also legally use the byway network (Byways Open to All Traffic or BOAT). This equates to 3% of the network. Riders and drivers can also use Nottinghamshire’s Unsurfaced Unclassified County Roads (UCRs) as recorded on the Authority’s List of (publicly maintainable) Streets.

4.6.3 Over the last five years these unsurfaced UCRs have slowly been given the legal protection they Rights deserve. The majority of UCRs are now recorded on the definitive map (and the List of Streets) therefore clarifying their legal status, and who can use them. As a result of this they are now

clearly marked on Ordnance Survey maps and signed. of Way 4.6.4 Out of the 315 originally recorded Roads Used as Public Paths in Nottinghamshire there are only twelve remaining. The majority of RUPPs in this county were reclassified in the early 80s Improvement under the ‘suitability tests’ (Countryside Act 1968) as bridleways and since the introduction of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 virtually all the remaining RUPPs have been reclassified on historical evidence as either byways or bridleways. The few remaining reclassification orders are still awaiting determination via referral to the Secretary of State and the holding of a public

inquiry. Plan

4.6.5 The type of use of byways varies locally, almost all will serve private landowners and residents 2007­2012 for access to their land and property. A handful of byways in the county are used by recreational motorists such as trail bike riders and 4x4 enthusiasts, albeit this usage is normally limited to byways which form a circuit with the minimum of road work. A study published by Defra in 2005)33 found that there is an average flow of four motor vehicles per day. 60% of this

33 Report of a research project on motor vehicles on byways open to all traffic, Defra, January 2005.

Assessment of Countryside users and their needs Chapter 4 use is attributed to land management and access to dwellings and the remaining 40% is by recreational motor vehicles. The research identified three types of recreational use:

• Activities which could be described as ‘rambling in a motor vehicle’ i.e. trail bike riding and 4x4 driving in road legal vehicles • Using byways to pursue country sports, particularly, hunt following, shooting and fishing • Use of byways to access land for other activities such as climbing, canoeing, cycling, wildlife watching and walking.

4.6.6 The report found that byways are an important resource for people with disabilities and the County Council has found through local contact with the Green Lane Association (GLASS)34 ­ an organisation which promotes the responsible use of byways, that some of their members are disabled and the byway network allows them greater access to the countryside.

4.6.7 Byways are particularly attractive to all users due to their ‘green lane’ character. This includes:

• Wide available width • Enclosed by attractive hedgerows • Obvious route on the ground to follow • In some cases, good surfacing • Historical significance 30 • Ecological value • Informal parking at the end of a byway.

4.6.8 Some conflicts can arise between different users on ‘popular’ byways in the county. However, the actual number of complaints about legal motorised users on Nottinghamshire’s byway network is very small. The county does not suffer from overuse and there are only a handful of Nottinghamshire localised surfacing problems associated with motor vehicle use and the suitability of the byway. Where there are surfacing problems the damage is normally attributed to agricultural and forestry operations.

4.6.9 The key issue highlighted in the NCC Nottinghamshire Recreational Motorist Survey was the need for better information and signposting. This is a theme picked up in both national and

Ri local byway research. Where conflict does arise it is usually due to a lack of knowledge by both

ghts non­motorised and motorised users about the status of a particular route. Respondents to the survey also suggest other positive management issues such as a code of conduct, volunteer

of labour and regular liaison meetings. Way 4.6.10 In 2006 the County Council adopted a policy on motorised vehicle use on public rights of way Improvement in the countryside. The policy statement clarifies the Authority’s position of positively managing motor vehicles on public rights of way. A copy of the policy is available at www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/countryside

POLICY A1­1

an P The County Council will have due regard for the needs of all l awful byway users and will positively l manage the network with all stakeholders i n a sustainable and cost effective way. 2007­2012

34 www.glass­uk.org

Chapter 4 Assessment of Countryside users and their needs Map 3 Byways in Nottinghamshire

31 re nghamsh Nott i i i ghts R of Way Improvement an P l 2007­2012

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey materials with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown copyrights. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. (Nottinghamshire County Council) (100019713), 2007

Assessment of Countrysi de users and thei r needs Chapter 4 4.7 Illegal motor vehicle use

4.7.1 As elsewhere in the country, the county does suffer from illegal motor vehicles accessing private land, rights of way and countryside sites. The obvious consequences of this are damage to surfaces, fauna and flora, disturbance of the peace, vandalism to structures, stolen vehicles and threatening behaviour. The improvement and development of new routes is often confounded by both the real and perceived use of that route by motorbikes with many stakeholders citing barriers as the answer. Unfortunately the effect of barriers has little impact on motorcycle users but has a very big impact on legitimate users such as those with a mobility problem, push chairs, horse riders and cyclists.

4.7.2 The vast majority of this use is by motorbikes and often young riders although it is known that there is some use by 4x4 vehicles typically in the Mansfield urban fringe. The access tends to be in concentrated pockets, with woodland, old pit tips and disused quarry workings being especially popular with many riders for the challenging terrain these sites provide. Rights of way are often used in their own right as an attraction but they are also used as linear access to these types of areas. The increase in the ‘minimoto’ type motorcycle has seen a significant number of illegal motorbikes using both urban and rural rights of way.

4.7.3 This illegal use is very difficult to control. The Nottinghamshire Local Access Forum successfully campaigned for the reinstatement of the Nottinghamshire Police Off­road unit who have had a number of successful campaigns targeting illegal use despite limited resources. Other initiatives have taken place, for example, targeting traders, using poster campaigns and setting up large 32 Police operations at known sites. Some work has taken place to look at providing managed off­ road facilities although due to resources, management, insurance, suitable sites and the ‘not in my back yard’ feeling little has been achieved. Small scale events do take place for motorcycle club enthusiasts through ‘14­day’ planning rules although a typical illegal motorcycle rider may not have either the inclination, money or transport to participate. In essence to reduce the impact of this activity either the source of the problem needs to be removed i.e. the controlled Nottinghamshire sale of off­road motorbikes; widespread enforcement by the Police; or all stakeholders accept the need for the provision of suitable sites and make it happen.

POLICY A1­2 Nottinghamshire County Council will continue to work with its partners in a bid to reduce the impact of illegal motor vehicle use. This will be undertaken within the parameters of current highway

Rights legislation.

4.8 Access for All of

Way 4.8.1 It has long been acknowledged that accessibility in urban fringe and rural countryside locations can be poor, not only for users with disabilities but also those with pushchairs and small children Improvement Plan 2007­2012

Accessibl e route in the Greenwood Community Forest Chapter 4 Assessment of Countryside users and their needs and people who are fit and enjoy walking but have limited mobility. One stile to climb can instantly exclude a whole section of society from using a path. It is estimated that one person in five in the UK is a disabled person (approximately 11 million people).35

4.8.2 Additionally, elderly people with limited mobility and people with temporary impairments (e.g. broken bones) may also encounter problems with accessibility (estimated to be 18 million people).35 This may impact on family and friends too, who would normally accompany people who are prevented from using a route.

4.8.3 Therefore, large number of users or potential users can be restricted by even legitimate barriers such as authorised stiles, or by network problems such as rutting and poor surfacing.

4.8.4 Key statistics from the 2001 census illustrate the proportion of those who live in Nottinghamshire who face potential mobility problems:

• An average of 10.6% of households have dependant children 4 years of age and under, and are therefore likely to use pushchairs, prams etc. when out for a walk. • an average of 36.4% of households has one or more persons with a limiting long­term illness – a key indicator of disability. (In Ashfield District this figure is over 40 %) • 16.5% of the population of Nottinghamshire are aged 65 and above.

4.8.5 Theory (Oliver et al 1975) suggests there are two different ways of explaining the disadvantages and discrimination disabled people face, and the ‘medical’ and ‘social’ models 33 of disability illustrate this. The Medical or Individual Model suggests that it is the failure or limitations of the individual’s body that causes disadvantage to them. The Social Model states that it does not matter how an individual’s body works because people are ‘disabled’ through lack of access to places or information or support, or by the attitudes of others.

4.8.6 The introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995) made it unlawful for Nottinghamshire service providers to discriminate against people with disabilities in the provision of goods, facilities and services. Public rights of way are classed as a service under the terms of the Act. This means that Highway Authorities are service providers and should consider the needs of disabled users in all the work they carry out. This includes the revision of existing polices, procedures and practices that make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for people with disabilities to use or access a provided service. Rights 4.8.7 Potentially the implication for all work in the field of public rights of way is huge as demonstrated by the following extract: ‘service providers will have to take reasonable steps to of remove, alter or provide reasonable means of avoiding physical features that make it impossible Way or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service’, Disability Discrimination Act

1995 S21 (2). Improvement

4.8.8 The 1995 Act does not set out exact requirements. However, the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) have produced a (now revised) Code of Practice.36

4.8.9 The commencement of the DDA 2005 placed a duty on all public agencies to promote equality Plan of opportunity for access to services and encourage participation by people with disabilities. Under this Act rights of way and access are covered by the new duty. Therefore the County 2007­2012 Council needs to be pro­active in providing an ‘inclusive environment’ for people with disabilities who wish to use Nottinghamshire countryside access provision. This is in line with current national and regional policy as well as being a legal necessity.

4.8.10 A specific duty of the DDA 2005 is to produce and publish a Disability Equality Scheme. This scheme will ensure that monitoring and reporting arrangements are in place for disability

35 Planning and Access for Disabled People: A Good Practice Guide, Office for the Deputy Prime Minister, March 2003. 36 Rights of Access: services to the public, public authority functions, private clubs and premises, Disabillity Rights Commission, 2006.

Assessment of Countryside users and their needs Chapter 4 equality within the Authority’s employment and service delivery. Further information and a copy of the Disability Equality Scheme is available at www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk

4.8.11 The Nottinghamshire Accessibility Study for Warsop 200637 defines an inclusive environment as, ‘easily used by as many people as possible without undue effort, special treatment or separation. It will also offer people the freedom to choose how they access and use it, and allow them to participate equally in all activities it may host’.

4.8.12 When taking into consideration the geology, topography and geography of the PROW network, the County Council cannot provide fully accessible routes throughout the county. Traditionally country parks are usually considered as providing good access for all. Amongst the various reasons, many parks are designed from scratch, thus enabling an inclusive path network to be incorporated as compared to the rights of way network which has naturally developed from historical routes regardless of the conditions and physical barriers.

4.8.13 The Rights of Way Use & Demand Study (Entec, 2001) found that most users with disabilities feel that they are victims of tokenism regarding the network currently either available or promoted for their use. All users should have the opportunity to experience different environments and have choices when out and about, from country parks to deep rural landscapes. The provision of barrier free access as an everyday and integral part of the management of Nottinghamshire’s rights of way network can greatly assist in achieving this.

4.8.14 The County Council has developed policy and procedures to ensure that requirements under the 34 DDA are met. This includes the authorisation of structures on rights of way and procedures for access improvements to public rights of way. Work so far includes replacing stiles with kissing gates, surface improvements and information provision.

4.9 Physical barriers

Nottinghamshire 4.9.1 Barriers, as in physical barriers restricting some form of countryside access, are a major problem to users. The types of barriers can range from legitimate structures for stock control, barriers erected for public safety such as an attempt to prevent illegal motorcycle access, or illegal structures like locked gates to stop ‘anti­social behaviour’. Whatever the problem, barriers are likely to end up preventing legitimate users rather than deterring ‘illegal’ users.

4.9.2 The CROW Act 2000 (s69) has now introduced a requirement to consider the needs of disabled Ri

ghts people when authorising the erection of gates, stiles and other works on public rights of way.

of POLICY A2­1

Way The Authority will seek to keep the number of structures erected on the rights of way network to a minimum, consistent with legislation, good husbandry and public safety. The least restrictive option

Improvement available will always be the priority.

4.9.3 Due to the huge diversity of people’s abilities and attitudes, it is impossible to clarify the needs of all without being prescriptive. However, information from a number of organisations concerned with disability access, as well as the findings of The Rights of Way Use & Demand Study, The

P Sensory Trust et al points to the following general principles in the provision of access to the lan PROW network and countryside sites for users with disabilities: 2007­2012 • Good physical condition of a route: barrier free access is desirable but where this is not possible the least restrictive option should be used. Further considerations include surfaces, linear and cross gradients, clear walking tunnels, widths and tread obstacles. Route length of between 1.5km and 5km is stipulated as desirable in The Rights of Way Use & Demand Study (Entec, 2001).

37 Nottinghamshire Accessibility Study for Warsop, a report for Nottinghamshire County Council, Fieldfare Trust, 2006.

Chapter 4 Assessment of Countryside users and their needs • Availability of facilities: accessible public transport and parking areas and toilets are particularly important to disabled users when planning a day out, as are well designed passing and resting places. • Consistency in information provision: the biggest problem for many potential users is lack of information and lack of confidence to deal with the unexpected. Routes of a suitable physical condition may exist but if there is no information provided, people with mobility problems will not normally just choose a route on a map and go exploring, and are therefore unlikely to gain the benefits from using that route. The decision to access the countryside is normally made at home and if there isn’t sufficient information it is difficult for someone to make an informed decision.

4.10 An inclusive network

4.10.1 It is not only physical barriers which exist that prevent people from accessing the rights of way network; Accessibility should be addressed in its widest sense. The Rural White Paper (2000) identified that certain groups are under represented in the countryside. The Countryside Agency suggest that about 25% of the population rarely or never take a trip into the countryside. This includes people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, disabled people, young people, people who live in inner cities, women, older people and people on low income.

4.10.2 There are many needs and factors specific to each group. There has been some national research and guidance identifying the needs, from bodies and organisations such as The Mosaic Project38 , the Countryside Agency39 , Sensory Trust40 and The Fieldfare Trust41 . It is recognised 35 that the Authority cannot address all the issues. This needs to be in partnership with others but there are many local, simple tasks which can be achieved with foresight and a ‘little understanding’. It is a fact that accessibility improvements to the network equates to better access to everyone regardless of their needs.

4.10.3 The County Council has both a specific duty under the Race Relations Amendment Act (2000) Notti and the forthcoming provisions in the Equalities Act (2006) to produce a Race Equality Scheme and Gender Equality Scheme respectively. The schemes will outline how the Authority re nghamsh eliminates discrimination and promotes equality good practice in the county. Further information is available on www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk

POLICY A2­2 i i

In developing and improving the local rights of way network, Nottinghamshire County Council will ghts R embrace the principles of access for all as specified through legislation, guidance and research. The Authority will seek to make the local rights of way network as accessible as possible to all users with emphasis on the provision of clear information and by adopting an approach of the least restrictive of option. Way

4.11 Farmers and land managers Improvement

4.11.1 Farmers and landowners obviously have a key role to play in the management of public rights of way. The majority of rural rights of way in Nottinghamshire cross actively farmed, predominantly, arable land. P lan 4.11.2 The Council has a good working relationship with the majority of farmers and land managers in the county and any problems and issues are normally resolved without the need for further 2007­2012 action. The County Council’s rights of way officers are there to work with farmers to give advice and help. On the few occasions where goodwill and co­operation fails the Authority will have to resort to enforcement.

38 www.ben­network.org.uk/resources/publs.aspx 39 www.naturalengland.org.uk 40 www.sensorytrust.org.uk 41 www.fieldfare.org.uk

Assessment of Countryside users and their needs Chapter 4 4.11.3 As part of the reform in Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), farmers who claim subsidy are now required to meet conditions relating to agricultural and environmental protection known as ‘Cross Compliance’. To qualify for subsidies or the Single Payment Scheme as it is known, farmers must meet a range of ‘Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition Standards (GAEC). One of the 17 GAECs is concerned with public rights of way – GAEC 8. This requires farmers to fulfil their rights of way obligations. The agency which administers the scheme (Rural 36 Payments Agency ­ RPA42 ) has asked Local Authorities to report breaches of rights of way obligations. It is hoped that this will help maintain and improve public access particularly where consistent and annual problems arise.

POLICY A1­3 Nottinghamshire County Council will share information with the Rural Payments Agency on issues otnghamsh Nott relating to cross compliance and rights of way to ensure that land managers meet the requirements of

i ‘Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition Standards ( GAEC 8)’.

4.11.4 Land managers have a legal responsibility to ensure that any rights of way across their land are free from obstruction and are easy to use. In summary, they are responsible for: ire

Ri • Providing and maintaining stiles and gates for stock control

ghts • Reinstating crossfield paths after disturbance within a set timescale • Not ploughing fieldedge paths of

Way • Cutting back overhanging vegetation • Keeping paths free from obstructions. Improvement

4.11.5 The County Council also works very closely and successfully with land managers through its Farm Partnership Scheme. For example, the scheme pays farmers to undertake maintenance tasks on their own land such as annual grass cutting on fieldedge paths, changing stiles for kissing gates and replacing signposts. an P l POLICY A6­1 2007­2012 The County Council will continue to support and develop the Farm Partnership Scheme.

4.11.6 There is more scope to work with farmers and land managers. The Council work with land managers on various issues such as the ploughing and cropping bi­annual campaign and through the Local Access Forum, currently with five representatives from landowning organisations. The Authority also attends local county shows and a ploughing match primarily giving advice on ploughing and cropping issues. Nottinghamshire County Council is limited in

42 www.rpa.gov.uk

Chapter 4 Assessment of Countryside users and their needs their powers in respect to the many issues landowners face, for example, security and fly­tipping. However, there is scope to work closer with other organisations and agencies in an attempt to reduce the impact of anti­social behaviour issues.

4.11.7 Unfortunately, land managers do suffer from a small minority of irresponsible users, for example, the dropping of litter, nuisance dogs and leaving gates open being the most common issues. The County Council will continue to provide information and education such as the countryside code to users and will support initiatives by other organisations.

4.11.8 Trespass is also an important issue to land managers. The Authority can help on public rights of way by the use of correct signing and providing waymarks to help keep users on the right path. The use of ‘margins’ on fieldedges as part of the Common Agricultural Policy is causing some problems to land managers either through people trespassing on them on foot or horseback, and in some cases by motor vehicles. It is believed that Defra and the RPA are looking into this.

4.11.9 As part of the Authority’s ROWIP assessments, land managers were asked to rank the five most important issues to them regarding public rights of way. See Appendix 4.

4.12 Summary of countryside users key needs

4.12.1 Walkers:

• Paths close to where walkers live 37 • Circular walks • Deep rural walks for ‘more serious’ walkers • Increased maintenance and enforcement • Improved road safety where rights of way exit and connect with other paths

• Better control of litter and dog fouling. Nottinghamshire

4.12.2 Horse riders:

• More bridleways and byways • Bridleways close to where riders’ horses are stabled • Circular rides with no or minimal road riding Rights • Increased maintenance and enforcement

• Improved road safety where rights of way exit and connect with other bridleways / byways of • Better verge maintenance linking bridleways and byways Way

• Where gates are necessary ­ improved gates and associated latches Improvement • More information provision regarding where riders can hack • Surfacing suitable to their needs, preferably natural and firm but with some give.

4.12.3 Carriage drivers: Plan • More restricted byways and byways open to all traffic • Increased maintenance and enforcement 2007­2012 • Improved road safety where rights of way exit • Removal of barriers.

4.12.4 Cyclists:

• Improved road safety where rights of way exit and connect with other bridleways and cycle tracks

Assessment of Countryside users and their needs Chapter 4 • Good surfaced route and adequate width (for average cyclist and family) • Challenging routes relating to surface and topography for the mountain biker • Increased maintenance and enforcement.

4.12.5 Motor vehicles:

• Better information and signing • Production of a code of conduct • The use of volunteer labour in maintaining byways • Regular liaison meetings between users and the Authority • More byways open to all traffic • Increased enforcement in tackling illegal users .

4.12.6 Access for all:

• Removal of physical barriers (e.g. stiles and gates) • Improved surfacing • Provision of wide paths • Better information before making a journey • Provision of resting places 38 • Good facilities at the start of the walk / ride (e.g. toilets, parking public transport links etc.).

4.12.7 Land managers:

• Fly tipping Nottinghamshire • Dogs (not on a lead, fouling) • Trespassing • Farm security • Presence of illegal motor vehicles • Difficulty in diverting paths

Rights • Litter • Liability and health and safety. of Way Improvement Plan 2007­2012

Chapter 4 Assessment of Countryside users and their needs 5. Assessment of the network 39

5.1 The County Network

5.1.1 The main aim of the network assessment is to assess:

• the extent to which local rights of way meet the present and likely future needs of the Nottinghamshire public and • the opportunities the PROW network provides for exercise and other forms of open­air recreation.

5.1.2 The Statement of Action (chapter 7) has been determined based on the findings of the overall network assessments and the wider consultation that has been carried out for the needs analysis Rights in the Countryside users and their needs chapter (chapter 4). of 5.1.3 As there is only a minimal level of open access land within the county of Nottinghamshire, the Way PROW network is the primary method for public access to the countryside. The vast network of

urban routes provide links to urban fringe and the wider countryside and also provide traffic free Improvement routes to schools, shops, local services and the public transport network.

5.1.4 In addition to the PROW network there is a good provision of permissive open access and linear routes throughout the county. This is discussed in further detail under the heading ‘Wider Access’ later in this chapter (5.12). Plan

5.1.5 Nottinghamshire has 3843 public rights of way totalling a network length of 2611.2 kilometres. 2007­2012 The table below shows the total number and length (including percentages) of each PROW designation within the county. The four PROW designations are as follows:

• Footpath • Bridleway • Byway Open to All Traffic (BOAT) • Restricted Byway (former Road used as a Public Path or RUPP)

Assessment of the network Chapter 5 5.1.6 Nottinghamshire’s remaining RUPPs will eventually be reclassified as bridleways, restricted byways or BOATs.

Table 5 PROW network breakdown by percentage and length

Nottinghamshire Rights of Way Network Breakdown 2006

Designation Footpath Bridleway BOAT RUPP / RB Total No. 2980 (77%) 729 (19%) 113 (3%) 21 (1%) 3843 Length (km) 1794.9 (69%) 688.2 (26%) 100.8 (4%) 27.3 (1%) 2611.2

5.1.7 The number of footpaths far outweighs each of the other categorisations, which highlights that the network is much more accessible on foot than by any other means. 31% of the network length is available to equestrians and cyclists, which compared to the National (22%) and Regional (20%) figures is quite a large percentage. However, this figure is assuming all routes are usable. As discussed in the previous chapter, the fragmentation and maintenance issues of the bridleway network means that routes are frequently not available to all users. For example, the bridleway network may be unsuitable for cyclists because of equestrian use which on softer, wet surfaces can cause surface problems. Similarly, many surfaced bridleways are less well used by equestrians who generally prefer a softer surface. This is before other issues such as ploughing and cropping, vegetation growth and connectivity are taken into account. 40 N o t t i n g h a m s h i r e

R i g h t s

o f

W a y

I m p r o v e m e n t

P l a n

2 0 0 7 ­ 2 0 1 2

Chapter 5 Assessment of the network Map 4 Density of PROW within Nottinghamshire

41 re nghamsh Nott i i i ghts R of Way Improvement an P l 2007­2012

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey materials with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown copyrights. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. (Nottinghamshire County Council) (100019713), 2007

Assessment of the network Chapter 5 Chart 2 PROW in Nottinghamshire by percentage of network (%)

3%1% 4% 1%

19% 26%

Footpath Footpath

Bridleway Bridleway

BOAT BOAT

RUPP/RB RUPP/RB

77% 69%

42 N o t t i n

g Chart 3 PROW in Nottinghamshire percentage by length of path (%) h a m s h i r e

1% R 1%

3% i 4% g h t s

o f

19% 26% W a

Foy otpath Footpath

I m p r

Bo ridleway Bridleway v e m

Be OAT BOAT n t

P l a

RUPP/RBn RUPP/RB

2 0 0 7 ­ 2 0 1

77% 2 69%

Chapter 5 Assessment of the network Map 5 Density of PROW in Nottinghamshire available to equestrians and cyclists

43 re nghamsh Nott i i i ghts R of Way Improvement an P l 2007­2012

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey materials with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown copyrights. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. (Nottinghamshire County Council) (100019713), 2007

Assessment of the network Chapter 5 5.2 Making the Assessment

5.2.1 In preparing the Rights of Way Improvement Plan Nottinghamshire County Council is required to assess:

a) the extent to which local rights of way meet the present and likely future needs of the public b) the opportunities provided by local rights of way for exercise and other forms of open­air recreation and the enjoyment of the Authority’s area c) the accessibility of local rights of way to blind or partially sighted persons and others with mobility problems.

5.2.2 Both (a) and (b) above have been carried out in the form of:

• an assessment of the public rights of way (PROW) network in Nottinghamshire using the Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) 178 methodology (ease of use) • an assessment of the wider access provision supplementary to the PROW network • holding local consultation events to seek the views of existing and potential users of the PROW network.

5.2.3 The results will assist the Authority and give an indication in determining 5.2.1 (c) above. To further supplement the data collated in this report, the Authority recently commissioned the Fieldfare Trust (a national charity promoting disabled access to the countryside) to carry out an 44 accessibility study in an area of the county.

5.2.4 It would be a huge strain on the County Council’s resources to conduct a 100% BVPI survey of the PROW network within Nottinghamshire for the ROWIP. In order to cover as diverse an area as possible with the resources available it was decided to select four 5km grid squares across the county. Every PROW within each grid square was surveyed and inspected using the BVPI 178

Nottinghamshire methodology.

5.2.5 BVPI 178 is the national framework for comparing performance for public rights of way between local authorities. The methodology was devised by the County Surveyors Society (CSS) in conjunction with the Institute of Public Rights of Way Management (IPROW)43 . The survey is conducted annually based on random samples of at least 5% of the PROW network. Every aspect of each path is assessed, for example waymarking, surface condition, structures etc, in Rights order to give an overall ease of use figure. A path must pass all aspects of the survey to be classed as easy to use. As an example, if a route is fully waymarked and the infrastructure along

of it is in perfect condition, it will still fail if it is not correctly signed where it leaves the road. Way 5.2.6 Four 5km square areas were chosen to represent different geographical regions within

Improvement Nottinghamshire and also the diverse social and economic characteristics found within the county. See Map 6. The 5km grid squares were centred on the following places:

• Elston • Gringley on the Hill

Plan • Sutton Bonington • Warsop. 2007­2012

5.2.7 By choosing areas with differing characteristics the assessment of the PROW network should highlight the diverse range of situations and problems that can be encountered by users of the whole network. It is hoped that this will also highlight the size and diversity of the task faced by the County Council in performing their statutory function of keeping PROW free from obstruction whilst trying to increase access and recreational opportunities.

43 IPROW Good Practice Guide, Institute of Public Rights of Way Officers, 2006.

Chapter 5 Assessment of the network Map 6 Network assessment area overview

45 re nghamsh Nott i i i ghts R of Way Improvement an P l 2007­2012

Assessment of the network Chapter 5 5.2.8 Social and Economic Characteristics of Grid Square areas

5.2.9 The chosen areas have been categorised based on socio­economic data (National Statistics 2001 Area Classification of Wards and Neighbourhood Statistics website)44 and the general geographic characteristics of the area.

5.2.10 Elston ­ situated in east Nottinghamshire just south of Newark, covers a rural area dominated by agricultural land. Elston and the surrounding villages of Cotham, Hawton, Thorpe, East Stoke and Syerston are all small and appear fairly affluent in nature. Farndon lies on the outskirts of Newark and is much more densely populated than the other areas in the grid square.

5.2.11 Gringley on the Hill ­ situated in north Nottinghamshire midway between Blyth and Gainsborough, is a fairly large rural village. The landscape is largely dominated by agriculture and the census statistics suggests the area is reasonably affluent.

5.2.12 Sutton Bonington is situated in south Nottinghamshire. The grid square encompassing Sutton Bonington is dominated by semi­rural housing on its western side and agriculture on the eastern side. The villages of Sutton Bonington, Normanton on Soar and Kingston on Soar offer good links to the motorway and a short commute into Nottingham due to their close proximity to junction 24 of the M1 and the A453. In addition the villages fulfil the traditional elements of being aesthetically pleasing in that they offer access to and views of open countryside and river and canal sides. These are two factors recognised in the leisure day visits survey as being reasons families may make a day visit. The combination of the above factors coupled with the 46 census statistics suggest that this is also a fairly affluent area.

5.2.13 Warsop – situated in West Nottinghamshire midway between Mansfield and Worksop, in the heart of the Nottinghamshire coalfield ­ has the characteristics of a small town (comprehensive school, shopping centre). It is a former mining community (coal mining still exists in the area but provides only a fraction of the employment opportunities it did in the 1980’s) surrounded by

Nottinghamshire former colliery sites the area has suffered economic decline since the collapse of the mining industry. The whole area encompassing Warsop and the smaller surrounding villages of Church Warsop, Meden Vale and Warsop Vale has, and still is, undergoing a programme of regeneration. The area within the grid square is urban in nature with the majority of PROW’s linking different communities.

Table 6 Socio­economic data45 for Elston, Gringley, Sutton Bonington and Warsop areas Rights Net Household Approx Approx No of Income

of Rural Population Households (£/week) AB (%) C1 (%) C2 (%) D (%) E (%)

Way Elston 2246 978 420 23.9 31.8 14.8 14.1 15.4 Gringley 750 317 480 32.2 30 12 11.2 14.6 Improvement Urban & Semi­ Urban Sutton Bonington 2583 1031 460 33.7 28.2 11.8 12.2 14.1 Warsop 12365 5265 310 9.4 22.3 19.3 27.1 21.9

Plan AB: Higher and intermediate managerial / administrative / professional C1: Supervisory, clerical, junior managerial/ administrative / professional C2: Skilled manual workers

2007­2012 D: Semi­skilled and unskilled manual workers E: On state benefit, unemployed, lowest grade workers

5.3 Local Consultation

5.3.1 In order to determine the public perspective of the adequacy of the current network provision, demands of users and the reason non­users do not use the PROW network, the County Council

45 www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk

Chapter 5 Assessment of the network commissioned a consultant to design and facilitate a local consultation event in each of the four Network Assessment areas. The events were funded by the County Council and the Countryside Agency and were supported by the Nottinghamshire Local Access Forum. A full report on the local consultations can be found on www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/countryside

5.3.2 The events were organised as drop­in sessions. A wide range of exercises and activities were devised in order to give all participants an opportunity to freely express their opinions with the aim of helping to establish priorities for the future management of public rights of way and countryside access within the county.

5.3.3 The majority of feedback at the events was from walkers although horse riding was also strongly represented. Local landowners also attended the events in the more rural areas of Gringley and Elston. Findings from the events included:

• Current dissatisfaction at poorly drained path surfaces, fly tipping, difficult road crossings and the condition of structures • Priorities for improvements are the development of traffic free routes, improved connectivity of the network with better links to countryside sites and better signage and waymarking • Circular routes are popular • Use of unofficial routes, unrecorded tracks and field edges is high • Rivers and highways severing the network act as barriers for many users.

5.4 Current dissatisfaction 47

5.4.1 The main areas for dissatisfaction outlined above are by no means a definitive list but were the most frequent issues raised during the local consultation exercises.

5.4.2 Problems with geology and drainage are difficult to solve without the need for major investment. Of course it is easier to maintain routes that have been resurfaced in recent times. However, Nottinghamshire poor drainage can have a severe knock on effect on the usability of public rights of way and this in turn can cause public dissatisfaction. It is important to be sympathetic to the needs of users where possible, but it is also necessary for users to be reasonable and to accept that routes may be difficult to use when it is wet. The County Council are trailing an experimental traffic regulation order on a bridleway which has the effect of temporarily diverting a path from crossfield to fieldedge due to water logging on the definitive line. Rights

5.4.3 Fly tipping is a nationwide problem but is not in essence a rights of way issue. The main

problem is that in some instances public rights of way can help facilitate fly tipping by providing of

easier access to remote locations. There are, however, no simple solutions. One popular method Way is to try and restrict access but this is not practical. Increasing awareness as to where to report problems with fly tipping, available facilities for the disposal of rubbish and the possible penalties Improvement incurred if caught fly tipping may help to reduce the problem.

5.4.4 Condition of structures. The number of rights of way in the survey area represents approximately 5% of the county’s PROW network (128.5 km / 2611.2 km). The survey

recorded a total of 93 structures. By factoring this figure, it can be assumed there are a total of Plan 1860 structures countywide (1% of the network equals 18.6 structures). The assessment

identified nine structures that need replacing giving a 10% failure rate. Therefore 10% of 1860 2007­2012 equates to an estimated 186 structures in need of repair or replacement across the county.

5.5 Analysis of current use of the network in the assessment areas

5.5.1 Elston – Path links between the villages within the grid square are few and far between highlighting a fairly fragmented network. This coupled with the relatively sparse population in the area and an apparent lack of tourism opportunities suggests that the PROW network is not widely used. The possible exception to this is a limited amount of use by local people with

Assessment of the network Chapter 5 dogs, ramblers and a few local horse riders. Urban paths in Elston and Farndon are well used for access to services and shops.

5.5.2 Gringley on the Hill – There is an extensive bridleway network between Gringley and Everton and a few routes also link Gringley with Misterton. The main recreational draw for this area is the Cuckoo Way along the towpath of the Chesterfield Canal and this route attracts a large number of walkers. The PROW network through Gringley is severed by the A631 and the River Idle meaning several routes halt at the point where they reach the road or river. It is suggested that these factors help contribute to the relatively low usage of the PROW network.

5.5.3 Sutton Bonington ­ Due to the nature of the features (river and canal) in the western half of the grid square, the road network and its proximity to other urban conurbations there appears to be a market for small scale tourism in this area. A number of pubs offer river and canal side seating areas and are family orientated. The eastern half of the grid square houses an extensive bridleway network (severed in places by a minor but fast and well used road network). The network also provides good links between outlying villages, which when combined with the above factors suggests the PROW network is well­used. In 2002 the village was selected to host the County Council’s Quiet Lanes Project. See section 5.14 for further details.

5.5.4 Warsop – The Warsop area is densely populated, especially in relation to the other areas included in the survey, and is urban fringe in nature. A number of routes within the area are either surfaced jitties between premises or form short links between communities. The network to the north east provides access to more open countryside. The grid square is bordered by 48 recreational sites and facilities (Sherwood and a number of Forestry Commission woodlands) to the north and east. The network within this grid square is well used as much of it serves as links to schools and facilities from Warsop’s outlying housing estates as well as being a recreational resource for the local population.

5.6 Results and analysis of the assessments Nottinghamshire 5.6.1 The network assessment was carried out on every PROW within each of the grid squares. The total number and length of routes surveyed in each grid square is detailed in table 7. The total length of public rights of way surveyed equates to 5% of the total PROW network in Nottinghamshire.

Table 7 Total length of PROW surveyed in each grid square Rights

Rural No of Routes Total (in km)

of Elston 30 23.2 Way Gringley 33 29.3

Improvement Urban & semi­urban Sutton Bonington 47 41.1 Warsop 50 34.9 Total 160 128.5

Plan 5.6.2 The number of routes in each grid square highlights there is a higher density of routes in urban and semi­urban areas. 2007­2012

5.6.3 Surveys were undertaken between January and April 2006. It should be noted that at the time of year the survey was undertaken, natural upgrowth, a common obstruction during late spring and summer, was not a factor during this survey. It would be natural to assume that had the survey been conducted during the summer months the ease of use figure may have been slightly lower because of natural upgrowth.

Chapter 5 Assessment of the network Table 8 BVPI results for network assessments (percentage pass)

Signs Waymarks Stiles Bridges Obstructions Ploughing Surface Overall Overall etc & Cropping (Length) (No.) BVPI Figure (% pass) 86.1 65.2 89.7 94.2 79.2 77.8 88.4 47.6 50.1

5.6.4 The figures in the above table show the overall pass BVPI score for each criterion within the survey for the whole of the Network Assessment. The Overall Length column is the actual BVPI ease of use ‘pass’ figure for the network assessments. The ‘Overall No.’ column is what the BVPI ease of use figure would have been if the results were shown as the number of routes that pass rather than the length of right of way surveyed.

5.6.5 The average BVPI figure for each of the individual criteria works out at 81.06%. It is easy to be misled and believe that on that basis, the overall pass rate (ease of use figure) should be a similar amount. The main point to bear in mind is that a route has to pass all the individual criteria to constitute an overall pass. Therefore, as only 65.2% of routes passed on waymarking, the maximum overall score achievable on the network assessments was 65.2%, assuming that all the other criteria had a pass rate of 100%.

5.7 Key Findings from the assessments

5.7.1 The key findings of the Network Assessments for each area are detailed below: 49 5.7.2 Elston:

• Network density is low compared to other areas • Large areas have no PROWs or access provision • The network is very fragmented to the west and severed by the A46 and the River Trent which have no crossing points Nottinghamshire • There are large areas of permissive access to the east of the area through Defra Conservation Walks scheme and the Woodland Grant scheme • There is evidence of large scale equestrian use on some footpaths in order to connect with the permissive and definitive bridleway network • There is a good bridleway network around Hawton. The only link to the permissive bridleway network is by riding on a busy road with an overgrown verge Rights • The bridleway network west of Hawton has very little evidence of equestrian use but forms

good circular walks for dog walkers from south Newark housing estates. of • There is good access to the National Cycle Network to the east Way

• There is a high number of larger scale obstructions compared to other areas Improvement • There is 100% signage in this area but waymarking is poor • Small circular routes close to Elston and Syerston provide good circular dog walking routes. There are some issues with dog fouling and control.

5.7.3 Gringley on the Hill: Plan

• The network is severed by a busy main road (A631) and the River Idle which has no 2007­2012 crossing points • Many routes start and finish on busy roads with no further off road links • One crossfield route has a dog leg which users miss out in favour of ‘trespassing’ on a desire line across the field • Non­definitive desire lines alongside stretches of the River Idle connect dead­end definitive routes

Assessment of the network Chapter 5 • The Cuckoo Way runs alongside the Chesterfield Canal for its duration in this area and provides good links for walkers between local villages • The Cuckoo Way provides limited opportunity for cycling and none for equestrian use • There is an extensive bridleway network on the western side of the square extending to Everton which provides opportunities for lengthy traffic free rides • The more strategic routes, which provide a link between villages, have fewer problems and were easier to use • Large scale problem with missing bridges over dykes on 2 remote routes.

5.7.4 Sutton Bonington:

• There is a very dense network that appears to be very well used, especially to the west alongside the River Soar • The only crossings of the River Soar to connect into Leicestershire’s rights of way network are road crossings • The area is rich in pasture with few instances of ploughing and cropping issues. A large number of stiles have been replaced with kissing gates • Many small scale problems that could be negotiated with little trouble constituted a fail under the BVPI methodology • Waymarking was the issue that caused the most failures • Good network of bridleways to the east of the area and extending north, are fragmented by 50 busy road crossings • Some sections of bridleway are unusable for cyclists due to legitimate equestrian use poaching the soft ground.

5.7.5 Warsop: Nottinghamshire • There are a large number of paths • The bridleway network is fragmented • Many routes start and finish at busy roads • There are lots of urban jitties linking different estates • A large number of barriers aimed at restricting illegal use of motorcycles do nothing to

Rights prevent it and serve only as barriers to legitimate users such as people with pushchairs and mobility scooters • The area is surrounded by areas of permissive access (Woodland Grant Scheme and of Forestry Commission managed land) Way • The network is key in linking smaller communities to the main centre of Warsop

Improvement • The former colliery site has caused problems with map anomalies but has potential for increased access opportunities, including a newly opened cycle track into Derbyshire • Waymarking was good compared to other areas surveyed but signposting provision was variable • Poaching was a problem around a stile on a path. This was caused by a cattle feeder left Plan adjacent to the line of the footpath

2007­2012 • A local footpath group are very active in the area, reporting problems and carrying out minor access improvements.

5.8 Summary of key findings from assessments

5.8.1 Looking at the key findings above, it is possible to draw conclusions about the PROW network and wider access in general and also the difference between the rural, urban and semi urban networks.

Chapter 5 Assessment of the network Table 9 Network provision, problems found, average distance per problem and average number of faults per failed route in each area of the Network Assessment.

Network Network No. of Av distance No. of Av No. of provision provision Problems per Problem paths that faults per Rural (No of routes) (in km) Found Found failed failed path Elston 30 23.2 27 0.86 15 1.8 Gringley 33 29.3 39 0.75 20 1.95 Urban & semi urban Sutton Bonington 47 41.1 33 1.25 24 1.38 Warsop 50 34.9 30 1.16 19 1.58

5.8.2 The Rural Network

5.8.2.1 It was found that rural areas appear to have a far less dense network of public rights of way but with routes longer in length on average than in urban areas. Table 9 above highlights that obstructions are much more frequent in rural areas. These factors combined mean that when using the PROW network in a rural area, users are much more likely to encounter an obstruction or a greater number of problems than they would on a walk or ride of similar distance in an urban setting.

5.8.2.2 Over half the routes surveyed in rural areas were found to have some form of obstruction. Ploughing and cropping was obviously more of an issue in rural areas. Waymarking was also particularly poor in rural areas. This could possibly be explained by fewer officer hours being 51 spent in these areas due to fewer problems being reported.

5.8.2.3 The higher percentage of problems encountered in rural areas can partly be attributed to the amount of use. Generally, a large percentage of problems relating to public rights of way either do not get reported or are tolerated by the majority of users, save for issues where public safety is at risk for example. Additionally, there may be a perceived lack of Nottinghamshire information and possibly knowledge of whom or where to report problems to. These factors combined mean that the less well used a route is the more unlikely it is that a problem on that route will be reported to the highway authority and therefore, the longer it will take to deal with the problem.

5.8.2.4 Permissive ROW and wider access provision seems to be much more widespread in rural

areas. In the Elston area, two large networks of Woodland Grant Scheme permissive Rights footpaths and Defra Conservation Walks permissive bridleways greatly supplement the network and help provide traffic free routes between the villages. Similarly, in the Gringley on the Hill area, permissive routes also provide good alternative off road routes and links of between definitive dead­end paths. Way Improvement Table 10 Average distances for routes that passed and failed in rural areas.

Rural Elston Gringley Average length of pass (m) 836 1005.4

Average length of fail (m) 714 809 Plan

It is worth noting that the average length for routes that pass is significantly higher than the 2007­2012 average length for routes that fail.

5.8.3 The urban and semi­urban network

5.8.3.1 There are more routes ‘formally’ surfaced with less crossing farmed land ­ meaning that agricultural issues are much less likely. However, although fewer problems were found per path length, a larger number of paths had a problem meaning the overall ease of use figure was quite low for these areas.

Assessment of the network Chapter 5 5.8.3.2 The average length of a route that failed in an urban fringe area was significantly higher than that of a route that passed. This means that despite a reasonable number of paths being free from obstruction and easy to use, the actual length of the network classed as easy to use was much less.

5.8.3.3 Another explanation for finding fewer problems on urban fringe networks is that the increased level of usage tends to lead to problems being reported sooner than on less well­ used routes. This increased usage can be put down to factors including greater population levels and the places, services and facilities that the urban fringe PROW network links together.

Table 11 Average distances for routes that passed and failed in urban and semi urban areas.

Urban & Semi Urban Sutton Bonington Warsop Average length of pass (m) 669.8 608.4 Average length of fail (m) 1069.6 843.7

5.8.3.4 The permissive ROW and wider access provision appears to be less in these areas. What is available appears to be concentrated in areas surrounding population centre or providing increased access to more rural areas. Also in these areas there is, to a degree, a certain amount of ‘tolerance’ from land managers to trespass. For example, the use of private fieldedge margins for access, usually dog walking.

52 5.9 Comparison with Nottinghamshire’s actual 2006 BVPI figures

5.9.1 The previous five years BVPI 178 results are presented in the table below. The average national BVPI 178 figures for Highway Authorities are shown for the 4 year period 2002­ 2006. (Results not published for 2006/07)

Nott Chart 4 Nottinghamshire and national average BVPI 178 scores 2002/03­2006/07 i i i re nghamsh ghts R of Way Improvement an P l 2007­2012 5.9.2 Based on the figures above the average BVPI score for Nottinghamshire over the last 5 years is 57.68%. In comparison, the BVPI score for the network assessment is 47.6%, a difference of almost 10%.

Chapter 5 Assessment of the network 5.9.3 There are a number of possible reasons for this difference:

• Accuracy of results ­ The BVPI methodology is recognised as being accurate to within 5%, allowing for a maximum 10% difference between the two figures • Different surveyors – The main county survey is carried out by a number of volunteers whereas the network assessments were carried out by two Local Authority officers. Interpretations of the methodology may differ slightly. One surveyor may decide a stile needs replacing and therefore fails whereas a different surveyor could think the same stile is safe to use but requires attention and therefore passes • Fewer people carried out the network assessments – The two officers carrying out the network assessments may both interpret the methodology more stringently than the larger number of volunteers that carry out the actual assessments, resulting in a large difference in the results • Application of the BVPI methodology – The BVPI methodology was designed using a random 5% sample of the entire network and not the whole network approach. The network assessments were carried out on a 100% of 4 areas totalling 5% of the network, therefore, every problem that constitutes a fail in each of the areas was identified. It is possible that by choosing 4 different areas a completely different result may have been achieved. A random 5% sample of the four areas may have returned a much higher overall result but would not have highlighted the network problems that the assessment did.

5.10 General findings from the network assessments 53

5.10.1 In assessing the 4 areas, each with its own unique and individual landscape, social and economic characteristics, an array of different problems and issues with the PROW network have been identified.

5.10.2 Of all the problems encountered during the assessment, lack of waymarking, ploughing and Nottinghamshire cropping issues, and waterlogging and rutting of natural surfaces were the most common. All other aspects such as signposting, stiles and gates and bridges showed reasonably high pass levels in comparison. To put this into context, 86.1% of routes passed on signposting but if that was equated countywide, 538 routes would need either a replacement sign or the existing sign repairing.

5.10.3 Less than 7 out of 10 of all the routes in the survey areas are adequately waymarked. Rights Again, put into context on a countywide basis this would suggest over 1100 routes are not

adequately waymarked. of Way 5.10.4 Rural routes are more likely to have barriers to usage but are less likely to have these

problems reported due to insufficient usage. This does raise the question of allocation of Improvement funds. Should large amounts of the annual maintenance budget be spent resolving problems for the few, or should more of that money be focused on prioritising more urban and frequently used routes that provide good strategic links between communities and facilities? Plan 5.10.5 Busy roads and rivers cause network fragmentation and severance creating many dead­end

routes. Such routes often have little or no public benefit and attract minimal usage. 2007­2012 Improvements to such routes need to be prioritised in order to increase the safety and the connectivity of the network, especially in areas where PROW network density is poor. Additionally resolution of definitive map anomalies could be done in conjunction with schemes that offer increased connectivity of the network.

5.10.6 There is extensive provision of permissive access and linear routes throughout the county which offer recreational opportunities and help to supplement the PROW network. However, it is essential to provide information and mapping to reap the benefits of this provision.

Assessment of the network Chapter 5 5.10.7 Where definitive access is unachievable permissive access agreements to link definitive routes should be sought in an attempt to reduce the crossings of major roads, railways and rivers. Schemes that improve the connectivity of the network should be prioritised.

5.10.8 Better education is required for dog walkers in respect of trespass with dogs through them not being kept on a lead or under close control. This may help the relationship between dog walkers and landowners / managers. There may be scope for the provision of bins. However, the bins need to be emptied on a regular basis which can sometime prove difficult due to resources.

5.10.9 Both the network and needs assessments identified trespassing as a significant problem. Major improvements in waymarking throughout the county can assist both in the general improvement of the PROW network and therefore BVPI performance, but also in decreasing the number of instances of trespassing.

5.10.10 Much of the PROW network is historical and does not necessarily fit in with modern farming practices. Many routes do not have a logical alignment, for example, a cross­field path may have a dog leg in the middle of a field meaning that when you reach the other side of that field you have travelled a greater distance than if you had walked in a straight line. It is natural instinct to walk the straight line rather than the definitive route, especially if the definitive route is not clearly defined. From the landowner’s perspective, it may be less hassle to re­instate the more direct route during the course of normal agricultural practice and it is possibly more common sense to do so. However, no provision is made in law for 54 diversions to be carried out easily on the grounds of common sense and the definitive line should be re­instated. Better liaison with landowners is needed to highlight the possible outcomes of such situations.

5.10.11 Where possible landowners / managers should be encouraged to place cattle feeders and water providers away from the line of public rights of way to reduce the effects of poaching

Nottinghamshire around structures and the general rutting of routes.

5.10.12 The erection of barriers in an attempt to prevent illegal motorcycle use and anti­social behaviour should be discouraged due to the problems these structures cause to those with bicycles, horses, prams, pushchairs and mobility scooters. Often these barriers have a short life and the users they attempt to restrict find an alternative means of access to the same site. By removing barriers, which are often unauthorised and are not serving the function Rights they were installed for, accessibility can instantly be improved.

of 5.11 Accessibility audit in Warsop Way 5.11.1 The Accessibility study carried out by the Fieldfare Trust in the Warsop area found that only one 46 Improvement short section of public footpath met the BT Countryside for All criteria for full accessibility. Taking into account the density of the PROW network in this area Horse stile, ineffective at restricting motorbikes. and the importance it holds in linking the local communities, this

Plan suggests the network in this area holds little or minimal value to

2007­2012 people with visual or mobility impairments.

46 www.fieldfare.org.uk

Chapter 5 Assessment of the network 5.11.2 Poor drainage, surface damage and physical barriers, either legitimate or otherwise, were the main factors in routes failing to be classed as ‘accessible’. It was found that only a very small percentage of barriers were carrying out the function they were installed for. Many of these served only as a barrier to access for people with pushchairs, in mobility scooters or wheelchairs or people with restricted mobility.

5.11.3 The application of the ‘least restrictive option’ approach to structures in the Warsop area would enable much greater accessibility to many more routes. Small scale surface and drainage improvements, where practical, would further increase accessibility. Examples of this are highlighted in Maps 7 and 8. Please note, these examples are used for illustrative purposes only.

5.11.4 The public footpath across the Carrs (Map 7) provides an off road link between Church Warsop and the central services of Market Warsop. The removal of the barrier at the entrance to the footpath off the B6031 (highlighted by a blue star) would enable people with pushchairs and users in wheelchairs or mobility scooters to use the route. The width of the bridge and the gradient up to it could still be problematic for some users, although, capability could be decided upon by the individual according to their own abilities. Further surface improvements (at locations highlighted by red stars) would potentially open up the footpath and bridleway to the west. Again, people with restricted mobility may be unable to use these routes but the paths in this area would be available to more potential users through small improvements.

55 Map 7 Church Warsop area highlighting ease Map 8 Market Warsop area highlighting ease of potential accessibility improvements of potential accessibility improvements re nghamsh Nott i i i ghts R of Way Improvement an P l 2007­2012

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey materials with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown copyrights. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. (Nottinghamshire County Council) (100019713), 2007

Assessment of the network Chapter 5 5.11.5 Map 8 shows an area to the east of the centre of Warsop. Currently, a locked ‘horse friendly gate’ (see photo) restricts access to the Bridleway at Burns Farm. If this was to be removed and a few surface improvements were made (highlighted by red stars on the map) the route would still not deliver full accessibility under the BT Countryside for All guidelines, but would offer barrier free access. This could be used Inappropriately named horse friendly gate with Burns Lane, a lane that attracts minimal traffic levels, as a circular route. It would then be the decision of the user as to ability to overcome the natural gradients along the route.

5.11.6 The PROW network in Warsop is very dense and many of the routes are surfaced. It can be assumed that the poor nature of accessible network provision in this area is an indication that the vast majority of the PROW network within the county is largely inaccessible to people with visual or mobility impairments. 56 5.11.7 One problem with delivering a PROW network that is as inclusive as possible is the lack of measurable criteria for accessibility within the current Best Value survey methodology. The introduction of the Disability Discrimination Acts 1995 and 2005 has placed a duty on service providers to make reasonable adjustments to help people with disabilities access that service. Nottinghamshire 5.11.8 Resources are largely channelled into network improvements that will increase BVPI figures as this is how the County Council is judged on performance. The lack of need to assess accessibility in determining the BVPI score for ease of use of the PROW network potentially means minimal resources are available to carry out accessibility improvements.

5.11.9 There is a need to ensure all improvements to the PROW network deliver the least restrictive Rights access solution in terms of the removal of physical barriers and the minimisation of environmental factors (gradients, surface problems) where possible. This has to be done

of within environmental and budget constraints but it is important to deliver the least restrictive

Way option that can be achieved in a given situation and to ensure all chosen options are justifiable. Improvement 5.11.10 It is important to provide users and potential users with a choice rather than a single option. Consideration should be given to identifying and delivering specific projects within the county that either meet the BT Countryside for All guidelines or at least deliver barrier free access. Groups that represent people with disabilities should be consulted in the design and delivery

Plan of any scheme designed to improve accessibility.

2007­2012 5.12 Wider access

5.12.1 There are a number of sites across the county offering informal permissive area access as well as numerous permissive linear routes. These can help in providing good recreational opportunities and in many cases form good links with the PROW network. In addition, the ‘Quiet Lanes’ project could offer good links between fragmented areas of the PROW network for all users. See section 5.14 for further details.

Chapter 5 Assessment of the network 5.12.2 Permissive access can be beneficial for all parties. Provision of new access can result in higher payments under agricultural schemes (Defra Environmental Stewardship Scheme).47 This is a greater incentive for landowners as it supplements their income.

5.12.3 Users benefit from permissive access in that it offers greater recreational and access choice and in many cases enhances the PROW network. Maintenance of permissive access is often the responsibility of the access provider. Under the Environmental Stewardship Scheme payments to landowners are on the proviso that the routes are maintained to set standards. Routes managed by organisations such as Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust are often maintained by volunteers looking to gain practical countryside management skills.

5.12.4 Many sites offering permissive access, for example Sherwood Pines, provide safe environments for families and groups. They often also provide access to interesting resources such as water courses and wildlife habitats and largely cater for leisurely family walks or dog owners.

5.12.5 Permissive access can help to ease the pressure on the PROW network in areas where it is well used. Alternatively it can help increase usage of the network where it is underused by improving connectivity. This can be beneficial in providing links and greater connectivity where the PROW network is fragmented. It can also offer traffic free routes between communities. One example is the Defra Conservation Walks’ permissive bridleways and the Woodland Grant Scheme48 permissive footpaths in the Elston 5km square. Map 9 shows the PROW network of the area. Map 10 shows how the permissive access network in the area supplements the PROW network. Contrary to this, other areas of permissive access are more 57 inaccessible and can only be reached by road. Whilst offering a recreationally facility, in many instances this resource could be improved by facilitating access from off­road sources, either permissive or definitive. This would improve the quality of the journey removing the need to use the main highway network. In cases where there is no alternative but to walk or ride along a main highway it is beneficial to prioritise the cutting of vegetation from roadside

verges. Nottinghamshire

5.12.6 The example shown in Map 10 highlights both of the above points. The permissive bridleway network supplements the existing PROW network and minor roads in the area to provide an off­road link between Hawton, Balderton, Cotham and Elston. Unfortunately, the permissive network in the centre of the map and the bridleway network at Hawton is separated by a busy county road which attracts a high volume of usage by heavy goods Rights vehicles. Any equestrian or cyclist wishing to access the permissive network from the north has to do so by using the aforementioned road thus risking possible conflict with vehicles. of

5.12.7 With greater consultation in the early stages of developing the permissive access network it is Way possible that benefits to potential users could have been even greater. For example, it may

have been possible to form an agreement to prioritise roadside verge management, enabling Improvement equestrian users to ride alongside the road rather than on it. Alternatively, by negotiating with local landowners and managers a compromise could potentially be reached in providing permissive fieldedge bridleways.

5.12.8 The interpretation panels on site does not indicate the status of the PROW network where it Plan joins the permissive network. This could deter equestrians and cyclists from using the

available routes as it may appear to them there is no further access beyond the site. Also, 2007­2012 people with visual impairments could potentially find the colour contrast makes the information on the panels difficult to read. Improved consultation in the development of new permissive access opportunities could also lead to improved interpretation that caters for all potential users of the site.

47 www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/es/default.htm 48 www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/wgs/default.htm

Assessment of the network Chapter 5 Map 9 Rights of way network south of Newark highlighting poor connectivity

58 re nghamsh Nott i i i ghts R of Way Improvement an P l 2007­2012

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey materials with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown copyrights. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. (Nottinghamshire County Council) (100019713), 2007

Chapter 5 Assessment of the network Map 10 Rights of way network south of Newark overlaid with permissive access routes, highlighting how permissive access can improve connectivity of the existing rights of way network

59 re nghamsh Nott i i i ghts R of Way Improvement an P l 2007­2012

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey materials with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown copyrights. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. (Nottinghamshire County Council) (100019713), 2007

Assessment of the network Chapter 5 5.12.11 Generally there is a lack of information on the extent of the wider informal and linear access provision within the county. A number of different organisations and bodies, for example district and parish councils, the Environment Agency, British Waterways and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust, offer such facilities but there is little or no definitive guide. Even the Ordnance Survey maps show little of the permissive access available. Information is often only obtainable through internet searches, local knowledge or accidentally coming across a site where access is offered.

5.12.12 Nottinghamshire County Council is currently undertaking an in depth survey of the wider access provision within the county as part of the ROWIP and the Sherwood ‘Living Legend’ Project.49

5.13 Key findings for wider access:

• The permissive access provision in Nottinghamshire is extensive in places offering excellent recreational opportunities • There is a lack of available information as to the location and extent of permissive access within the county • It is acknowledged that some of the access is small scale and is purely of local benefit • Early consultation between the Authority and interested groups in the designation of new permissive access could help to improve the facility provided in terms of connectivity with the PROW network and improved design and accessibility to assist in 60 providing for more potential users • Permissive access that forms part of incentive agreements (e.g. Defra Environmental Stewardship) tend to be well maintained as this forms part of the agreement • Lack of consultation in new access agreements can lead to structures being installed that do not meet British Standards. Examples are one step stiles or kissing gates with insufficient widths, which would be classed as obstructions if they were used on the Nottinghamshire PROW network.

5.14 Quiet Lanes

5.14.1 The Quiet Lanes initiative was developed by the Countryside Agency with support from the Department of Transport and the Campaign to Protect Rural England. Rights 5.14.2 Quiet Lanes are defined as minor rural roads or networks of minor rural roads considered appropriate for shared use by walkers, cyclists, horse riders and other vehicles. The aim of of Quiet Lanes is to maintain the character of minor rural roads by seeking to contain rising Way traffic growth. It is not a mechanism for traffic calming where the desired output is a reduction in the number and speed of traffic. Improvement

5.14.3 In 2002 the Council trialled this concept, and after consultation with the county’s Parish Councils, Sutton Bonington was chosen to host the Council’s inaugural Quiet Lanes pilot project. A circular route was identified by the Parish Council that would provide both on­ and off­road recreational and utility access between two areas of the village. The route included Plan two minor rural roads and sections of the public rights of way network, with a view of upgrading an existing definitive footpath to bridleway status. However, due to the difficulties 2007­2012 of upgrading this route, the scheme focussed on the two minor roads. This comprised:

• Quiet Lane signing at the entry and exit points of the area • new seating along the route to provide a resting point for the less able (and also a viewing point)

49 www.robinhood.co.uk

Chapter 5 Assessment of the network • new road surface to mimic an unsurfaced route to encourage slower speeds • removal of direction signs to discourage through traffic • improvements to the lay bys on the routes to encourage use.

The trial identified a number of positive and negative outcomes; specifically that:

(a) There was little interest or ownership of the scheme by the village except for people living on the Quiet Lanes, who perceived it as a mechanism for rural traffic calming, (b) Proposals for Quiet Lanes need to be part of a wider network of routes, e.g. rights of way, to add value and purpose to the new designation, (c) There was extreme difficulty in developing non­obtrusive but effective physical measures to reinforce the Quiet Lanes character, (d) The Police were not supportive of any formal changes to the speed limits as they considered them to be unenforceable.

5.14.4 The use of the Quiet Lanes designation is inappropriate for situations requiring positive traffic calming, i.e. where the aspiration of the public is to provide some form of rural traffic calming to reduce an existing through traffic or speeding problem. The Quiet Lanes designation is, however, considered appropriate for lanes that already have relatively low vehicle usage and where this designation will significantly improve the connectivity of the rights of way network by using the highway network to join otherwise disconnected routes.

5.14.5 There is wider scope for considering schemes that will benefit non­motorised users by 61 improving the connectivity of the rights of way network. It is therefore recommended that the future implementation of Quiet Lanes is considered only as an integrated element of the rights of way network.

Sutton Bonnington Quiet Lane Nottinghamshire Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2007­2012

Assessment of the network Chapter 5 6. Policies and Procedures 63

6.1.1 The preparation of Nottinghamshire’s ROWIP has offered an opportunity for the County Council to prepare and present a summary of the key rights of way issues taking into account both established and new legislation and working practices. These key issues and concerns have also been raised by respondents during the initial consultation of the ROWIP. Nottinghamshire

6.1.2 This chapter deals with the policies and procedures which will guide the Authority, land managers and all stakeholders in the maintenance and management of public rights of way in the county.

6.2 Maintenance and enforcement Rights

6.2.1 The county’s rights of way network consists of nearly 2,700 km of paths, split geographically

into six areas managed by ‘Area Rights of Way Officers’ and two ‘Enforcement Officers’. The of

role of each area officer can be summarised as: Way

• Protecting the public’s right to use and enjoy PROWs Improvement • Providing advice and assistance in particular to land managers, conservation organisations, the public and other local authorities • Responding and reacting to complaints and defect reports • Organising annual and reactive maintenance of the path network Plan • Responding to planning and development consultations which affect PROW

• Advising applicants and processing public path orders 2007­2012 • Dealing with planning and public path orders • Process applications for traffic regulation orders.

6.2.2 The service is largely reactive leaving little time to be pro­active. The number of defect reports is increasing with more demand and pressure on the network and higher expectations. Reporting defects is also a lot easier with improved electronic communication. Defects are prioritised according to public safety needs. Maintenance of paths is then prioritised by strategic and local importance. Policies and Procedures Chapter 6 POLICY A1­4 Nottinghamshire County Council will work towards formulating a policy to ensure that maintenance and improvement works are prioritised to reflect competing demands on budgets. Prioritisation will consider frequency of use, health & safety of the public, needs of the disabled and promotional status. Such a policy must not lose sight of the fact that NCC has a duty to maintain all public rights of way.

6.2.3 Because of the largely reactive nature of rights of way work planned condition surveys, apart from the BVPI and the Ploughing and Cropping surveys, are few and far between.

6.2.4 As the highway authority, Nottinghamshire County Council has a duty under section 130 of the Highways Act 1980 ‘to assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of’ and to ‘prevent, as far as possible, the stopping up or obstruction of’ public rights of way’. There are various sections of the Highways Act 1980 that deal with the different types of obstructions found on rights of way. In this chapter of the ROWIP the Authority has identified and detailed the key maintenance and enforcement issues encountered on public rights of way.

6.3 Signposting

6.3.1 The County Council has a legal 64 duty to signpost rights of way where a path leaves a metalled road. Signposting is an important tool in creating greater awareness. Therefore NCC will erect signposts on all PROWs Nottinghamshire where they meet a metalled road unless the path is in a wholly built up area with a hard surface throughout and is clearly defined.

6.3.2 All new and replacement signposts will be of metal construction, however, wooden signposts may be placed at the discretion of the County Council, for example, keeping in character with

Ri the local area. In some locations a post and waymark disc may be suitable. Where ghts appropriate, and resources allow, local destination information may be included.

of 6.3.3 False or misleading signs (e.g. ‘Private’) and any unauthorised waymarks on rights of way will Way be removed and appropriate enforcement action taken.

Improvement POLICY A1­5 Nottinghamshire County Council will implement a co­ordinated signing and waymarking programme. The County Council is committed to ensuring that all paths are signed with their correct legal status from metalled roads, and where appropriate, signs will be placed at other locations where there is an identified need. P lan 6.4 Waymarking 2007­2012

6.4.1 The Authority has the power to sign or waymark where it considers it necessary to assist users along a right of way. Waymarking is also an aid to landowners and occupiers helping to prevent trespass and reduce conflict. Only waymarks based on the Countryside Agency50 recommended design and colour relevant to the path’s definitive status will be used. The only exception to this is the use of waymarks for promoted routes. Promoted route waymarks used by other authorities and organisations must be approved by the County Council and advice will

50 Waymarking public rights of way, CA77, The Countryside Agency, July 2001.

Chapter 6 Policies and Procedures be given on the frequency and location of these. To further aid and assist users the Authority will use yellow topped waymarker posts where appropriate (e.g. between hedgerows on crossfield paths).

POLICY A1­6 The County Council aims to provide waymarking wherever there is difficulty in identifying the route of a right of way. Nottinghamshire County Council will proactively seek to waymark definitive public rights of way in a structured and standardised approach. Waymarking will only be used where the route is unclear, as an aid to users and land managers, to reduce signage clutter and prevent ‘urbanisation’ of the network.

6.5 Gates, stiles and barriers

6.5.1 The following includes the consideration of the needs of farmers and horse owners for structures to be stockproof (HA 1980 s147).

6.5.2 The erection of a new structure for stock control on a public footpath or bridleway requires the express consent of the County Council. Only gates will be authorised as new structures – stiles will only be accepted in exceptional local circumstances. A new structure is one that is not recorded in the definitive statement or has not been 65 previously authorised by the Authority.

6.5.3 Landowners are responsible for the maintenance of stiles and gates although the Authority has a duty to contribute a

minimum of 25% of the costs. Where N o t

existing approved structures require repair t i

Kissing gate accessible but stock­proof n

or replacement, landowners will be offered g h

further assistance and financial incentives to replace a stile with a gate or in exceptional a circumstances a stile complying with British Standard BS5709.51 Any stile, gate or other m s h

structure supplied or i nstalled on a PROW by the Authority, becomes the property and i r e

responsibility of the landowner for future maintenance. R i g h

6.5.4 Where a structure i s no longer needed for stock control purposes, the Authority will seek the t s

removal of that structure, leaving a clearly waymarked gap. o f

W a

6.5.5 Barriers intended to ‘safeguard’ users e.g. attempting to prevent illegal activities such as y

I

motorcycling and fly tipping can only be authorised and erected after careful consideration by m p

the County Council. Barriers are only lawful if provided and maintained by the Authority under r o

section 66 of the Highways Act 1980. If barriers are erected, they must not restrict or deter v e

legitimate users in any way in accessing a right of way. Any barriers not authorised will be m e

removed at the expense of the instigator. n t

P l a

6.5.6 Nottinghamshire County Council will subject any request for the erection of barriers to prevent n

unlawful activities to rigorous scrutiny. All avenues of action by the Police and other relevant 2 0

authorities must be exhausted before barriers are considered. 0 7 ­ 2 0

POLICY A2­1 1 2

The Authority will seek to keep the number of structures erected on the rights of way network to a minimum, consistent with legislation, good husbandry and public safety. The least restrictive option available will always be the priority.

51 Gates and Stiles ­ Specification BS5709 2001 British Standards Institution, 2001.

Policies and Procedures Chapter 6 6.6 Surfacing

Surfaced boardwalk on a bridleway 66

The County Council has both a duty to maintain and a power to improve rights of way ­ and surfacing can constitute maintenance of and / or an improvement to rights of way.

6.6.2 Where appropriate, the County Council may improve the surface of paths that offer increased Nottinghamshire recreational opportunities. Prior to any works taking place to surface a path in this instance, the Authority will have due regard to those with mobility problems, the general appearance and character of the path, the strategic importance, user needs and conservation issues.

6.6.3 The materials and type of construction used for surfacing paths will be chosen to reflect the balance of user needs, capital and future maintenance costs, sustainability, local character and

Ri the local ecology. Where possible, in the first instance, the Authority will use recycled inert

ghts materials from local sources. However, the Council will, after advice and consultation, consider materials from primary sources and will also trial new innovations. of

Way POLICY A1­7 The Council will carry out surface improvements and maintenance in accordance with relevant and Improvement current government guidance. When specifying surfacing materials the Council will place the needs of the legal public user first. Where appropriate the Council will consult with local stakeholders such as conservationists, landowners and user groups. Surfacing will only be considered where budget constraints allow, alternative remedies have failed and patterns of use justify expenditure.

P 6.6.4 Where a public right of way is also used for private access, the County Council will only lan maintain such a way to a reasonable standard appropriate for a highway of that character

2007­2012 having regard to the traffic that passes or may be expected to pass along it (Highways Act 1980 s58). For example, where a bridleway is also access to private dwellings and there are no public vehicular rights, only private access rights, the County Council will only maintain the surface to a standard suitable for walkers, horse riders and cyclists. Where there is damage to a right of way through private use (e.g. private vehicular access) the County Council will seek to recover the costs of repair from the perpetrator (Highways Act 1980 s131A).

Chapter 6 Policies and Procedures 6.6.5 Third parties who wish to change the surface of a path for their own interests, for example, a householder changing a natural surfaced bridleway to a metalled surface, need to gain permission from the County Council before undertaking any works. Each application will be assessed as the outcome of any works of this nature must not detract from the user’s enjoyment of that right of way or make it any less convenient to use. In some circumstances there may be a need for a formal maintenance agreement with the County Council.

6.6.6 The surfacing of Byways Open to All Traffic will be undertaken in accordance with current guidance (e.g. Making the Best of Byways)52 although each byway will be assessed on its own merits to the same criteria as in Policy A1­7. Byways are carriageways and thus a right of way for all users including vehicular traffic (powered by either a combustion engine, pedal or by horse). However, they are used mainly for the purpose for which footpaths and bridleways are used (i.e. by walkers, riders and cyclists). There is no obligation for the County Council to surface or maintain them to a standard to accommodate modern day vehicular traffic i.e. providing an all weather sealed surface such as tarmacadam.

POLICY A1­8 The Authority will seek to maintain the surface of public rights of way to a standard appropriate with their ordinary legal public use with regard to both the current and possible future use of the path.

6.7 Ploughing and cropping

67 Nottinghamshire Rights of Way Improvement

Reinstated footpaths crossing a cultivated field

6.7.1 The Highways Act s 134, as amended by the Rights of Way Act 1990, specifically deals with

disturbance of rights of way by agricultural operations. This act specifies the requirements Plan relating to crossfield paths and defines the widths of both crossfield and fieldedge paths. 2007­2012

6.7.2 BVPI 178 surveys in Nottinghamshire have shown that crop obstruction and a failure to reinstate following cultivation are a major cause of paths failing the ‘easy to use’ test. The Council is confronting this problem with a proactive strategy known as the Cultivation & Cropping Strategy. This approach was initiated in Spring 2004. The aim is to help and

52 Making the Best of Byways: A practical guide for local authorities managing and maintaining byways which carry motor vehicles, Defra, December 2005.

Policies and Procedures Chapter 6 encourage land managers to comply with the requirements of the Rights of Way Act 1990 in order to increase unprompted reinstatement of public paths across arable land. Twice a year the Council writes to all arable landowners with rights of way across their land to remind them of their responsibilities under the Act. Good practice guidance notes are also distributed.

POLICY A1­9 The County Council will continue to work with land managers to ensure paths are kept free from obstruction by cultivation and cropping. The County Council will carry out countywide inspections in the Spring to check paths are clear of crops and Autumn to check paths are marked and level following cultivation. Any paths found not to be compliant with the Act will be followed up with the landowner and enforcement proceedings taken where necessary. Repeat offenders will be served enforcement notices without prior warning and the Council will consider prosecution in cases where this approach fails to have effect. The Council may recover its reasonable costs where default enforcement action is carried out.

POLICY A1­3 Nottinghamshire County Council will share information with the Rural Payments Agency on issues relating to cross compliance and rights of way to ensure that land managers meet the requirements of Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition Standards (GAEC 8).

6.8 Bridges

68 Nottinghamshire Rights of Way Improvement

Wooden bridge over a watercourse with waymark post

6.8.1 As a general rule the maintenance responsibility for existing bridges over natural features on a

Plan right of way rests with the County Council. Structures which cross man­made features such as railways or canals are normally the responsibility of the owner, for example, Network Rail or

2007­2012 British Waterways.

6.8.2 Where a land manager, with NCC approval, creates a new or widens an existing ditch, pond or channel that crosses an existing right of way, a suitable bridge or structure must be provided, at the land managers expense, which can accommodate all legitimate users safety and without any restriction. The absence of any approved crossing point will be construed as ‘wilful obstruction’. Bridge designs will be of NCC approved specification complying with easy access requirements in terms of width and approach. One or two handrails will be fitted as necessary depending on site specifics.

Chapter 6 Policies and Procedures 6.8.3 Due to the large capital cost of bridges, bridge replacement and repairs by the County Council will be prioritised on public safety, strategic importance and the inconvenience caused. NCC will work towards a pro­active regime of inspections to ensure structures are maintained and repaired before they become a serous liability.

6.9 Enforcement to remove obstructions and other nuisances

6.9.1 When dealing with enforcement issues, in the first instance, the County Council will make contact with the person responsible and liaise locally to try and resolve the issue. Where co­ operation cannot be achieved, the County Council will serve an enforcement notice on the person(s) responsible to remove the obstruction. If this does not result in a satisfactory outcome within the timescales stated in the legislation, the Council will enter the land, carry out the work and recover reasonable costs. Consideration will be given to prosecuting offenders. Repeat Ploughing and Cropping offenders will receive an enforcement notice without prior warning.

6.10 Vegetation encroachment

6.10.1 The County Council is responsible for the control of natural upgrowth on the surface of a right of way (other than crops). This will be managed within budget constraints through a programme of planned annual maintenance.

6.10.2 It is the responsibility of the landowner to cut back overhanging vegetation encroaching on a right of way. This includes vegetation from both the sides and above, and for a bridleway there 69 should be 3 metres (10 feet) of headroom. In the event of vegetation obstruction, where necessary the Authority may take action as per Policy A1­10 requiring the removal of the encroachment (Highways Act 1980 s154).

POLICY A1­10

The Council will use its powers of enforcement to tackle obstructions of public rights of way wherever re nghamsh Nott initial discussion with the person responsible fails to resolve the situation. The Council may recover its reasonable costs where default action is taken to make a path available to the public. Persons i i i responsible for obstructing paths will be given the opportunity to remedy the situation within specified deadlines; subsequent enforcement will be carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines in a firm but fair way. ghts R 6.11 Community and partnership working of Way Improvement an P l 2007­2012

Volunteers clearing vegetation

Policies and Procedures Chapter 6 6.11.1 The wider community plays an important role in helping the County Council achieve its aims and objectives in managing Nottinghamshire’s rights of way network.

6.11.2 Parish Councils are in an excellent position to help the Authority in maintaining and promoting the network. A scheme was initiated in 1995, with grant aid from the then Countryside Agency, working with parishes to undertake surveys, minor maintenance and promotion of their local network. These humble beginnings have now expanded into agreements with 68 parish councils, geographically spread throughout the county, under the banner of Parish Paths Partnerships (P3).

6.11.3 The P3 scheme is successful, represents good value for money and encourages parishes to take ownership of their local network. To ensure consistency in the scheme the Authority will work with all P3 Parishes which may involve training, improved communication and help with administrative and technical tasks. There may also be opportunities to extend the scheme to other parish organisations. For example, ‘Warsop Footpaths and Countryside Group’ are P3 partners for their area.

POLICY A6­2 The Council will continue to expand and develop the Parish Paths Partnership (subject to available resources).

POLICY A6­3 The County Council will encourage and invite other organisations into the Parish Paths Partnership. 70 6.11.4 Nottinghamshire County Council has led the way nationally using land managers and landowners as local contractors ensuring that paths are maintained on their own land. The Farm Partnership Scheme (FPS) currently works with 63 farmers who play a vital role in looking after paths on their land, being responsible for the maintenance of stiles and gates, cutting back overhanging vegetation and reinstating crossfield paths. The scheme pays farmers to

Notti undertake annual grass cutting on fieldedge paths, changing stiles for kissing gates and replacing signposts. The FPS is an excellent example of partnership working; both the County re nghamsh Council and the landowner have legal rights of way duties and responsibility.

POLICY A6­1

i i The County Council will continue to support and to expand the Farm Partnership Scheme. ghts R 6.11.5 The Authority works with a number of organisations and individuals on voluntary tasks improving rights of way. Benefits are wide ranging and it is an effective way of assisting both

of the Council with its responsibilities and helping farmers and landowners with theirs. The

Way Council currently works with a dedicated team of volunteers who help survey the network and occasionally help with minor maintenance tasks. This varies from working with the Ramblers

Improvement Association helping survey and waymark the Trent Valley Way long distance path to clearing Byways with the Green Lane Association and the Trail Riders Fellowship. Working with volunteers is time consuming and careful attention needs to be given to health and safety but the results can be very fruitful.

an P POLICY A6­4 l The County Council will continue to work with and support volunteers, and is committed to increasing

2007­2012 volunteer work tasks.

6.11.6 The County Council also works in partnership with other organisations and authorities. This is mainly on project­based initiatives such as the development of multi­user routes and long distance trails. Partnership work has also included working with health authorities and primary care trusts on promoting exercise through the promotion of walking and cycling. These synergies obviously provide added value to any project and the Council will continue to seek and support this type of partnership working.

Chapter 6 Policies and Procedures 6.11.7 The Council acknowledges the importance of working with advisory bodies and consultees. During definitive map and public path order making processes the Authority consults more widely than the recommended consultee lists and the Authority worked with the Nottinghamshire Rights of Way Liaison Group for nearly 20 years. A statutory Local Access Forum has now replaced the Liaison group.

POLICY A6­5 The County Council is committed to developing the work of Nottinghamshire Local Access Forum by encouraging an active membership, supporting the needs and publicising the role of the Forum.

6.12 Definitive Map and Statement

71 Nottinghamshire

Excerpt from the Askham inclosure award map of 1841 (Ref EA 119/2) Nottinghamshire Archives

6.12.1 The County Council, as the surveying authority, is responsible for maintaining the definitive map Rights and statement. The map and statement are legal documents; the map records the status and the line of rights of way and the statement lists definitive rights of way shown on the map

together with a short description. of Way 6.12.2 The recording of a route on the definitive map is conclusive evidence of the minimum status,

position and existence of a public right of way. It is important to note that the recording of Improvement most of the routes shown on the definitive map is ‘without prejudice to the existence of any other rights’. This means that there may be unrecorded rights on an existing right of way, for example, a footpath shown on the map may actually have bridleway rights. There may also be unrecorded public rights which never made it onto the definitive map. Where this happens

there is a process which allows the Authority to make a ‘definitive map modification order’. Plan Before making an order the Authority must have evidence that shows that a right of way exists

or can reasonably be alleged to exist, or that it raises a presumption that a route has been 2007­2012 dedicated as a public path. For example, this could be through evidence of uninterrupted use as of right over a 20­year period (Highways Act 1980 s31) or by producing historical evidence of a path’s existence, such as inclusion in an inclosure award or tithe map.

6.12.3 Definitive maps came into being as a result of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The first stage involved a survey undertaken by Parish Councils and interest groups and co­ordinated by the County Council which resulted in a draft map and statement. The draft map was held on public deposit during which time representation and

Policies and Procedures Chapter 6 objections could be made. These comments were taken into consideration and a provisional map and statement were published in the early 60s. This time only landowners, lessees or occupiers of land could object. In the 1960s Nottinghamshire County Council published the definitive map and statement.

6.12.4 The custody of the county’s definitive map and statement is the responsibility of the definitive map team of five officers. The role of this team can be summarised as:

• Maintaining and updating the map and statement • Processing claims made by the public for new rights of way • Making legal orders to add new paths to the map and statement • Writing proofs of evidence and appearing at public inquires as expert witnesses in support of path claims • Giving advice to the public, landowners and solicitors regarding any legal issues involving the map and statement • Processing Public Path orders • Exploring opportunities to expand the rights of way network by path creations.

6.12.5 The County Council has a legal duty (s53 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981) to keep the definitive map and statement under continuous review, and to make modification orders as necessary to keep the map and statement up to date as an accurate record of public rights. Applications to make changes to the map can be made by members of the public, Parish and 72 District Councils or by the County Council. The number of applications is steadily increasing, which is reflected nationally throughout England and Wales.

6.12.6 The CROW Act 2000 sets a deadline of 2026 for applicants to register rights of way based on documentary evidence. This cut­off date means that the number of DMMO applications may well grow significantly over this period. The former Countryside Agency, now Natural England, Nottinghamshire is charged with taking the lead in recording unregistered routes via the project known as ‘Lost Ways’. Natural England has awarded a contract to the Archive Research Unit (ARU) who will systematically research the evidence; including inclosure awards, Finance Act 1910 maps, Railway and Canal Plans and Estate Maps.

6.12.7 Pilot studies have been completed and the main ‘First Wave’ of six counties takes place in

Rights 2007. Nottinghamshire is included in this wave and documentary research was started in May 2007. The exact number of potential unrecorded routes is difficult to ascertain but initial thoughts estimate this figure to be in the region of 700 plus. Claims will have to be submitted of to the surveying authority – i.e. the County Council. This will have a huge impact on the Way already large DMMO workload and clearly not all the work will be completed without the need for additional resources. Nevertheless, there is clear public and landowner benefit in resolving Improvement this uncertainty.

6.12.8 To complement this work a programme of work has already started by registering pre­1949 urban jitties and alleyways, unsurfaced unclassified roads and dead­end paths – it has always been believed that the missing links from dead­end paths to other paths or metalled roads were Plan public.

2007­2012 6.12.9 Additionally contained within the existing definitive map there are an estimated 700 anomalies in Nottinghamshire, approximately 3 map anomalies per parish. Anomalies include:

• Paths off­line i.e. the line on the ground does not follow that found on the map or the line on the map does not match what is on the ground • Poorly drafted orders by others such as side road orders and town and country planning act orders • Paths severed by railways, airfields, coal mining etc

Chapter 6 Policies and Procedures • Dead­end or cul­de­sacs and even ‘island’ paths • Paths where the route continues but the status of path changes at a parish boundary.

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey materials with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the 73 Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown copyrights. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. (Nottinghamshire County Council) (100019713), 2007

Working Definitive Map extract

6.12.9 A very small number of these anomalies may overlap with the Lost Ways project but this will N

make very little difference. Most of these anomalies will need to go through a lengthy order o t t

making process. i n g h a

POLICY A5­1 m s

The County Council will ascertain the extent of anomalies on the definitive map and statement, and h i r

develop and i mplement a prioritised framework. To deliver this framework, resources need to be e

allocated to an Anomalies and PPO orders Officer. R i g h t s

6.12.10 The Milestones Statement in 1999 highlighted 855 legal events had occurred since the o f

production of the definitive map. These legal events, for example, diversions, extinguishments, W

creations etc, need to be incorporated legally onto the definitive map. The preparation of the a y

updated definitive map started in the early nineties. West Bassetlaw, Mansfield and Ashfield I have already been completed and updated on a larger scale 1:10,000 Ordnance Survey Maps. m p r

Work has now started on the Rushcliffe map. o v e m

6.12.11 The definitive map is held at Trent Bridge House, West Bridgford and this paper map is e n t

available for members of the public to view, preferably by appointment. In recent years a P

working copy of the map has been digitised for purposes of internal management. It is l a n

proposed to upload an electronic definitive map onto the internet where members of the public 2

can view the county’s definitive rights of way. Before this can happen it is essential for the 0 0

maps to be checked and updated. Updating of the map is on­going and with current resources 7 ­ 2

it will take approximately 10 years to complete. There may be scope to upload the parts of the 0 1

map and statement which have already been updated. 2

6.12.12 In response to the number of DMMO applications the Council receives, guidelines for prioritising and managing the high number of applications have been drawn up.

Policies and Procedures Chapter 6 POLICY A5­2 Definitive Map Modification Order applications will be processed chronologically by order of receipt with the following exceptions (in no particular order):

• Where the public benefit to be gained is of more than limited impact. For example, where an order could result in a positive impact on the network such as adding a bridleway to complete an ‘off­road’ network for horse riders • Where a claim affects a householder in proving the existence or non­existence of a right of way. For example, a potential route that passes close to residential buildings and dwellings • A claimed route triggered by an event such as fencing off the line of a regularly used path • Where an order is claimed on 20­year use the personal circumstances of path users will be taken into account. For example, the witness’s age, health and possible relocation • Where a claimed route is under threat due to development or major road schemes. For example, the dualling of the A46 trunk road or the widening of the M1 motorway.

POLICY A5­3 The County Council will, where possible, use dedications in lieu of DMMOs enabling a quicker route onto the definitive map and statement.

POLICY A5­4 Where a claimed route is unavailable on the ground, for example, due to a building or environmental issue, the County Council will consider the use of concurrent public path orders to assist with the 74 establishment of the route

6.13 Public path orders

6.13.1 The County Council has a discretionary power to make legal orders to divert, create and extinguish footpaths and bridleways. Highways with vehicular rights are dealt with at a Nottinghamshire magistrate’s court.

6.13.2 The orders follow a set legal procedure and it is for the County Council to decide initially if it wishes to make a path order. Once an order is made, it must be advertised and anyone can make a relevant objection; anyone who has an opinion, not just the landowner, can have their views taken into account. Ri

ghts 6.13.3 Proposals to change the rights of way network can arise from applications or requests from local residents, path users, developers, farmers, schools or the highway authority itself may of propose to make a change. Diversion orders are the most common form of public path order. Way

6.13.4 The County Council has adopted new guidelines relating to the costs of diversion orders to Improvement applicants. These guidelines can be found at www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/countryside

POLICY A5­5 The County Council will recharge its full costs of a public path order to all applicants except in exceptional circumstances such as correcting historical errors or a landowner providing a package of an P

l measures to significantly improve the rights of way network for the benefit of the public.

2007­2012 6.13.5 Public path order (PPO) applications will only be supported by the Authority where there is seen to be a clear public benefit to the user.

6.13.6 In summary before making an order to divert a path, an authority must be satisfied that: • It is in the interests of the public or the owner, lessee or occupier of the land • The diversion brings the public to another point on the same path or another highway connected to it; and it must be as convenient to the public to use this alternative route

Chapter 6 Policies and Procedures • There will not be a negative effect on public enjoyment of the path as a whole, on other land served by the existing path and on land affected by any proposed new path.

POLICY A5­6 Public Path Order applications will be processed chronologically by order of receipt with one or more of the following exceptions (in no particular order):

• Where there is a clear public benefit. For example, where an order would result in increased connectivity such as an improved path network or a path with more attractive view or historical feature • An order that addresses public safety, for example, a path may be diverted to a more suitable road crossing point with increased visibility • Where PPOs resol ve definitive map and statement anomalies • Applications linked to DMMOs – the diversion of a path concurrent with the making of a modification order.

6.14 Right to apply – new provision from the CROW Act 2000

6.14.1 Those who own, lease or occupy land used for agriculture, forestry or the breeding or keeping of horses will be given a formal right to apply for diversions and extinguishments. The full effect of this legislation will not be known until late 2007 but it is likely to include a time constraint in which a highway authority has to consider a PPO application. 75 6.15 Planning and development N o t t i n g h a m s h i r e

R i g h t s

o f

W a y

I m p r o v e m e n t

P l a n

2 0 0

Path affected by development 7 ­ 2 0

6.15.1 In some circumstances public rights of way can be and are affected by planning applications 1 2

and development. As a rule the County Council is consulted on individual planning applications that affect rights of way. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) gives powers to a local planning authority (LPA) to extinguish or divert rights of way affected by development. This is a separate application and procedure to the ‘Planning Application’ and the extinguishment or diversion of a path is not guaranteed.

Policies and Procedures Chapter 6 6.15.2 TCPA 1990 regulations stipulate that planning permission must have been granted and the authority is satisfied that it is necessary to stop or divert the way in order to enable the development to be carried out. The planning authority has to consult with any other authority before making the order and they must publicise the order. The planning authority is required to consider any representations it receives in response to the advertisement.

6.15.2 As well as local negotiations with planners and developers aimed at improving the path network as a result of the impact of development, s106 of the TCPA 1990 allows a LPA to enter a legally binding agreement, for example, providing opportunities for developers to improve access on or adjacent to development sites. This may include new paths, upgraded paths and promotional material. Moreover, particular attention must be paid to Access for All and ‘designing out’ crime and nuisance, for example, by providing open and clear routes. Where there is existing and latent demand for riding and cycling, Nottinghamshire County Council will pursue bridleway status for any new routes to be provided.

POLICY A1­11 The County Council will seek improvements, at an early stage, to the rights of way network affected by development. The County Council will work with developers and local planning authorities to achieve the maximum benefit for the rights of way network.

6.15.3 Not all paths affected by development are shown on the definitive map and statement. These may include ‘Lost Ways’ or routes currently being used by members of the public. Sometimes these routes are picked up by local knowledge of the Rights Of Way Officer which can then 76 trigger a DMMO.

POLICY A5­7 Where developments affect non­definitive routes, on which public rights may reasonably be presumed to exist, the County Council will expect developers and the relevant local planning authority to have regard to these paths as they would with definitive rights of way. Nottinghamshi 6.15.4 There are also a number of routes, predominantly in urban areas, where historically poor orders have been made. For example, where the intention was to move the original definitive line onto a newly adopted footway, which never happened. Each individual case will be judged on its own merit but in the majority of these cases a modification, extinguishment or creations order will resolve the anomaly. re ghts R

i POLICY A1­12 The County Council will work closer with developers and the local planning authority to minimise the

of illegal obstruction of rights of way and other access caused by permitted development and unlawful

Way development.

Improvement 6.16 Dedications and creation agreements

6.16.1 Nottinghamshire County Council has powers to accept dedication of new rights of way. Dedications can be very useful additions to the network and the County Council will generally support them. A path dedicated by means of a creation agreement (HA80 s 25) automatically

P becomes maintainable at public expense. Therefore the Council must be satisfied that there is lan a clear public benefit to be gained from the proposed path and that future maintenance will

2007­2012 not be excessively burdensome.

Chapter 6 Policies and Procedures POLICY A1­13 Creation agreements will only be considered: • Where there is a clear public benefit to be gained from the proposed path • Where the requirement to dedicate forms part of an obligation under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 s 106.

Maintenance liability will normally only be accepted where: • The addition of a path is of strategic public benefit • No initial additional expenditure by the Authority is required to bring a path into a fit state for use.

6.16.1 The County Council also has powers to create new routes by order using section 26 of the Highways Act 1980. It is worth noting that only a handful of authorities use their powers to make creation orders using section 26. This is normally attributed to the uncertainty of compensation costs. The creation of new rights by order can be exceedingly and increasingly difficult, time­consuming and costly. Because of this, priority and resources are normally given to creation orders on land within the public and voluntary sector.

6.16.2 Clearly, there are positive outcomes to be achieved by creation orders i.e. by increasing network density and connectivity. In some circumstances they are the only means of achieving a ‘connected’ network. Where there are significant benefits to the public and these are relative to the likely compensation costs, the County Council will consider section 26 creation orders. 77 POLICY A5­8 Where there is a clear public need, the County Council will seek to create a new path in the first instance by agreement. Where an agreement fails and there are substantial public benefits to be gained and the benefits are relative to the expected costs, the County Council will consider a HA80 s

26 creation order. The Council will carry out this power in accordance with the relevant available Nott guidance. inghamshire 6.17 Widths of new routes (made by Public Path Order)

6.17.1 Nottinghamshire County Council has a duty to assert the rights of the public (Highways Act 1980 s130) when making orders or consulting on new routes. As a result, the Authority normally requires that there shall be a minimum width of 2m for footpaths and 4m for Rights bridleways which are created by dedication and creation order, except where a path is fenced on one or both sides, when the full available width should be recorded as the legal width.

of Way 6.17.2 Nottinghamshire County Council will encourage partner authorities to consider this standard

and will normally object to public path orders made by other authorities in Nottinghamshire Improvement where they create routes which are less than the minimum width described.

6.18 Extinguishment

6.18.1 The County Council will not support extinguishment orders unless there is very strong evidence Plan that the route is not needed for public use. 2007­2012 6.19 Gating orders

6.19.1 Central Government introduced measures in the CROW Act 2000 to stop up or divert highways which were subject to, or aided, criminal activity. These types of highways were envisaged as being located in urban, rather than rural, areas and were often alleyways or interconnecting routes on housing estates.

Policies and Procedures Chapter 6 6.19.2 This provision was found not to be particularly effective in dealing with anti­social behaviour. Therefore, new legislation was introduced in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. The legislation came into effect in April 2006 and deals with restricting the use of a highway rather than stopping up or diverting. Like the CROW provisions, it is envisaged that the use of gating orders will be in the urban environment, however, the Regulations cover all highways including rural public rights of way.

6.19.3 The effect of the new legislation is to give highway authorities the power to gate certain types of highway where the Council is satisfied that:

• stopping up or diverting the highway is not appropriate • premises adjoining, or adjacent to, the highway are affected by crime or antisocial behaviour • the existence of the highway is facilitating the persistent commission of criminal offences or anti­social behaviour • it is, in all the circumstances, expedient to make the order for the purposes of reducing crime or anti­social behaviour.

6.19.4 In response to this legislation the County Council has now produced policy and procedures for gating orders. Visit www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk for further details.

6.20 Looking for opportunities 78 N o t t i n g h a m s h i r e

R i g h t s

o f

W a y

I m p r o v e m

e Former railway line n t

P l a 6.20.1 Despite the fact that the county has nearly 2700 km of rights of way, the network is often n

2 fragmented sometimes limiting safe and attractive walking, riding and cycling opportunities. 0

0 The Authority also has a remit to develop and promote a strategic multi­user network in 7

­ Nottinghamshire. 2 0 1 2

6.20.2 The Authority has been involved in major access projects in recent years including the development of the National Cycle Network (NCN) in the county. These are Route 6 from Attenborough to Shireoaks, Route 64 from Orston to Harby and Route 15 from Bingham to Orston.

Chapter 6 Policies and Procedures 6.20.3 Multi­user routes, also known as Greenways, offer excellent recreational and utility opportunities. As opposed to historical rights of way these routes are purposely designed and should provide:

• Access for walkers, riders and cyclists taking into account surfacing, access to and from the route, gradients, cambers and provision of facilities such as information boards • Both recreational and utility journeys • Links with other public access and, countryside and urban areas. • Links with the public transport network • A safe environment for walkers, riders and cyclists.

6.20.4 There are further potential access corridors in the county, which fall into three different broad categories:

1. Natural features, such as rivers, streams and dumbles. People naturally tend to gravitate towards water and much use has been made of existing and new access along river corridors. Access alongside the River Trent has been enhanced and managed for a number of years now with aspirations to further improve this access resource.

2. Man­made corridors, mainly redundant railway lines and canals. These make up a significant proportion of current access corridors in the county, and do not follow the same landscape confines as the natural access corridors. Some are already actively used for access including the Southwell Trail, Teversal Trails, parts of the Timberland Trail and 79 National Cycle Network. Other railway lines still exist but are very fragmented where, for example, sections have been brought into agricultural use and multiple ownership. Examples include, the Bilsthorpe to Ollerton line, the former Midland Line from Farnsfield to Mansfield and Shirebrook to Welbeck Colliery ‘north’ line. There are also redundant railway lines with their track bed still in place awaiting a decision on their future. Several examples exist in the county including the Ollerton to the former High Marnham Power Nottinghamshire Station, Ollerton to Bevercotes and Bestwood to Calverton.

2a. Towpaths alongside active and redundant canals are also another access opportunity (although British Waterways normally limit access to walkers and cyclists). By their very nature they are an excellent link between urban and rural areas and offer a welcome relief from the built up urban environment. The County Council has worked closely with British Rights Waterways and Rushcliffe Borough Council to improve access along the Chesterfield Canal and Grantham Canal respectively. Nottingham City Council and Broxtowe Borough Council

have undertaken considerable work on the Beeston Canal, and even the redundant and of

fragmented sections of the Nottingham Canal in the south west of the county provide both Way refuge for wildlife and public access. Improvement 3. Other green corridors can include routes that fall between natural and man­made corridors as a result of non­development, predominantly in urban areas. This is sometimes due to natural features or where development is unsuitable, for example, a natural geological feature or a planning condition requiring public open space. A good illustration of this was

referenced in the Authority’s Access Studies in 2003. Bramcote Hills Park divides areas of Plan development on the edge of Nottingham, and reaches into the urban areas for over a mile

with many links to the rights of way network. 2007­2012

6.20.5 Partnership working has been key to the success of multi­user routes. Several formal partnerships have been formed, including with Sustrans, Derbyshire County Council, Borough and District Councils, and those in private industry. The Authority will continue to build upon this, adding value and securing extra funding. For example, the County Council is contributing to a major £50 million ‘BIG Lottery Fund’ bid with partners to develop the Sherwood area of Nottinghamshire.

Policies and Procedures Chapter 6 6.20.6 The core theme of this project is sustainability and consists of four components; a new visitor centre, a forest recreation scheme, local village initiatives and an extensive multi­user network. The scheme is the initial step towards the County Council’s aspirational goal of creating a Regional Park for Sherwood. The multi­user route network will create a circular route within Sherwood connecting with other visitor destinations and local country parks. A significant element of the project includes improving and providing new access to regional centres in the East Midlands and South Yorkshire. If the Lottery bid is successful the delivery of the project is due to start in 2007 with a planned completion date in 2012.

POLICY A1­14 The County Council will continue to work with its partners in securing and providing safe and traffic free multi­user routes for walkers, riders and cyclists.

80 Nottinghamshire Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2007­2012

Chapter 6 Policies and Procedures Map 11 Potential access routes for Sherwood Living Legends lottery bid

81 re nghamsh Nott i i i ghts R of Way Improvement an P l 2007­2012

Polici es and Procedures Chapter 6 6.21 Open Access

6.21.1 This new right of access, a major part of the CROW Act 2000, gives people the opportunity to walk freely across ‘mapped access land’, without having to stay on public rights of way. This ‘new’ right of access only applies to mapped access land – not the ‘right to roam’ anywhere.

6.21.2 Open Access in Nottinghamshire consists of 584 hectares of both registered common land and ‘open country’. In addition to this mapped land, Forest Enterprise has dedicated nearly all of their freehold land (under section 16 of the CROW Act 2000), 1980 hectares as Open Access land countywide.

6.21.3 A high percentage of Open Access land in the county is designated either as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). The reason for their designation varies between sites but can include geology, flora and fauna. Therefore it is particularly important to work with conservation organisations and landowners to ensure the balance between conservation and access.

6.21.4 As the access authority, Nottinghamshire County Council is responsible for administering and facilitating the access of these areas working with landowners, conservation bodies and Natural England. The Authority has powers under the CROW Act to provide information and signage, to appoint wardens, to make bylaws and serve notice to remove obstructions.

POLICY A1­15 82 The County Council will work with landowners, Natural England and conservation bodies to ensure members of the public enjoy their rights on foot to Open Access land designated under the CROW Act 2000. re nghamsh Nott i i i ghts R of Way Improvement an P l 2007­2012

Open access land at Budby Heath

Chapter 6 Policies and Procedures Map 12 Open Access land in Nottinghamshire

83 re nghamsh Nott i i i ghts R of Way Improvement an P l 2007­2012

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey materials with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown copyrights. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. (Nottinghamshire County Council) (100019713), 2007

Polici es and Procedures Chapter 6 6.22 Publicity and promotion

6.22.1 Clearly rights of way maintenance and an up­to­date definitive map are fundamental to ‘keeping paths open and available for the public to enjoy’. Nevertheless, the promotion of the network is essential in highlighting the opportunities, increasing usage and maximising the potential of rights of way for both recreational and utility type journeys.

6.22.2 Despite the popularity of walking, riding and cycling, rights of way are in ‘competition’ with other activities, examples include, the television, the internet, retail shopping and eating out for 84 example. A visit to a busy do­it­ yourself store on a Sunday illustrates a shift in the use of leisure time. Even so, residents and visitors to the East Midlands countryside will flock to the popular peaks and dales of the neighbouring Peak District and Nottingha Nottinghamshire’s own honeypots such as Sherwood and Clumber Parks. The county’s 2,700 km network has a lot to offer to those who are prepared to explore a little further.

6.22.3 The Council has been promoting rights of way opportunities for a number of years, mainly msh through the publication of walk and ride leaflets. This has now expanded into themed walk,

ire cycle and ride packs, internet pages, public displays and attendance at local agricultural shows.

Rights However, much needs to be done to bring this work to the attention of potential users: the NCC Employee Survey noted that 40.8% of respondents suggested that the Council should provide more information. of

Way 6.22.4 Current rights of way and access leaflets produced by the County Council include:

Improvement • ‘Finding Your Way’. A guide to rights of way in Nottinghamshire • 7 themed walk packs totalling 38 individual promoted walks • 1 horse ride pack totalling 6 rides • 1 cycle pack totalling 7 rides

Plan • ‘Out and About’. A gazetteer listing all the available walk, ride and cycling leaflets in the county

2007­2012 • ‘Rural Rides Programme’. These popular guided cycle rides are led by volunteer ride leaders and are spread geographically around the county. These rides are an excellent way of both introducing and encouraging cycling to new and ‘active’ riders

Chapter 6 Policies and Procedures • The Authority is also putting together rural cycling maps highlighting recommended cycle routes on minor roads and rights of way. Other urban based cycle maps are available from the County Council and the District and Borough Councils • Guided walks programme. Organised in partnership with the Sherwood Forest Trust and led my volunteers.

6.22.5 Information on walking and cycling, particularly off­road family rides, is by far the most requested information. Yet, perhaps the most popular question asked at country shows is “where can I go horse riding?” As noted previously, the Council does produce a horse riding publication – Exploring Nottinghamshire on Horseback. These six circular rides are indeed popular but were very difficult to put together. This is due to the fragmented bridleway network and road safety concerns. The packs by their very nature need to be available to all and must be suited to all riders regardless of their experience, and level of riding skills and horsemanship. The County Council will pursue further opportunities particularly as bridleway development opportunities arise. The Council will also produce a summary leaflet for equestrians outlining their rights, detailing applicable Ordnance Survey maps and where to get further information and help, for example, the British Horse Society.

6.22.6 The County Council promotes countryside access via its website at www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk. The number of people visiting and using the web is very high and has proven to be a successful promotional tool. The Authority wishes to develop this further by providing updates on rights of way, an on­line map, information on walks and rides, and a forum where members of the public can submit their favourite walks or rides. 85 6.22.7 Other Local Authorities and organisations in the county also produce various forms of promotional literature, mainly circular walks. The quality and accuracy of this information is sometimes inconsistent. Some organisations do consult with the County Council first to ensure that the rights of way information is correct before they go to print.

POLICY A4­1 nghamsh Nott

The County Council will encourage local authorities and other organisations that produce walk and i ride literature to check the accuracy, status and suitability of public rights of way used in their publications with the County Council.

6.22.8 Greenwood Community Forest, in partnership with others, have produced three ‘Break Free’ ire

packs aimed at people who normally have difficulty in accessing the mainstream rights of way Rights network. These award winning walk packs enable users to make their own informed decisions about whether a promoted walk is suitable. The walks take into account surfacing, gradients, furniture and general facilities information. The Authority will produce, with its partners, of leaflets providing information on Access for All. Way Improvement 6.22.9 In the county there are four long distance promoted trails:

1. Trent Valley Way. This is an 80 mile long distance walking trail from Trent Lock on the Derbyshire border to where the River Trent exits the county into North Lincolnshire at West Stockwith. A detailed trail guide and accompanying circular routes pack was published in 1989. This popular guide is currently being revised to take into account changes on the Plan ground, to identify public transport opportunities and to generally bring the publication up­ to­date. It is acknowledged that most people tend to split the route into a number of linear 2007­2012 walks spread over a period of time. There are aspirations to establish a promoted trail along the whole length of the River Trent from source to confluence. The Council is currently working in partnership with other authorities and the Ramblers Association on this project.

2. Robin Hood Way. This is a 105 mile themed walking route from Nottingham to Edwinstowe with alternative starting points, circular walks and diversions to other sites of

Policies and Procedures Chapter 6 interest. Nottinghamshire’s first recreational route was devised in the early 1980’s by the then ‘Nottingham Wayfarers’ Rambling Club’. The trail is promoted and waymarked by volunteers – The Robin Hood Way Association. A dedicated website and trail guide is available. Visit www.robinhoodway.co.uk for further information.

3. Midshires Way. This 225 mile walking and horse riding trail links the Ridgeway in Buckinghamshire with the Pennine Bridleway and Pennine Way, and the Trans Pennine Trail in Derbyshire. Not all sections are open to horse riding (particularly in Derbyshire), and in Nottinghamshire there is little off­road opportunity because of where the route enters and exits the county. The Council will continue to seek opportunities in improving signage, verge management and road crossings. The County Council is working with other authorities to provide updated information. However, the project is currently on hold due to a gap in the network – there is no bridge over the River Trent at Sawley. Derbyshire County Council is in the process of providing a new multi­user bridge.

4. The Cuckoo Way is a 46 mile long distance walk following the towpath of the Chesterfield Canal from Chesterfield to the River Trent at West Stockwith. The path provides a useful link between the Trent Valley Way, the National Cycle Network at Worksop and the Trans Pennine Trail in Derbyshire. The promoted route in Nottinghamshire is part definitive and part permissive footpath. Some sections in Worksop and Retford have been surfaced to accommodate cyclists. A Walking pack is available detailing walks along the length of the Chesterfield Canal.

86 6.22.10 As discussed earlier signing and waymarking also raises users confidence and is certainly a way of promotion in its own right. There can be a negative side to waymarking when other organisations design and put up their own waymarks. Occasionally these waymarks cause confusion either through the proliferation of the discs or by providing confusing or wrong messages such as the status of a public right of way (see Policy A1­6)).

Nottinghamshire 6.22.11 Due to the nature of promoted routes they need to be maintained to a very high standard. The County Council will therefore, liaise very closely with all partners to ensure that any proposed promoted routes are suitable in the first instance. Where a route is appropriate, it is proposed to increase the frequency of inspections and any necessary maintenance ensuring that the route is maintained to a high standard.

6.22.12 Information provision is not just about informing users but also about providing advice, Ri

ghts guidance and responsibilities to all stakeholders including farmers, landowners and others such as developers and planners. For example, the County Council has been drawing attention to

of farmers about what their legal obligations are regarding reinstatement of paths after ploughing

Way and cropping. This takes the form of direct mail drops, press releases and displays at local agricultural shows. The Authority intends to expand this type of information through the

Improvement production of hard copy and through the development of on­line information. an P l 2007­2012

Cyclists on a ‘Rural Ride’ guided cycle ride.

Chapter 6 Polici es and Procedures 7. Statement of Action 87

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 Defra’s statutory guidance on Rights of Way Improvement Plans requires Highway Authorities to prepare a statement of action. The statement outlines the strategic actions the Authority will take over the next 5 years for the management of rights of way, and for securing improvements2007-2012 Plan Improvement Way of Rights Nottinghamshire to the network.

7.1.2 The Action Plan addresses the issues raised from the consultation, engagement and general findings from the assessments undertaken in this Plan. The actions are strategic in nature and are not path or site specific. These matters will be dealt with in the proposed business plan and annual work programmes.

7.1.3 The County Council will report progress through annual progress reports and work with the Nottinghamshire Local Access Forum identifying the key issues and priorities. The 12-week ROWIP public consultation process also helped the County Council prioritise the identified actions.

7.1.4 The actions are ambitious and challenging but with the backing of national and local government, key organisations, land managers and the general public they are achievable. Many of the actions are dependent on further resources and funding. However, by encompassing the ethos of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan, Best Value and political backing, many of these actions are attainable.

7.1.5 The statement of action is grouped into the County Council’s six aims:

1. To protect, maintain and seek to enhance the network for all lawful users 2. to improve access to the network for all, including those with visual impairment and mobility problems, by adopting the principle of the least restrictive option 3. to improve the safety and connectivity of the metalled road network with the rights of way network 4. to increase awareness of the network and the understanding of the wider benefits arising from its use, such as leading an active and healthy lifestyle, and making a positive contribution to the local economy Statement of Action Chapter 7 5. to provide a revised and updated definitive map and statement, with particular reference to the resolution of map anomalies and support for the ‘Lost Ways’ project 6. to enhance and increase community involvement in managing and improving the network.

7.1.6 To achieve our aims we must ensure that the Authority and our partners work together encompassing:

• Best value and improved efficiency with long-term solutions not quick fixes • best practice and innovations but not forgetting time honoured good practice • wider environmental and sustainability issues • education and awareness of all stakeholders’ rights and responsibilities • acceptance and understanding of all stakeholders needs • the knowledge and skills of all partners • funding opportunities – both for revenue and capital investment work • political and public will and backing • legislation and statutory guidance.

7.2 Layout

7.2.1 The statement of action is formatted in tabular form and is grouped into six categories:

88 • Action reference number • The key action • Policy context. This links the key action to both the ROWIP’s policy statements (prefix A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6) and those from the supporting policies and statements outlined in Chapter 3 of the Plan • Resources. The following symbols indicate the estimated staff resources needed to Nottinghamshire Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2007-2012 Plan Improvement Way of Rights Nottinghamshire successfully achieve the action existing resource · extra staff required · · significant extra staff required · · ·

• Expenditure. The estimated costs required to achieve each action: less than £5,000 required per year £ £5,000 to £10,000 per year ££ over £10,000 per year £££

• Delivery partners

7.2.1 Policy context key

Ref. No. Policy document

PPG17 National Planning Policy Guidance 17 PPG13 National Planning Policy Guidance 13 PPS7 National Planning Policy Statement 7 RSS Regional Spatial Strategy 8 RES Regional Environment Strategy LTP Local Transport Plan NNJSP Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Joint Structure Plan NCS Nottinghamshire’s Community Strategy NMLP Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan NWLP Nottinghamshire Waste Local Plan LDF District Local Development Frameworks

Chapter 7 Statement of Action 7.3 Statement of Action tables

Aim 1. To protect, maintain and seek to enhance the network for all lawful users

Reference Key Action Policy Context Resources Expenditure Delivery Partners number (ROWIP & other)

SOA1.1 Review the Countryside PPG17, PPG13, · £ NCC Access team structure to RSS, NCS, LTP maximise BVPI178 figure

SOA1.2 Identify funding sources to PPG17, PPG13, · £ NCC achieve the aims of PPS7, RSS, Nottinghamshire’s Rights of NCS, NNJSP, Way Improvement Plan LTP, LDF

SOA1.3 Conduct a full network survey PPG17, PPG13, · · ££ NCC, volunteers, RSS, NCS, LTP P3 parishes

SOA1.4 Implement programme of PPG17, PPG13, · · ££ Nottinghamshire signing and waymarking RSS, NCS, LTP, County Council, improvements throughout A1-5, A1-6 P3 Parishes the county Work with user 89 groups and volunteers to implement and monitor

SOA1.5 Carryout an audit of all paths PPG13, NCS, · £ NCC, Wayfinder 2007-2012 Plan Improvement Way of Rights Nottinghamshire on the annual grass cutting LTP, A6-1, A1-8 scheme programme.

SOA1.6 Identify and increase the PPG13, NCS, · · £££ NCC, Wayfinder number of rural paths on the LTP, A6-1, A1-8 scheme annual grass cutting programme.

SOA1.7 Implement a programme of PPG17, PPG13, · · £££ NCC annual maintenance on RSS, NCS, LTP, urban paths. A1-7, A1-8, A1- 10

SOA1.8 Review maintenance LTP, A1-1, A1-8 · £ NCC responsibilities for both urban jittys and rural UCRs

SOA1.9 Implement an inspection PPG17, PPG13, · · ££ NCC maintenance and RSS, NCS, LTP replacement bridge programme

SOA1.10 Follow policy when PPG17, PPG13, · £ NCC, Land authorising gates, stiles and PPS7, RSS, NCS, managers, other barriers NNJSP, LTP, parishes, districts NMLP, NWLP, and boroughs LDF, A2-1, A2-2

Statement of Action Chapter 7 Aim 1. To protect, maintain and seek to enhance the network for all lawful users

Reference Key Action Policy Context Resources Expenditure Delivery Partners number (ROWIP & other)

SOA1.11 Implement a countywide PPG17, PPG13, · £ NCC, Land structures policy with our RSS, NCS, managers, partners and other NNJSP, LTP, A2- parishes, districts stakeholders 1, A2-2 and boroughs

SOA1.12 Develop a system for PPG17, PPG13, · £ NCC recording approved structures RSS, NCS, A2-1

SOA1.13 Develop a programme of PPG13, NCS, · · ££ NCC, Land improving approved LTP, A2-1 managers, structures on bridleways (i.e. parishes, districts latches etc.) and boroughs

SOA1.14 Continue with the Ploughing PPG13, NCS, · £ NCC and Cropping Campaign A1-3, A1-9, A1- 10, A6-3 90 SOA1.15 Identify bridleways needing PPG13, NCS, · · £ NCC, Land overhead vegetation A1-10 managers, clearance. Contact parishes, districts landowners. and boroughs

Nottinghamshire Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2007-2012 Plan Improvement Way of Rights Nottinghamshire SOA1.16 Work with conservation and PPG13, PPS7, · £ NCC, Land managers, archaeologists when carrying NCS, NNJSP, parishes, Natural out large scale works LTP, NMLP, England, Notts Wildlife NWLP, LDF Trust, districts and boroughs

SOA1.17 Improve liaison and partnership PPG13, NCS, · £ NCC, Land working with land managers A1-9, A6-3 Managers

SOA1.18 Support landowners by PPG13, NCS, · ££ NCC, Land providing guidance, A6-3, A1-9 Managers information and updates on legislation

SOA1.19 Seek to prosecute persistent PPG17, PPG13, · £ NCC, Land offenders who obstruct RSS, NCS, A1- Managers PROWs 3, A1-10

SOA1.20 Work with the RPA on issues PPG13, NCS, · £ NCC, Land relating to Cross Compliance A1-3 Managers

SOA1.21 Contribute to NCC asset PPG17, PPG13, · £ NCC management Plan RSS, NCS, LTP

SOA1.22 Produce a strategy for the PPG17, PPG13, · £ NCC, User groups, positive management of RSS, NCS, LTP, Land Managers Byways. A1-1

Chapter 7 Statement of Action Aim 2. To improve access to the network for all, including those with visual impairment or mobility problems by adopting the principle of the least restrictive option. Reference Key Action Policy Context Resources Expenditure Delivery Partners number (ROWIP & other)

SOA2.1 Identify and list PPG17, RSS, · £ NCC improvements from the NCS, LTP, A2-1, Fieldfare Trust accessibility A2-2 survey and audit.

SOA2.2 Prioritise and undertake PPG17, RSS, · · £££ NCC, Land access improvements NCS, LTP, A2-1, managers, user identified in the Fieldfare A2-2 groups, disability Warsop case study. representatives, parishes, districts and boroughs

SOA2.3 Develop countywide access PPG13, PPG17, · · £ NCC for all strategic plan from the RSS, NCS, lessons learnt from case NNJSP, LTP, study. NMLP, NWLP, LDF, A2-1, A2-2

SOA2.4 Promote and encourage land PPG17, RSS, · ££ NCC, Land 91 managers to replace NCS, LTP, A2-1, managers, approved stiles with kissing A2-2 parishes, districts gates. and boroughs

SOA2.5 Remove unauthorised PPG17, RSS, · · ££ NCC, Land structures. NCS, LTP, A2-1, Managers 2007-2012 Plan Improvement Way of Rights Nottinghamshire A2-2

SOA2.6 Adopt the least restrictive PPG17, RSS, · £ NCC, Land option in everyday work. NCS, NNJSP, Managers LTP, LDF, A2-1, A2-2

SOA2.7 Ensure that all future PROW PPG13, PPG17, · £ NCC, Land work incorporates ‘access for RSS, NCS, Managers all’ best practice. NNJSP, LTP, NMLP, NWLP, LDF, A2-1, A2-2

SOA2.8 Develop circular routes PPG17, RSS, ·· ££ NCC, Land designed to BT ‘Countryside NCS, A2-1, A2-2 managers, user for All standards’. groups, disability representatives, parishes, districts and boroughs

SOA2.9 Hold an access for all / DDA PPG13, PPG17, ·· ££ NCC, Land training / awareness event for RSS, NCS, LTP, managers, user all stakeholders. A2-1, A2-2 groups, disability representatives, parishes, districts and boroughs

Statement of Action Chapter 7 Delivery Partners NCC, Land managers, user groups, disability representatives, parishes, districts and boroughs NCC, disability representatives NCC, disability representatives NCC, Land managers, user groups, disability representatives, parishes, districts and boroughs NCC, disability representatives NCC, Land managers, user groups, disability representatives, parishes, districts and boroughs NCC, disability representatives, BHS £ £ £ £ ££ ££ ££ Expenditure · · · · · · · · Resources RSS, RSS, NCS, A2-1, A2-2 RSS, NCS, A2-2 PPG13, PPG17, RSS, NCS, LTP, A1-14 RSS, NCS, A1-14 PPG13, PPG17, RSS, NCS, LTP, NNJSP, RSS, NCS, LTP, A2-1, A2-2 Policy Context Policy other) & (ROWIP RSS, NCS, A2-1, A2-2 Statement of Action Liaise with riding establishments that cater for the needs of people with disabilities with a view to improving access provision. Audit existing promoted routes for accessibility. with partners Work to identify key gateways to countryside access by car and public transport. Produce Produce and provide information and publicity in a variety of different formats. with Living Work Landmarks team on the development of accessible multi-user routes. Publicise barrierPublicise free routes. Establish a liaison group with representatives from the LAF and local disability groups. Key Key Action 7

SOA2.16 SOA2.15 SOA2.14 SOA2.13 SOA2.12 SOA2.11 SOA2.10 Reference number Aim 2. To improve access Aim to 2. the network To for all, including those with visual impairment or mobility problems by adopting the principle of the least restrictive option. Chapter

Nottinghamshire Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2007-2012 92 Aim 3. To improve the safety and connectivity of the metalled road network with the rights of way network Reference Key Action Policy Context Resources Expenditure Delivery Partners number (ROWIP & other)

SOA3.1 Identify and compile a list of PPG13, PPG17, · · £ NCC key road and rail crossings in NCS, LTP the PROW network.

SOA3.2 Work with Network Rail to PPG13, PPG17, · · £££ NCC, Network Rail provide safe at-grade RSS, RES, NCS, crossings for all users. LTP

SOA3.3 Actively seek opportunities for PPG13, PPG17, · £ NCC, Highways light controlled crossings – PPS7, RSS, Agency Toucan and Pegasus. RES, NCS, NNJSP, LTP, LDF

SOA3.4 At the very least seek PPG13, PPG17, · £ NCC, Highways opportunities for improved PPS7, RSS, Agency signage and calming RES, NCS, measures. NNJSP, LTP, LDF

SOA3.5 Agree with Highway PPG13, PPG17, · £ NCC, Highways 93 Managers a standard for RSS, RES, NCS, Agency improving points at which NNJSP, LTP PROWs meet the metalled highway.

SOA3.6 Identify locations which PPG13, PPG17, · · £ NCC, Districts and 2007-2012 Plan Improvement Way of Rights Nottinghamshire would benefit from street RSS, RES, NCS, Boroughs lighting. LTP, LDF

SOA3.7 Support the Quiet Lanes PPG13, PPG17, · £ NCC, Parishes, initiative providing links with RSS, RES, NCS, Districts and the PROW network. LTP Boroughs

SOA3.8 Identify suitable roadside PPG17, RES, · £ NCC, LAF verges for improved NCS, LTP maintenance with particular emphasis on linking bridleways.

SOA3.9 Liaise with the area Highway PPG17, NCS, · ££ NCC teams on implementing a LTP programme of roadside verge improvements.

SOA3.10 Identify potential shared use PPG13, PPG17, · £ NCC, Parishes, footways which link key RSS, RES, NCS, Districts and PROW. LTP Boroughs, user and community groups

Statement of Action Chapter 7 Delivery Partners NCC NCC NCC, Highways Agency, developers, District and Borough Council’s NCC, Highways Agency, developers, District and Borough Council’s NCC £ £ £ £££ £££ Expenditure · · · · · · Resources Policy Context Policy other) & (ROWIP PPG13, PPG17, RSS, RES, NCS, LTP, NNJSP, NWLP, NMLP, A1-14 LDF, PPG13, PPG17, PPS7, RSS, RES, NCS, LTP, NNJSP, LDF PPG13, PPG17, PPS7, RSS, RES, NCS, NMLP, NNJSP, LDF, NWLP, A1-11 PPG13, PPG17, PPS7, RSS, RES, NCS, NMLP, NNJSP, LDF, NWLP, A1-11, A5-7 PPG17, RES, NCS, LTP, Statement of Action Work with the Work Road Safety team to raise driver awareness of all users particularly cyclists and horse riders. Engage and encourage LPAs and developers to design out crime when designing and implementing paths. Seek Seek early involvement and opportunities to improve PROW through development and road improvements. Identify and work up schemes to provide safe routes to schools. When developing multi-user routes build in safe crossing points with the road network. Key Key Action 7

SOA3.15 SOA3.14 SOA3.13 SOA3.12 SOA3.11 Reference number Aim 3. improve the safety and connectivity To of the metalled road network with the rights of way network Chapter

Nottinghamshire Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2007-2012 94 Aim 4. To increase awareness of the network and the understanding of the wider benefits arising from its use. Reference Key Action Policy Context Resources Expenditure Delivery Partners number (ROWIP & other)

SOA4.1 Undertake countryside access PPG13, PPG17, · £ NCC display tour in libraries, RSS, RES, NCS, country parks, agricultural shows and other public outlets.

SOA4.2 Review and update · ££ NCC countryside access displays.

SOA4.3 Provide countywide cover for PPG13, PPG17, · ££ NCC promoted walks pack. RSS, RES, NCS, Produce a circular walks pack for South Nottinghamshire.

SOA4.4 Survey and inspect all current PPG13, PPG17, ·· ££ NCC promoted walks and rides for RSS, RES, NCS, accessibility and maintenance issues. 95 SOA4.5 Develop walk packs in PPG13, PPG17, · ££ NCC, public conjunction with public RSS, RES, NCS, transport providers transport. LTP,

SOA4.6 Produce ‘Escape from the PPG13, PPG17, · ££ NCC City’ walk pack utilising the RSS, RES, NCS, 2007-2012 Plan Improvement Way of Rights Nottinghamshire bus and tram network. LTP,

SOA4.7 Publish and launch the PPG13, PPG17, · ££ NCC revised Trent Valley Way RSS, RES, NCS, Guide.

SOA4.8 Develop NCC countryside PPG13, PPG17, · £ NCC access website. Provide a RSS, RES, NCS, user forum, favourite walks / rides and news section.

SOA4.9 Investigate the feasibility of PPG13, PPG17, · ££ NCC providing online access to the RSS, RES, NCS, updated parts of the county’s definitive map and statement.

SOA4.10 Identify new and innovative PPG13, PPG17, · £ NCC, District and marketing opportunities for RSS, RES, NCS, Borough Council’s, countryside access. Land Manages

SOA4.11 Promote countryside access PPG13, PPG17, · ££ NCC on public transport and local RSS, RES, NCS, radio.

Statement of Action Chapter 7 Delivery Partners NCC, Land Managers NCC, Land Managers, District and Borough Council’s, Pet Shops NCC, user and interest groups NCC, developers, District and Borough Council’s NCC, developers, District and Borough Council’s NCC, Land Managers, Parishes NCC, Parishes NCC, BHS, other user and interest groups NCC. NHS, PCT’s £ £ ££ ££ ££ ££ ££ ££ ££ Expenditure · · · · · · · · · Resources PPG13, PPG17, RSS, RES, NCS, PPG13, PPG17, RSS, RES, NCS, NMLP, NNJSP, LDF, NWLP, NCS, A1-11, A5-7, A1-12 PPG13, PPG17, RSS, RES, NCS, NMLP, NNJSP, LDF, NWLP, NCS, A1-11, A5-7, A1-12 NCS, A6-3, PPG13, PPG17, RSS, RES, NCS, PPG13, PPG17, RSS, RES, NCS, A6-1 PPG13, PPG17, RSS, RES, NCS, LTP Policy Context Policy other) & (ROWIP A6-3, NCS, A1-9, NCS Statement of Action Design a series of cab cards and packs for landowners. Initially for the Farm Scheme. Partnership of feasibility the Examine maps parish local producing countryside to guides and access. to guide equestrian an Produce the in provision riding off-road county. and information Provide healthy promoting publicity surgeries, doctors’ for lifestyles etc. centres in drop and clinics, Roll Roll out a series of presentations to developers and LPAs. Investigate Investigate the feasibility of running short map reading courses. Produce PROW guidance for and developers. LPAs Produce Produce PROW guides and information for both users and landowners highlighting responsibilities. with others Work to promote responsible dog walking. Key Key Action 7

SOA4.20 SOA4.19 SOA4.18 SOA4.17 SOA4.16 SOA4.15 SOA4.14 SOA4.13 SOA4.12 Reference number Aim 4. To increase awareness of Aim the 4. network To and the understanding of the wider benefits arising from its use. Chapter

Nottinghamshire Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2007-2012 96 Aim 5. To provide a revised and updated definitive map and statement, with particular reference to the resolution of map anomalies and support for the ‘Lost Ways’ project. Reference Key Action Policy Context Resources Expenditure Delivery Partners number (ROWIP & other)

SOA5.1 Continue to review the PPG17, NCS, · £ NCC, user and definitive map and LTP, NMLP, interest groups, statement. NWLP, LDF, Land Managers A5-1, A5-2

SOA5.2 Develop an action plan to PPG17, NCS, · · £ NCC deal with the large number of LTP, NMLP, potential DMMO applications NWLP, LDF, as a result of the Lost Ways A5-1, A5-2 project.

SOA5.3 Refine and periodically review PPG17, NCS, · £ NCC prioritisation of DMMOs with LTP, NMLP, particular emphasis on orders NWLP, LDF, A5- which improve connectivity. 1, A5-2

SOA5.4 Record the legal width of all PPG17, NCS, · £ NCC, Land ‘new’ paths added to the LTP, LDF, Managers definitive map. 97

SOA5.5 Finish work to record PPG17, NCS, · · £ NCC, Land unregistered pre 1949 jitties, LTP, A5-2 Managers, Lost dead ended definitive paths Ways Project team and unsurfaced unclassified county roads. 2007-2012 Plan Improvement Way of Rights Nottinghamshire

SOA5.6 Identify and record all PPG17, NCS, · · £ NCC, Lost Ways definitive map anomalies. LTP, NMLP, Project team NWLP, LDF, A5-1

SOA5.7 Make the necessary PPG17, NCS, · · £££ NCC, Land ‘anomaly’ orders LTP, NMLP, Managers NWLP, LDF, A5-1

SOA5.8 Develop a list of cross border PPG17, NCS, · £ NCC, adjacent routes where the paths status LTP, A5-2 authorities, Lost changes Ways Project team

SOA5.9 Continue with the countywide PPG17, NCS, · £ NCC preparation of new definitive A5-1 map and statement; Rushcliffe, Broxtowe, Newark and Sherwood, Gedling, East Bassetlaw.

SOA5.10 Publish updated maps PPG17, NCS, · £ NCC completed so far on the LTP internet; Ashfield, Mansfield and West Bassetlaw.

Statement of Action Chapter 7 Delivery Partners NCC, providers of permissive access NCC NCC NCC NCC NCC, developers, District and Borough Council’s NCC, Land Managers, , District and Borough Council’s £ £ £ £ £ ££ £££ Expenditure · · · · · · · · · · Resources Policy Context Policy other) & (ROWIP PPG17, NCS, PPG17, NCS, PPG17, NCS, PPG17, NCS, PPG17, NCS, A5-5 PPG17, NCS, NWLP, NMLP, A5-7 PPG17, NCS, LTP Statement of Action Consult Consult and work with other access providers with a view of publishing non-definitive access map. Continue to provide and update the on-line DMMO applications register. towards Work an on-line register of applications for public path orders. Refine and periodically review prioritisation of PPOs. Recharge the full cost of PPOs to the applicant (with exceptions as per policy). Implement a system ensuring non definitive routes are recognised on planning applications. Actively seek opportunities in improving the connectivity of the network through the use of dedications and creations. Key Key Action 7

SOA5.17 SOA5.16 SOA5.15 SOA5.14 SOA5.13 SOA5.12 SOA5.11 Reference number Aim 5. To provide a Aim revised 5. and updated To definitive map and statement, with particular reference to the resolution of map anomalies and support for the project. ‘Lost Ways’ Chapter

Nottinghamshire Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2007-2012 98 Aim 6. To enhance and increase community involvement in managing and improving the network

Reference Key Action Policy Context Resources Expenditure Delivery Partners number (ROWIP & other)

SOA6.1 Expand and develop the PPG17, RSS, · · £££ NCC, P3 Parishes Parish Partnership Scheme. RES, NCS, LTP, A6-1

SOA6.2 Improve communication with PPG17, RSS, · £ NCC, P3 Parishes P3 Parishes through liaison RES, NCS, A6-1 meetings.

SOA6.3 Hold a P3 conference and PPG17, RSS, · ££ NCC, P3 Parishes workshop with Parishes. RES, NCS, A6-1

SOA6.4 Produce a newsletter for P3 PPG17, RSS, · £ NCC, P3 Parishes Parishes. RES, NCS, A6-1

SOA6.5 Provide parishioners and PPG17, RSS, · ££ NCC, P3 Parishes volunteers with a structured RES, NCS, A6-1 programme of training.

SOA6.6 Extend the P3 scheme to PPG17, RSS, · £ NCC, P3 Parishes 99 other organisations. RES, NCS, A6-2

SOA6.7 Implement a programme of PPG17, RSS, · £ NCC, P3 Parishes improved monitoring of P3 RES, NCS, A6-1 contracts. Nottinghamshire Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2007-2012 Plan Improvement Way of Rights Nottinghamshire SOA6.8 Reassess local P3 publicity PPG17, RSS, · £ NCC, P3 Parishes and promotions. RES, NCS, A6-1

SOA6.9 Produce annual report. PPG17, RSS, · £ NCC, P3 Parishes RES, NCS, A6-1

SOA6.10 Continue to support and PPG17, RSS, · ££ NCC, Land develop the Farm Partnership RES, NCS, LTP, Managers scheme. A6-3

SOA6.11 Encourage and invite more PPG17, RSS, · · £££ NCC, Land Farmers onto the FPS. RES, NCS, A6-3 Managers

SOA6.12 Implement a programme of PPG17, RSS, · · ££ NCC, Land improved monitoring of FPS RES, NCS, A6-3 Managers contracts.

SOA6.13 Introduce a method of PPG17, RSS, · ££ NCC, Land feedback e.g. newsletter to RES, NCS, A6-3 Managers farmers on the FPS.

SOA6.14 Continue to work with and PPG17, RSS, · · £ NCC, volunteers, support volunteers both RES, NCS, LTP, user and interest individuals and organisations. A6-4 groups, community groups

Statement of Action Chapter 7 Delivery Partners volunteers, NCC, interest and user community groups, groups volunteers, NCC, interest and user community groups, groups volunteers, NCC, interest and user community groups, groups volunteers, NCC, interest and user community groups, groups volunteers, NCC, interest and user community groups, groups volunteers, NCC, interest and user community groups, groups £ £ £ £ ££ ££ Expenditure · · · · · · Resources Policy Context Policy other) & (ROWIP PPG17, RSS, RES, NCS, LTP, A6-4 PPG17, RSS, RES, NCS, A6-4 PPG17, RSS, RES, NCS, A6-4 PPG17, RSS, RES, NCS, LTP, A6-4 PPG17, RSS, RES, NCS, A6-4 PPG17, RSS, RES, NCS, A6-4 Statement of Action 7 Consider Consider the needs of volunteers as part of the Lost project. Ways Improve networking between all volunteers such as through social type events. Investigate Investigate the feasibility of introducing ‘adopt-a-path’ type initiatives. Set Set up and encourage volunteers to attend training days. Increase the number of volunteers to help NCC maintain and enhance PROW. Arrange volunteer task days. Key Key Action

Chapter

SOA6.20 SOA6.19 SOA6.18 SOA6.17 SOA6.16 SOA6.15 Reference number

Aim 6. To enhance and Aim increase 6. community involvement To in managing and improving the network

Nottinghamshire Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2007-2012 100 Appendices 101

Appendix 1

The following is a summary of the local consultation undertaken in 2005 and 2006: N

• 14,000 Nottinghamshire County Council employees were surveyed inviting their views on o t

countryside access. 10% response rate. t i n g h

• A scaled down questionnaire based on the above survey was distributed at local County shows a m

at Newark, Moorgreen and Flintham. 462 completed questionnaires were received. s h i r e

• An equestrian survey was distributed to Nottinghamshire members of the British Horse Society, R i equestrian businesses, liveries and paddocks, through Equestrian Life magazine and Moorgreen g h t

Show. 3000 were distributed, 448 completed forms received, a 15% response rate. s

o f

• A cycling survey was distributed to cycling shops countywide, the campaign group Pedals, W a

Cyclists’ Touring Club (CTC), Rural Ride leaders and participants, and cycle hire shops at y

I Clumber and Sherwood. 3000 questionnaires were sent out, 547 completed forms received, m p

an 18% response rate. r o v e • A recreational motorists’ survey, aimed at users of the byway network, was distributed to Trail m e n

Riders Fellowship clubs in the East Midlands and South Yorkshire areas, motorcycle shops, Land t

Rover and other 4x4 clubs, the Green Lane Association and individual enthusiasts. 800 forms P l a

were sent out, 60 forms returned, giving a 7.5% response rate. n

2 0 0

• A walkers survey was distributed to libraries county­wide, outdoor shops, Rambling groups, 7 ­

County and District contact centres and other public outlets. 3000 were sent out, 324 2 0

completed forms received, a response rate of 11%. 1 2

• A land managers survey was distributed to 449 farmers (45% response rate) with rights of way on their land, the Country Land and Business Association members in Nottinghamshire and at Flintham Ploughing Match.

Appendices • Three focus groups run by external consultants were held in January 2006 for land owners / managers, unaffiliated users and non users of the countryside, and members of Nottinghamshire’s user groups. These groups were set up specifically to assess current levels of public knowledge of rights of way, satisfaction with the network and relationships between different types of users.

• A series of ‘local consultation events’ as part of the network assessment were delivered in May 2006. The aim was to obtain local feedback from users and non users of the path network, local landowners and managers and others with an interest in access in their respective areas. The workshop was also run for Nottinghamshire’s Local Access Forum members in July 2006.

• A survey, NCC Clarborough Surveys, was undertaken in 2005 to measure the type and levels of use on public rights of way in the Clarborough and Sturton areas. The surveys took place over a four month period in 2005.

• The Authority, as part of the production of this ROWIP, also used local information gathered during the Greenwood Pilot Plan process from 2002 to 2004. This included 5000 parish and wider community surveys and 13 focus groups, user surveys and a detailed questionnaire. This questionnaire, undertaken by consultants, was distributed to 16,495 households, community groups and public outlets in the Greenwood area in 2003 with a response rate of 3%.

• The findings from all of the above research have assisted the County Council in the development of this plan and the further initiatives drawn from the plan’s Statement of Action. 102 The full findings can be found on www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/countryside

Appendix 2 Countryside Appraisal Nottinghamshire The regional character areas are as follows: (Countryside Appraisal, Nottinghamshire County Council 1997)

Nottinghamshire Coalfield. A densely settled, heavy industrialised region characterised by former closely spaced mining settlements, spoil heaps and small farms. The geology consists mainly of clay which can cause problems with drainage and waterlogging. Rights

Magnesian Limestone Ridge. Gently rolling hills urbanised in places, agricultural landscape with a

of regular pattern of large fields and distinctive stone built villages. Mainly free­draining soils albeit

Way some areas have a heavier texture with clay subsoils that can remain waterlogged for long periods. An appealing landscape for walking, riding and cycling. Improvement Sherwood. Forestry and in places, industrialised region characterised by semi natural woodlands and heaths, historic ducal estates, large pine plantations, mining settlements and a planned layout of roads and fields. Mainly well drained sandy soils which can cause erosion problems on the rights of way network. Plan Idle Lowlands. A varied low­lying region characterised by sparsely settled carrlands, levels, and

2007­2012 rolling sandlands and village settlements. A mix of sandy soils, and heavier soils and peat.

Mid­Nottinghamshire Farmlands. A rural agricultural region of small red brick villages, narrow country lanes, ancient woodlands, wooded ‘dumble’ streams and a variable pattern of fields. Mainly dark clay soils causing localised problems with waterlogging.

Appendices Trent Washlands. A low­lying agricultural region associated with the broad valleys of the Trent and Soar, characterised by arable farming, meadowlands, small villages, market towns and cities, power stations and quarries. Sand and gravel extraction can cause problems on the PROW network through stopping up and diversions of paths due to quarrying.

East Nottinghamshire Farmlands. A remote low­lying agricultural region characterised by a well­ ordered layout of fields and roads, small red brick villages, a varied pattern of woodland cover and pockets of remnant heath­like vegetation. A mix of sandy and clayey soils some waterlogging and poor drainage.

Vale of Belvoir. A low­lying clay vale with a strong tradition of dairying characterised by large hedged fields, small rural villages and wide views to rising ground.

South Nottinghamshire Farmlands A prosperous lowland agricultural region with a rural character of arable fields, village settlements and broad alluvial levels. A mix of sandy and clayey soils some waterlogging and drainage problems.

Nottinghamshire Wolds A sparsely settled and remote rural region characterised by rolling clay Wolds, mixed farming, small red brick villages and narrow country lanes. A mix of clay and chalk stones, difficult to cultivate and maintenance problems with drainage particularly on popular bridleways in the area.

103 N o t t i n g h a m s h i r e

R i g h t s

o f

W a y

I m p r o v e m e n t

P l a n

2 0 0 7 ­ 2 0 1 2

Appendices Appendix 3 Countryside Appraisal ­ Landscape characteristics of Nottinghamshire Map

104 re nghamsh Nott i i i ghts R of Way Improvement an P l 2007­2012

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey materials with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown copyrights. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. (Nottinghamshire County Council) (100019713), 2007

Appendi ces Appendix 4

As part of the Authority’s ROWIP assessments, land managers were asked to rank the five most important issues to them regarding public rights of way:

What are the most important issues to you as a land manager, Issue ranking regarding public rights of way? (1 the most important)

Fly Tipping 1

Dogs (not on a lead, fouling etc.) 2

Trespassing 3

Farm security 4

Motor vehicles (motorbikes, quad bikes etc.) 5

Difficulty and lack of flexibility in diverting paths 6

Litter 7

Liability / health and safety 8

Gates left open 9 105

Crossfield paths (reinstating after ploughing and cropping) 10

Path maintenance (vegetation, surfacing, bridges etc.) 11

Better waymarking and signing 12 N o t t i

Network rationalisation (e.g. where 4 paths cross one field) 13 n g h a

Lost Ways (registering forgotten historic paths) 14 m s h i r e

R i g h t s

o f

W a y

I m p r o v e m e n t

P l a n

2 0 0 7 ­ 2 0 1 2

Appendices Appendix 5 Nottinghamshire County Council Countryside Access Policy List

The page number refers to the location of the supporting text.

POLICY A1­1 The County Council will have due regard for the needs of all lawful byway users and will positively manage the network with all stakeholders i n a sustainable and cost effective way. Page 30

POLICY A1­2 Nottinghamshire County Council will continue to work with its partners in a bid to reduce the impact of illegal motor vehicle use. This will be undertaken within the parameters of current highway legislation. Page 32

POLICY A2­1 The Authority will seek to keep the number of structures erected on the rights of way network to a minimum, consistent with l egislation, good husbandry and public safety. The least restrictive option available will always be the priority. Page 34

POLICY A2­2 In developing and improving the local rights of way network, Nottinghamshire County Council will embrace the principles of access for all as specified through legislation, guidance and research. The Authority will seek to make the local rights of way network as accessible as possible to all users with emphasis on the provision of clear information and by adopting an approach of the least restrictive option. Page 35 106 POLICY A1­3 Nottinghamshire County Council will share information with the Rural Payments Agency on issues relating to cross compliance and rights of way to ensure that land managers meet the requirements of ‘Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition Standards (GAEC 8)’. Page 36

Nottinghamshire POLICY A6­1 The County Council will continue to support and develop the Farm Partnership Scheme. Page 36

POLICY A1­4 Nottinghamshire County Council will work towards formulating a policy to ensure that maintenance and improvement works are prioritised to reflect competing demands on budgets. Prioritisation will consider frequency of use, health & safety of the public, needs of the disabled and

Rights promotional status. Such a policy must not l ose sight of the fact that NCC has a duty to maintain all public rights of way. Page 64

of POLICY A1­5 Nottinghamshire County Council will implement a co­ordinated signing and

Way waymarking programme. The County Council is committed to ensuring that all paths are signed with their correct legal status from metalled roads, and where appropriate, signs will be placed at other Improvement locations where there is an identified need. Page 64

POLICY A1­6 The County Council aims to provide waymarking wherever there is difficulty in identifying the route of a right of way. Nottinghamshire County Council will proactively seek to waymark definitive public rights of way in a structured and standardised approach. Waymarking will

Plan only be used where the route i s unclear, as an aid to users and land managers, to reduce signage clutter and prevent ‘urbanisation’ of the network. Page 65 2007­2012 POLICY A2­1 The Authority will seek to keep the number of structures erected on the rights of way network to a minimum, consistent with l egislation, good husbandry and public safety. The least restrictive option available will always be the priority. Page 65

Appendices POLICY A1­7 The Council will carry out surface improvements and maintenance in accordance with relevant and current government guidance. When specifying surfacing materials the Council will place the needs of the legal public user first. Where appropriate the Council will consult with local stakeholders such as conservationists, landowners and user groups. Surfacing will only be considered where budget constraints allow, alternative remedies have failed and patterns of use justify expenditure. Page 66

POLICY A1­8 The Authority will seek to maintain the surface of public rights of way to a standard appropriate with their ordinary legal public use with regard to both the current and possible future use of the path. Page 67

POLICY A1­9 The County Council will continue to work with l and managers to ensure paths are kept free from obstruction by cultivation and cropping. The County Council will carry out countywide inspections in the Spring to check paths are clear of crops and Autumn to check paths are marked and level following cultivation. Any paths found not to be compliant with the Act will be followed up with the landowner and enforcement proceedings taken where necessary. Repeat offenders will be served enforcement notices without prior warning and the Council will consider prosecution in cases where this approach fails to have effect. The Council may recover its reasonable costs where default enforcement action is carried out. Page 68

POLICY A1­3 Nottinghamshire County Council will share i nformation with the Rural Payments Agency on issues relating to cross compliance and rights of way to ensure that land managers meet the requirements of Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition Standards (GAEC 8). Page 68 107

POLICY A1­10 The Council will use its powers of enforcement to tackle obstructions of public rights of way wherever initial discussion with the person responsible fails to resolve the situation. The Council may recover its reasonable costs where default action is taken to make a path available to the public. Persons responsible for obstructing paths will be given the opportunity to remedy the situation within specified deadlines; subsequent enforcement will be carried out in accordance with Nottinghamshire relevant guidelines in a firm but fair way. Page 69

POLICY A6­2 The Council will continue to expand and develop the Parish Paths Partnership (subject to available resources). Page 70

POLICY A6­3 The County Council will encourage and invite other organisations into the Parish Paths Rights Partnership. Page 70

POLICY A6­1 The County Council will continue to support and to expand the Farm Partnership of Scheme. Page 70 Way

POLICY A6­4 The County Council will continue to work with and support volunteers, and is Improvement committed to increasing volunteer work tasks. Page 70

POLICY A6­5 The County Council is committed to developing the work of Nottinghamshire Local Access Forum by encouraging an active membership, supporting the needs and publicising the role of the Forum. Page 71 Plan

POLICY A5­1 The County Council will ascertain the extent of anomalies on the definitive map and 2007­2012 statement, and develop and implement a prioritised framework. To deliver this framework, resources need to be allocated to an Anomalies and PPO orders Officer. Page 73

Appendices POLICY A5­2 Definitive Map Modification Order applications will be processed chronologically by order of receipt with the following exceptions (in no particular order):

• Where the public benefit to be gained is of more than limited impact. For example, where an order could result in a positive impact on the network such as adding a bridleway to complete an ‘off­road’ network for horse riders • Where a claim affects a househol der in proving the existence or non­existence of a right of way. For example, a potential route that passes close to residential buildings and dwellings • A claimed route triggered by an event such as fencing off the line of a regularly used path • Where an order is claimed on 20­year use the personal circumstances of path users will be taken into account. For example, the witness’s age, health and possible relocation • Where a claimed route is under threat due to development or major road schemes. For example, the dualling of the A46 trunk road or the widening of the M1 motorway. Page 74

POLICY A5­3 The County Council will, where possible, use dedications in lieu of DMMOs enabling a quicker route onto the definitive map and statement. Page 74

POLICY A5­4 Where a claimed route is unavailable on the ground, for example, due to a building or environmental issue, the County Council will consider the use of concurrent public path orders to assist with the establishment of the route Page 74

108 POLICY A5­5 The County Council will recharge i ts full costs of a public path order to all applicants except in exceptional circumstances such as correcting historical errors or a landowner providing a package of measures to significantly improve the rights of way network for the benefit of the public. Page 74

POLICY A5­6 Public Path Order applications will be processed chronologically by order of receipt with Nottinghamshire one or more of the following exceptions (in no particular order):

• Where there is a clear public benefit. For example, where an order would result in increased connectivity such as an i mproved path network or a path with more attractive view or historical feature • An order that addresses public safety, for example, a path may be diverted to a more suitable

Rights road crossing point with increased visibility • Where PPOs resolve definitive map and statement anomalies

of • Applications l inked to DMMOs – the diversion of a path concurrent with the making of a modification order. Page 75 Way

Improvement POLICY A1­11 The County Council will seek improvements, at an early stage, to the rights of way network affected by development. The County Council will work with developers and local planning authorities to achieve the maximum benefit for the rights of way network. Page 76

POLICY A5­7 Where developments affect non­definitive routes, on which public rights may

Plan reasonably be presumed to exist, the County Council will expect developers and the relevant local planning authority to have regard to these paths as they would with definitive rights of way.

2007­2012 Page 76

POLICY A1­12 The County Council will work closer with developers and the local planning authority to minimise the illegal obstruction of rights of way and other access caused by permitted development and unlawful development. Page 76

Appendices POLICY A1­13 Creation agreements will only be considered:

• Where there is a clear public benefit to be gained from the proposed path • Where the requirement to dedicate forms part of an obligation under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 s 106.

Maintenance liability will normally only be accepted where:

• The addition of a path is of strategic public benefit • No initial additional expenditure by the Authority is required to bring a path into a fit state for use. Page 77

POLICY A5­8 Where there is a clear public need, the County Council will seek to create a new path in the first instance by agreement. Where an agreement fails and there are substantial public benefits to be gained and the benefits are relative to the expected costs, the County Council will consider a HA80 s 26 creation order. The Council will carry out this power in accordance with the relevant available guidance. Page 77

POLICY A1­14 The County Council will continue to work with its partners in securing and providing safe and traffic free multi­user routes for walkers, riders and cyclists. Page 80

POLICY A1­15 The County Council will work with landowners, Natural England and conservation bodies to ensure members of the public enjoy their rights on foot to Open Access land designated 109 under the CROW Act 2000. Page 82

POLICY A4­1 The County Council will encourage local authorities and other organisations that produce walk and ride literature to check the accuracy, status and suitability of public rights of way used in their publications with the County Council. Page 85 N o t t i n g h a m s h i r e

R i g h t s

o f

W a y

I m p r o v e m e n t

P l a n

2 0 0 7 ­ 2 0 1 2

Appendices Acknowledgements

Nottinghamshire County Council would like to thank the following people and organisations who gave their time and expertise towards the development of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan:

• Everyone who participated in the surveys, consultation events and focus groups (inc. members of public, land managers and user groups) • Claire Herring Associates • Faber Maunsell • IPROW Good Practice Guide • MRUK research consultants • Nottinghamshire County Council Local Transport Plan Team • Nottinghamshire County Council Countryside Access Team • Nottinghamshire Local Access Forum • Nottinghamshire Parish Councils • Regional ROWIP Officers Group • Rights of Way Improvement Plan Officers from authorities nationwide

110 Nottinghamshire Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2007­2012

Acknowledgements Notes

111 Nottinghamshire Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2007­2012

Notes Contacting us email [email protected] phone 01623 825491 fax 01623 825375 post Communities Department, Countryside Access, Nottinghamshire County Council, Trent Bridge House, Fox Road, West Bridgford, Nottingham NG2 6BJ

internet www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk COM/PLAN/11.07/0170/DP&P/5423 publi shed November 2007

This publication can be made available in alternative formats and languages to ensure it is fully accessible.

Printed on paper which comes from sustainably managed commercial forests which comply with the ‘Forest Stewardship Council’ (FSC)