Wokingham District Council Rights of Way Improvement Plan

APPENDIX 1. GENERAL PUBLIC QUESTIONNAIRE AND ACTUAL RESULTS Wokingham District Council Rights of Way Improvement Plan

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

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

Q1 How often do you visit the countryside in Wokingham district Q4 If there were suitable routes created in the future, would you consider Daily ...... 69 Monthly...... 136 cycling or walking to these places? Yes ...... Already do...... Several times a week ...... 71 Less often...... 160 311 169 No...... Weekly ...... 155 Not used at all ...... 34 126

Q5 Are you aware of the following routes within the district? Q2 How often do you visit each of the following places? Thames Trail ...... 264 Loddon Valley Footpath ...... 255 Several Blackwater Valley Footpath...... 153 times a Less Not used Daily week Weekly Monthly often at all Public Rights of Way (footpaths, Q6 For what reasons do you use Public Rights of Way? (Tick those which bridleways, byways and roads apply) 84 85 118 85 114 43 used as public paths) ...... For recreational purposes ...... 475 For sport/fitness ...... 151 10 14 37 42 98 261 Cycle tracks...... To travel to work/school ...... 55 Other ...... 49 12 15 67 157 252 57 Country Parks...... To reach local amenities ...... 130 Nature Reserves ...... 6 12 30 112 268 80 Please specify other Local Parks ...... 28 30 97 119 205 71 67 Rivers ...... 14 20 67 123 228 84 Woodlands ...... 24 44 79 128 202 72 Q7 Which activities do you pursue on the network? (Tick those which apply) Walking...... 491 Horse riding ...... 10 4WD driving ...... 4 Running ...... Carriage driving ...... Motorcycling ...... Q3 What mode of transport do you use to access these places? 30 1 9 Cycling...... Dog walking ...... Other...... Public transport ...... 26 Car/motorbike...... 463 152 102 17 Please specify other Bicycle...... 132 Mobility scooter ...... 6 38 Foot ...... 411 Q8 Is there anything that discourages you from using Public Rights of Way in Q11 How often do you use Public Rights of Way from Wokingham District to Wokingham District? (Tick those which apply) areas of the countryside outside the district? Lack of information about available Lack of signs ...... 80 Always...... 12 Rarely...... 216 routes ...... 195 Lack of time...... 146 Usually ...... 27 Never...... 138 Poorly maintained paths...... 136 Sharing use with other users...... 11 Sometimes ...... 207 Paths not accessible ...... 62 Influence of agriculture...... 14 Lack of useful routes...... 73 Health restrictions ...... 50 Q12 Are you aware of the Health Walks Programme? Personal safety concerns...... 157 Yes, I'm aware but do not take part ...... 228 Don't like walking/cycling ...... 10 Irresponsible users...... 91 Yes, I'm aware and take part ...... 30 Other ...... 33 No, I am not aware...... Please specify other 358 99 Q13 How satisfied are you with the Public Rights of Way network in Wokingham District Very Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied dissatisfied No opinion Information ...... 21 249 133 16 129 Q9 In which locations do you mainly use the network? (Tick all those which apply) Vegetation clearance...... 17 249 124 18 131 Hurst ...... 121 Ruscombe ...... 43 Finchampstead ...... 147 Waymarkers ...... 15 259 102 4 145 Condition of stiles, gates, Barkham ...... 71 Charvil ...... 43 Woodley...... 137 bridges...... 20 3086411131 Wokingham Without .....120 Earley ...... 145 Wargrave...... 77 Available routes...... 21 2678611139 Arborfield ...... 66 Swallowfield...... 40 Sonning ...... 137 Surface condition...... 10 2858818124 Winnersh ...... 137 Wokingham...... 172 Twyford...... 95 Accessibility...... 19 308 54 8 130 Remenham ...... 43 Shinfield...... 50 River Thames ...... 236 Q14 How satisfied are you by the service provided by Wokingham District Council regarding Rights of Way issues? Q10 Why do you choose these locations? (Tick those which apply) Very Very dis Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied satisfied No opinion Close to home ...... 512 Favourite route ...... 153 Internet information ...... 8 101 29 7 368 Scenery of area...... 257 Near to public house ...... 41 Staff response to enquiries...... 13 100 17 3 388 Quality of paths ...... Other ...... 101 28 Response to maintenance Please specify other issues ...... 10 89 43 14 361 56 Response to enforcement issues ...... 6 67 42 15 378 Q15 Given that financial resources are limited, what three actions would make Q19 If no, why not? the greatest improvement to your ability to access the countryside now? 243 (Please label 1-3, with 1 being the most important) 164 Improved rural transport...... 169 Reduced need to use roads to link...... 218 Q20 Conflict sometimes arises between people using the paths for different More routes and links for pedestrians, horses and cycles ...... reasons e.g. walking, cycling, horse riding etc. What do you think could be 80 More routes and links for pedestrians, horses, cycles and motor vehicles ...... done to help minimise these conflicts? 202 387 Better signage...... 108 Better surfacing...... 208 Better maintenance of existing paths ...... 318 Better information about the routes available...... 122 More guided walks ...... 99 Improved accessibility for wheelchairs/pushchairs ...... 40 Q21 Would you be prepared to support multi-use of routes (e.g. pedestrians, Other ...... cyclists and horse riders) if this were the only way of widening the Please specify other network? 37 Yes ...... 380 No ...... 89 Don't know...... 82

Q16 Given that the population of Wokingham is set to expand considerably, Q22 On vulnerable unsurfaced byways, what winter controls do you think there what improvements do you think we need to be addressing to should be on motorised recreational vehicles? accommodate future needs? Motor cars Motor bikes 322 No restrictions...... 20 13 Seasonal/condition restrictions...... 206 187 No access...... 317 308

Q17 Traffic congestion is an escalating problem across the UK. What mode of Q23 Would you be interested in taking part in a one-off focus group discussing transport do you use to access your place of work/child(ren)'s school? Public Rights of Way? Car...... 294 Walk...... 87 I do not work/take Yes ...... 121 No...... 431 children to school...... 232 Bus ...... 21 Bicycle ...... 25 Train ...... 32 Motorbike ...... 4 Q24 If yes, please could you give your name and a contact telephone number/email address: Q18 If there were suitable routes created in the future, would you consider 117 cycling or walking to work/school? Name...... 117 Yes ...... 128 No ...... 202 Already do ...... 70 Tel/Email ..... Q25 Do you have any specific routes or links that you would like to see Q26 How would you like to get information about accessing the countryside? created? If so, please list them below. Internet ...... 247 Leaflets...... 424 99 Q27 Are you a member of any of the following? RSPB ...... 83 FWAG ...... 2 Ramblers Association ...... 37 BTO...... 8 BBOWT ...... 38 RSPCA...... 37 WWF ...... 29 Any other user organisations ...... 100

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

Q28 Are you... ? Q33 What is your family status? Male ...... 301 Female ...... 297 Married/living with partner - with Separated/divorced/widowed - no children...... 251 children...... 49 Married/living with partner - no Single - with children ...... Q29 Where do you live? Please give your postcode: 3 585 children...... 225 Single - no children ...... 29 Separated/divorced/widowed - with children...... 29 Q30 Is your mobility restricted by disability or long-term illness? Yes - sensory...... 7 Yes - physical ...... 71 No ...... 499 Q34 Please indicate what you consider your ethnic background to be? Q31 What is your age? White - British...... 533 Asian or British - Pakistani ...... 1 Under 25 ...... 1 55 to 64 ...... 182 White - Irish...... 9 Asian or British - Bangladeshi ...... 0 25 to 34 ...... 20 65 to 74 ...... 133 White - Traveller of Irish Heritage ...... 0 Any other Asian or Asian British 35 to 44 ...... 72 75 or older ...... 61 background (please state below) ...... 0 White - Gypsy/Roma ...... 1 45 to 54 ...... 124 Black or Black British - Caribbean...... 1 White - Any other background (please state below)...... 7 Black or Black British - African ...... 1 Q32 Which of the following best describes your current situation? Please tick Mixed - White and Black Caribbean..... 1 Any other Black or Black British the appropriate box. background (please state below) ...... 0 Mixed - White and Black African ...... 0 Working in full time employment ...... 196 Wholly retired from work ...... 226 Chinese ...... 2 Mixed - White and Asian ...... 0 Working in part time employment...... 111 Full time student...... 0 Other ...... 5 Mixed - Any other Mixed background Not working but available for work ...... 8 Other ...... 11 (please state below)...... 0 I do not wish an ethnic background category to be recorded ...... 17 Looking after the home/dependants..... 31 Would prefer not to answer ...... 3 Asian or British - Indian ...... 5 Unable to work due to ill Please state 'Other' or other Mixed background 20 health/disability...... 10

Thank you for completing this survey. Please return it to Linda Spencer using the pre paid envelope supplied. APPENDIX 2: COMMENTS FROM QUESTIONNAIRE

Q6: Other reasons for using Public Rights Earley is dreadfully short of dropped kerbs of Way necessary to access cycleways/walkways. Lack of knowledge on my part Walking club Lack of information and 'official' resistance to Fishing 4wd and motorcycle activity. An unreliable Minor pursuits knee prevents exploration of green land. Friends Only walking short distances Dog walking Presumption that riverside walks are too To get from one place to another narrow for pushchairs. Health walking/exercise It is important that recreational routes form a To visit someone circuit/ network so roads without paths and To reach local amenities busy roads can be easily avoided. Pleasure Uneven pavement/ walking routes/ lack of To enjoy the countryside footpaths on main roads in Finchampstead. I write about walking in the Berkshire Age and health restrictions countryside Have to go on busy roads to get access to I live on a PROW them. Bird watching, photography No bells on bikes! Horse riding Too close to roads with no safe grass verge to I used the footpaths during the summer but separate. will never use them again due to the random Personal safety concerns murders that are taking place in these areas. Need to know about the round Berkshire cycle route. Q7: Other activities pursued on the Badly maintained roads in the area. network Bad weather Over development. Includes rambling and guided walks. Would like more safe cycle routes. Playing/walking with children Earlier this year I asked the footpaths dept to River use maintain no.44 as it was very muddy. Nothing Bird watching/nature was done and now it needs cutting back! Mobility scooter where possible. No.29 has been cut back! No. 27 (Rebecca’s I am disabled so only use when taken. well) is very bad and needs resurfacing. Fishing. Ramblers association do a good job generally. Rally sport. All very well managed. Driving there, then short walk. Lack of parking space near beginning/ end of Leisure roads. Rowing/ boating Poor lighting Dog walking From where I live it takes too long to reach Golf - most courses have public RoWs. open country. Rubbish / dumping / flytipping Q8: Other things which discourage people Illegal cycling on footpaths from using Public Rights of Way I have two small children and some places are Not practical with a buggy Walk outside the district Lack of information Weather can quickly make paths unusable Paths which are adjacent to poorly maintained Not easy access to free fishing stretch. industrial sites such as 9 Mile Ride Industrial Golfers using parklands for practice. Estate opposite California Country Park Sometimes fishermen. Lack of long distance walks which get away Public transport not available to Dinton from housing and busy roads. Sadly the Pastures from Maiden Erlegh. district is too developed now and attractive peaceful countryside is difficult to find. Limited number within walking distance of Safe rural parking/improved car parking home Safe cycleways, separated from roads by Dogs not on leads that are not under control. grass verges. lack of motivation Restricting horse/ motorbike/ 4x4 access. Some stiles and bridges are dangerously Mend stiles/ gates/ bridges. rickety! Information regarding safety. Overgrown Paths, and paths that pass through Secure fencing around livestock to keep dogs fields with livestock out. Poor surfaces due to horse and vehicle use V. happy Illegal use of vehicles. Improved accessibility for cycles/The need to Lack of dog waste bins/dog mess link up into longer routes. Preventing cyclists from using paths and Q10: Other reasons for choosing locations pavements. It is becoming increasingly in Q9 dangerous to walk around Wokingham (or any other place for that matter) either on Easy access by car and car parking facilities footpaths or pavements because of Visiting friend via bus irresponsible cyclists. The place for a bike is Southlake/ Highwood. River Thames. My dog on the road. Its time pedestrians were given can run free. greater consideration and the law about Best dog walking routes. cycling on pavements was enforced. Local knowledge Clear and prevent flytipping/litter Easily accessible from home Better linkage of existing paths/new paths Child/ pushchair friendly around Wokingham District with easier So can walk/ cycle the entire route. pedestrian access from the town centre. To access local shops/ station/ doctor’s Closer linkage with facilities such as pubs. surgery/ pharmacy/ library/ sports club. Create separate paths for walkers and cyclists Birdwatching/wildlife (particularly motor cycles) Walks specified in walking guide Signage should include distances and publications. destinations. Wargrave Parish Council paid Avoid main roads when walking cycling. for some signs showing general destinations Health walks in Linden Hill woods as people were always Cycle access getting lost! Access poor in other areas. Bridge over Thames from Wargrave to Plus close to play areas. Shiplake Next to River Generally there is adequate access, signage, Children's play areas in vicinity and maintenance. They are 'country walks' Ramblers walk not municipal paths! Chance to explore the neighbouring parishes More 'circular routes' Looking for new routes to lead parties (walks 10 miles+) Q16: Improvements that could be made to Small informal walking group. accommodate future needs Routes to/from work/school Variety of area e.g. lake and heathland/ More cycle paths woodland, also suitable for dog walking Negotiate with farmers/landowners to allow access to create more walks. Q15: Other actions that could improve Build houses on cleared brownfield land in access to the countryside order to maintain our countryside. Maintain existing rural areas. Reduce public Ability to get there access to rural areas so that damage to the More dog waste bins and better enforcement environment is eliminated. of their use A new secondary school in preference to any Increased access to riverside rights of way expenditure Better public transport Keep as much leisure/ walking/ woodland as Less fouling of footpaths by dogs possible. By ensuring that areas of the countryside More rural access for walkers and cyclists. remain accessible after new building Accessibility of public rights of way. developments. Family needs taken into account. Provide a toilet between Oracle and Sonning Speed reductions better paths. No parking on Thames walk. near or close to schools such as Waingel's Very definitely not to lose our country parks. Copse and Willowbank. They are the best (outside the national parks). Good walkways & footpaths that are easily Keep existing paths in good condition. accessible. Ensure green areas maintained and more Protection of countryside and rights of way information available. network. Only allow residential and Maintain all the current open spaces and agricultural traffic on byways. routes, keep surfaces safe. Ensure that the building of new homes does Safe cycle routes to schools not adversely affect the countryside and To keep a balance between public and infrastructure. recreational amenities with housing The system works generally well. development. More paths around town to avoid busy roads. In many locations the urban footpaths are Keep population down. broken up, uneven, and too steeply sloped Safety on walkways. from inside to kerb. This makes it difficult for More routes and improved linking of routes. the unsteady or those in wheelchairs or with ensure availability of sufficient car parking pushchairs. facilities. Communication of facilities available Ensuring there are enough foot/cycle paths More dropped kerbs. Enforcement of litter by- where needed. laws, crackdown on fly tipping. Reduce numbers of people driving children to I would like to see the Loddon footpath school when they could walk/ cycle. extend all the way to Swallowfield. There is a Ensure that existing countryside is not possible route although private. encroached upon. Ensure that sufficient green areas are free Clearer signage. from housing. More walks -less cars. Make sure maintenance is a priority. Better access/ surfacing for pushchairs/ vandalism, litter kiddies to cycle on to improve the use of the Build decent paths that offer efficient paths. I only go to where the paths are alternatives to cars/ public transport. suitable. Safety for children and lone walkers on routes Encourage developers to create footways in and information widely available. the countryside. Publicity, maps and articles in local papers to Better road and path surfaces. encourage use. Set aside areas specially Greater distribution of information on routes designed for the motor vehicles and perhaps available. Not necessarily an increase in charge a small fee. quantity. Concentrate on existing rights of way, Footpaths that link facilities. Better ensuring they are kept in first class condition. maintenance/ regular checks. More pedestrians and cycle paths as part of Ensure that footpaths are included in the new planning permission system developments. More education to newcomers on the rules of Maintenance of existing rural areas and safe the countryside. litter free links for pedestrians/ cyclists. No Preserving existing woodland encroachment of housing into existing rural Make certain present amenities are highly areas. extended where needed. Maintaining rights of way, byways etc to a Ensure that public rights of way are protected. better standard if use is to increase. Many are already in poor condition. Give protection to local green areas and trees. even for strangers & with routes going into Maintenance of public parks, leisure facilities, different speaking Cantons is still excellent. rights of way. Restriction signs re speeds of Better links between rights of way to form a cyclists & no access for youths on mopeds cohesive network. Better signage and etc. maintenance of paths, provision of good More encouragement to walk, more info quality maps. about health walks. An evening health walks Parents and children should be encouraged to program. walk or cycle to schools on safe routes. Publicised and maintained routes. Small areas of parkland which break up the Consideration to existing open spaces and monotony of residential development rural areas. Pedestrian crossings, foot bridges, Make more clearly signed paths for speed limits. pedestrians and cyclists. Do not encourage Safe areas for children to play. the use of 4/4 vehicles make sure paths are Setting aside land for recreational purposes. cleared of brambles, nettles etc and install Make users pay for the facilities they use. some rubbish bins Ensure network does not suffer. Establish Rigorously protect the areas of open better link roads. Step up publicity. countryside, country parks, and local The council needs to give this issue a much recreational areas that are currently available higher profile with greater all round and accessible throughout Wokingham commitment, particularly in staff/ resources. More pavements in rural areas so that people improve recreational facilities. e.g. the 9 hole can walk safely from their homes to the golf course is poor by comparison with countryside e.g. Heathlands Road Bracknell. Soccer grounds and children' Ensure that the existing public amenities are playgrounds. not lost and further networks are included in Better communication with residents. any planned developments Choosing good sites for large developments Clear rules and enforcement of these rules. and making sure that all facilities are Strike a very careful balance between better available. access etc and misuse. Improved surfaces and Plan road improvements carefully to avoid better access ALSO lead to the following: wasting land and money. flytipping, assemblies of drug users and drug More bridleways. Possible bridleways beside dealers, PRW being used as escape runs by existing roadways. offenders. There is NO police in the Even more important to ensure footpaths are countryside and NO enforcement. Also, the created through new residential areas pleasure of walking, cycling, riding is not Discourage the use of cars for "school runs" enhanced by the growing number of cars and purpose. Facilitate the use of alternative motorbikes. methods to travel to/from school. More information on finding locations of Protect the encroachment on rights of way by routes landowners who wish to divert or close Establishing more footpaths through the More leisure facilities, i.e. open space, parks countryside with provision for off-road and rights of way. Future housing estates parking and to provide selected areas for should have at least one green area like a protection of natural habitats. village green. Ensure that access to the countryside is Increase capacity and create new rights of maintained and protected way, paths and walkways to enable continued Prevent further spreading of settlements into access to green areas and countryside countryside - protecting what quiet areas we Keep green spaces in built up areas and have left. footpaths linking them More safe routes to school, work with More guided walks and more publicity for sustrans re linking local to national routes. these walks Encourage council workers to use paths Looking at the way signage of trails and routes are done in Switzerland. The clarity Provide more information to local residents Would only allow children to cycle if there on the details of the walks and paths in the were safe off road routes. I already use cycle area. for work in reading town centre. Ensuring that footpaths and cycle tracks Too far, too dangerous. feature prominently in development plans, Too much to carry. and are readily accessible and secure. Lack of washing facilities/ showers and Undertake an environmental survey of changing rooms. remaining green belt and land adjoining Driving is most convenient. brown-field sites. Identify key areas close to Would like my children to cycle to school but existing built environment and ensure that Emmbrook may move and the option of St. these are preserved for future generations - Crispins is not a safe route. Has this been attempt to swaddle urban areas in green considered? cotton wool!! Protect remaining woodland. I live in rural area therefore my leisure and Ensure any new estates have wildlife shopping facilities would not benefit from corridors and pretences of woodland and extra routes. green amenity areas. No public transport available. Better information on existing routes. Maybe Time constraints publishing routes in the free issue paper from I drop off and then go to work. WDC Facilities for elderly sparse. follow up enforcement faster, when paths are Too many places to go in one day, the car is deliberately blocked or diverted without the quickest and the easiest. permission. Leaflet people with what is Work unsocial hours available in their area. Age and health Identify popular places people want to go to Distance of school but drive part way and and from, then see if it is feasible to create daughter walks the remainder of journey new pedestrian/cycle ROW to encourage non- I ferry my grandchildren to their schools. use of cars. There is no public transport to the schools, Protect existing "open" space for recreational which are too far away to journey on foot. use. Impeded mobility Better/safer complete network of The children already go to school by bicycle. cycle/footpaths to enable people to travel I would not be able to get to work in time by from home to shops/work/recreation. other means. Train + bicycle takes me 1.5 hours each way (to Slough) compared with Q19: Reasons for not walking/cycling to 30min by car school/work P.S. I work from home, why no tick box for this rising category? Cycling is too dangerous. Children go to different schools Q20: Ways to minimise conflict between No need people using paths for different reasons I do shift work. There is no available transport. bells on cycles Gaining access presents problems have clearly marked paths for each Distance too great to walk. keep cyclists off pavements! The British climate widen the paths where space is available. Vehicle required for work Provide signs indicating usage and required Try walking in Woodley at rush hour. We live cooperation. Provide alternative routes for within walking distance of Willowbank users and rest usage to one form. School, but it is much safer to drive. The ensure everyone is considerate to others crossing of the GWR line is dangerous and walkers not trespassing on private land Butts Hill Road is a nightmare for children. A exclude horses and motorcycles; educate third Thames Bridge is needed between the cyclists so that they can operate safely. M4 and south Oxon. have some paths for walking only. Teach children discipline provide more cycle routes. Or perhaps leave Make pet owners clean up after dogs and bumps in footpaths to discourage speeding other animals. bikes on shared paths. I believe walkers and cyclists should have I have not had any problems. unrestricted access across the board. Path Make access more difficult to bikes and motor education is a must; there is enough room for vehicles, use stiles/ kissing gates. all and no need to be selfish if you don't Everyone has the right to use the paths and happen to like another person’s leisure sport enjoy the countryside. or hobby. Clear signs for when cycles are prohibited. Educate them; make it compulsory for bikes Paths sometimes too narrow and windy to to have bells. Teach people consideration for accommodate when cyclists go too fast. others. Publish a code of conduct for each category. Divide footpaths, walkers to keep to one side. Enforce dogs on leads. Patrol to deter More consideration of pedestrians by cyclists motorised scooter use on paths. on narrow footpaths. Better info on rights of use. People do not Speed limit for cyclists, make it mandatory understand that a byway is a real road and not for cycles to have a bell. Cyclists must a footpath. dismount at narrow points on path. More dog bins. Compromise, double tracks and one way Clearer signs, possibly colour coded. tracks. Bikes seem to go on footpaths and pedestrians Make footpaths wider and provide suitable seem to have no rights of way these days. signage to show who should go where. If paths were kept clean of vegetation on all People need to show more consideration for sides. Being readily cut back, we could use all others. Give and take. the available space Cautionary signs to encourage cooperation If they are all entitled to use the paths then I between different users. don't see what can be done to minimise Common sense potential conflicts. It’s the responsibility of Enough space to offer space to different users. individuals to show consideration for others Ensuring no motorbikes, mopeds. using the paths. Signs needed to denote pathways Selective walks for each interest group. Styles Need a path code. and gates could help. Just ensure signage is accurate Possibly restrict use to s certain time of day Promote better understanding between groups for the more anti-social activities. Everyone has the same right to use the paths. Sharing is possible as long as both are Speed cycling slowed or designated to considerate. particular areas. Touring speeds for horses (no Not a major issue. galloping) More bridleways and cycle tracks Q25: Any specific routes or links you Day/time/seasonal restrictions would like to see created Common courtesy & sense by all. Better signage explaining how to use the public transport to Basingstoke made easy paths. until a housing estate arrived there used to be Ensure paths are reasonably wide with a full public footpath from the railway clearance of undergrowth. footbridge at the bowling alley, across the Have a clear code of conduct which puts football ground to the pin and bowl pub. safety first. Tesco is now opposite. When the housing Little - the conflicts are too individual. estate was built a padlock was put on the gate Stop 4x4's churning up tracks. and a wooden fence is now blocking the Those riding horses should be made to clear footpath. up their mess. Dog owners should although cycle route to Dinton pastures from Winnersh this does not seem to be done, even on my crossroads is dangerous to take children on own garden. the road. The hill over the motorway is dangerous; a cycle route south of Wokingham between molly millars lane and the town would also be nice. centre over the railway bridge would save car footpath improved between Wokingham usage. without and Crowthorne. access to river from centre of Wargrave. improve bus routes i.e. Shinfield to Asda/ Twyford - Hurst cycle path on pavement. Woodley. footpath/ bridleway no. 14 at Arborfield end, wokingham-twyford-henley section missing needs a permitted path ending Loddon footpath extended to Swallowfield or something. Woosehill to Earley safer cycling route between Bulmershe court and the rest of Bracknell - Wokingham - Twyford - the uni. route from church road Earley to Wargrave Woodley shopping precinct. improved link between the Loddon valley footpath and signage through Woodley housing estates e.g. the blackwater footpath (and linked to the kingfisher drive. Thames way) none that are that important, bearing in mind a bypass for Wokingham town centre. the cost of creating them a cycle route from Wokingham to reading cycle route to station from Barkham and which does not follow the main roads and Finchampstead directions heavy traffic. bus route from Twyford to Piggott school. a footpath across the Thames between safe off road path/ bridleway along Sandford Wargrave and shiplake. lane Woodley. this has become a very Swallowfield to Spencer’s wood and dangerous rat run for cars/ vans/ lorries. the Arborfield. nearby sailing/ golf/ walking facilities means the route from luckley close to woodcray that a lot of pedestrians are using it too. links manor has been obstructed by residents who are needed across sanford farmland to Hurst have put a private gate on the alley between and across the river Loddon. their houses. Sonning lane cycle path. better bus link between Woodley and safe passage along Barkham ride to Barkham Wokingham. road. more paths in California country park. Loddon footpath through Arborfield and an official cycle route from kingfisher drive newland. Woodley to Highwood nature reserve Arborfield footpath which starts on langley &church road to link with Anderson avenue common road, Barkham but which is a dead and st.peters. end due to houses being built over it in the would like safe cycle routes everywhere, sixties. It could provide a safe route from the especially near schools. garrison end of the village for children to lower Earley has too many dark footpaths walk to school but nothing is ever done to already. open it up. Finchampstead road/ bearwood road too my route id from Emmbrook to Wokingham narrow for cyclists. station. I would like to see a link from station for pedestrian safety a pavement is needed car park to reading road near st paul's church. along the Charvil lane between Sonning and also I feel it should be possible to provide an Charvil. a very dangerous stretch of road for off road link through Emmbrook centre. those on foot. an improved footpath along Finchampstead create specific motorbike parks for 4x4s too, ridges as far as the war memorial. speed where they can gun their engines and test restrictions on this road. their machines to their hearts content. you cannot access caesar's camp from around woodcray manor farm "golf" course, Wokingham safely by cycling with children. still incomplete and unfinished. Earley and Woodley to reading town centre cycle routes through Twyford for children and Thames. who attend the Piggott school. I am unhappy link to Dinton pastures from Barkham, for my children to cycle due to heavy traffic, avoiding main roads. if better routes were available, I would feel happier. any link that would allow more 'country' Twyford around Stanlake park, towards Hurst walks from Wokingham area without using around the Waltham chase development transport or busy roads. (maybe around the lakes) Twyford to Woodley without going through Pavements on Heathlands Road this would Charvil. aid walking to St Sebastian’s School and into from a33 over m4 at junction 11 to green Gorrick Woods park. Route running from Dinton Pastures through better link through roundabout at Loddon Twyford and Charvil and connecting to the bridge, a lot of children cycle to school. Thames Path at Sonning. a new path coming off the one running from 1. A better route for cycling from Woodley to the a329m at its junction with the a329 taking Twyford Station. 2. A circular recreational you across the fields into binfield. a new path cycle route around Woodley - Most of this is coming across fields along the ditch/ stream already there - it just needs joining up. 3. on stokes farm land would give a shorter Improved cycle routes to Woodley town route when the longer circular route seems too centre formidable. see attached photocopy. Woodley to Thames cycle route There's a Binfield Bridle Network or some improvement. such. We need an EXTENSIVE one of these Preferably a footpath and cycle track, but all over the district. definitely a footpath, between St Sebastian's I have been in talks with various council Hall (Nine Mile Ride) and Gardeners Green. members regarding the walk to school. I go Currently the only access on foot is via Honey from Eastheath Avenue to Westende. It's an Hill, which is narrow and provides a rather absolute shocker of a journey and exceedingly unsafe environment for the mix of cars and unsafe. pedestrians. Also, I'd like to see a cycle I would like to see a formalised route created track established for the entire length of Nine to Wokingham from Finchampstead using the Mile Ride, a busy and narrow highway along existing network through the back of which cyclists take their lives in their hands. Woodcray etc Links into Sustrans network Woodley to Berks hospital I think the public rights of way are already 1) cycle paths between Hurst (Dolphin very good when put in the context of the school) and Woosehill 2) cycle path number of people using them. between Hurst (Dolphin school) and Lower Expand/open up the wooded areas around Earley 3) direct cycle path between black Woosehill, Barkham, Bearwood and boy roundabout and Woosehill Winnersh so that we can access the numerous A footpath joining Remenham with Wargrave woodlands in this area - ideally without as part of any agreement to grant planning having to cross busy roads. Improve the permission for any development at Park Place environment on the Woosehill - it has a lot of Protection for pedestrians and cyclists over potential for users other than dog-walkers. Henley Bridge Cycle path over the A cycle route(s) south of Reading would be Remenham Roads particularly on the London good. It's quite dangerous on a bike through and Wargrave roads the villages there. Wokingham to Bracknell link for Cycle routes into Bracknell would benefit cycles/footpath. This should link up to the those working the Wokingham side of it. Nine Mile Ride cycle path which has been Personally I live on the Bean Oak estate so created near the old TRL site. It could run the more walking routes out the back to and along the train track for some of its route. from the villages the better. Wokingham to Reading Centre by foot and More circular routes or routes connected by cycle if the cycleway is not already covered public transport by the old Berkshire Cycleways scheme. generally linking as many local routes as Lower Earley to Shinfield, Mole Road, possible to create 'round' walks. Roman Walk Arborfield and better access to the banks of in Wargrave was supposed to be going to be the Loddon adopted and extended but we have heard nothing for about a year on this. Routes from high-density housing to schools, particularly secondary e.g. Winnersh to the Holt school avoiding roads and pavement. one linking riverside park to Shinfield village without having to walk on the road past Sindlesham mill Better routes to/from Woodley to Twyford and pavement or cycle route along Bader way. Beanoak to town centre/Dinton pastures/Thames. Finchampstead road cycle path through to Wokingham. This deteriorates as you get closer to Wokingham. I work inn Bracknell, the one of the reasons I don't cycle to work is that there are no routes from where I live (off the Finchampstead Road) through the town centre and out towards Bracknell via the A329M roundabout. Mind you, cycle routes in Bracknell don't start until you're almost in the town centre. From Shinfield Road/Lower Earley towards Arborfield/Barkham. No well designed path to get over the M4 near Black Boy unless you go via Cutbush lane - (some areas of fly tipping near the old bridge) Near the Poacher/Sindlesham - narrow road and bridges between some foot path access. That area of foot path is not always well maintained. APPENDIX 3. PARISH COUNCIL QUESTIONNAIRE AND ACTUAL RESULTS Wokingham District Council Rights of Way Improvement Plan: Parish Council Questionnaire

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

Q1 Which Parish do you represent? Q4 Is there anything that the Parish Council thinks discourages people from Hurst ...... 0 Ruscombe...... 1 Finchampstead ...... 1 using Public Rights of Way in your parish? (Tick those which apply) Barkham ...... Charvil ...... Woodley...... Lack of information about available Lack of signs ...... 2 1 0 0 routes ...... 3 Lack of time...... 0 Wokingham Without .....0 Earley ...... 0 Wargrave ...... 1 Poorly maintained paths...... 3 Sharing use with other users...... 0 Arborfield ...... 0 Swallowfield...... 1 Sonning ...... 1 Paths not accessible ...... 2 Influence of agriculture...... 0 Winnersh ...... 1 Wokingham...... 0 Twyford...... 1 Lack of useful routes...... 2 Health restrictions ...... 0 Remenham ...... 1 Shinfield...... 0 Personal safety concerns...... 3 Don't like walking/cycling ...... 0 Irresponsible users...... 2 Q2 From the Parish Council's point of view, what is the main use of the Public Other ...... 3 Rights of Way network in your parish? (Tick those which apply) Please specify other For recreational purposes ...... 9 For sport/fitness ...... 7 3 To travel to work/school ...... 3 Other ...... 1 To reach local amenities ...... 1 Please specify other 1

Q5 How satisfied are you with the Public Rights of Way network in your Q3 What are the most popular activities pursued on the network within your parish? parish? (Tick those which apply) Very Very Walking...... 9 Horse riding ...... 5 4WD driving ...... 1 satisfied Satisfied Dis satisfied dissatisfied No opinion Running ...... 6 Carriage driving ...... 0 Motorcycling...... 1 Information ...... 0 5 4 0 0 Cycling...... 2 Dog walking ...... 9 Other...... 1 Vegetation clearance ...... 0 7200 Please specify other Waymarkers...... 0 6201 1 Condition of stiles, gates, bridges ...... 0 5301 Available routes...... 0 6201 Surface condition ...... 0 5211 Accessibility...... 0 6011 Q6 How satisfied are you by the service provided by Wokingham District Q9 Are there adequate non-road links between local amenities (places of Council regarding Public Rights of Way issues? work, school, shops etc.) and residential areas in your parish? If no, where Very Very dis are the gaps? Satisfied Satisfied Dis satisfied satisfied No opinion Yes ...... 5 No...... 3 0 4 0 0 4 Internet information ...... Gaps between amenities: Staff response to enquiries ...... 0 7002 4 Response to maintenance issues...... 0 6102 Response to enforcement issues...... 0 4203

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

Q12 Would the Parish Council be interested in taking part in a one-off focus Q8 What are the main areas of conflict associated with public rights of way in group discussing Public Rights of Way? your parish? What do you think could be done to help minimise these Yes ...... 7 No...... 2 conflicts? 7 Q13 If your parish contains any of the following paths, do you think that the routes are adequately publicised? Blackwater Valley Footpath...... 1 Loddon Valley Footpath ...... 1 Thames Trail ...... 2 Not applicable ...... 4 Q14 Where could links be created to provide safer circular routes (e.g. for Q17 How can countryside access be improved for people with a disability (e.g. horse riders, walkers, cyclists) or attractive routes from villages and towns the less mobile, the blind or partially-sighted)? for people to use for leisure and health? Please list below or attach 8 separately (please include maps if possible). 6

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

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

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

Q2: Other main uses of PROW network in your parish

Dog walking

Q3: Other most popular activities pursued on the PROW network

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

Q4: Other issues that discourage people from using PROWs

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

Q7: Other actions that could improve access to the countryside

More people would cycle if the byways were passable

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

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

Q9: Gaps between amenities

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

Q10: Improvements that could be made to accommodate future needs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q17: Improvements to countryside access for people with a disability

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

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

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

Q19: Adequacy of public access to local attractions

Wargrave has very minimal river frontage for the general public. Twyford Brook behind Hurst Road needs a linking path. No - the Park Place estate should be made more open. Areas could be improved - ie the ford in Farley Hill (Ford Lane). Make FH a 'centre' - it already has woods and rivers and is very popular with walkers (and the farmers need extra income). Pedestrian bridge there is not in a good condition. Yes - but signage is needed.

APPENDIX 5. STREET SURVEY AND ACTUAL RESULTS Wokingham District Council Rights of Way Improvement Plan

Q1 How often do you visit each of the following places in Wokingham district? Q5 If there were suitable routes created in the future, would you consider Several Not used at cycling/walking/using public transport to the places in Q1? times a week Weekly Monthly Less often all Yes ...... 25 No ...... 8 Already do ...... 15 Woodlands ...... 5 11 13 6 11 Country Parks...... 2 816136Q6 Are you aware of the following routes within the district? Nature Reserves...... 1 311920 Thames Trail...... 14 Loddon Valley Footpath...... 13 Local Parks...... 13 16744 Blackwater Valley Footpath ...... 3 Rivers ...... 4 516811 Q7 Which activities do you pursue on the network? (Tick those which apply) Footpaths, bridleways, byways...... 11 51667 Walking...... 42 Carriage driving ...... 0 Other...... 1 Countryside ...... 3 816116 Running ...... 7 Dog walking ...... 9 None ...... 2 Cycling...... 25 4WD driving...... 0 If 'not used at all', go to Q4 Horse riding ...... 2 Motorcycling ...... 0 Please specify other Q2 What mode of transport do you use to access these places? 1 Public transport...... 2 Foot ...... 34 Mobility scooter...... 1 Bicycle ...... 19 Car/motorbike ...... 25

If 'none' in answer to Q7, go to Q13 Q3 If there were suitable routes created in the future, would you consider cycling or walking to these places? Q8 In which locations do you mainly use the network? (Tick all those which Yes ...... 22 No ...... 3 Already do ...... 21 apply) Hurst ...... 10 Ruscombe ...... 2 Finchampstead ...... 7 Q4 What mode of transport do you use to access the following? Barkham ...... 4 Charvil ...... 2 Woodley...... 15 Car/motor Public Mobility bike transport Bicycle Foot scooter N/A Wokingham Without ...... 4 Earley ...... 18 Wargrave...... 3 Work...... 24 1 2 6 0 13 Arborfield ...... 1 Swallowfield...... 3 Sonning ...... 6 School ...... 6 349019 Winnersh ...... 13 Wokingham...... 17 Twyford...... 6 Amenities...... 25 251510 Remenham ...... 1 Shinfield...... 4 River Thames ...... 8 Q9 Why do you choose these locations? (Tick those which apply) Q13 Is there anything that discourages you from using Public Rights of Way in Close to home ...... 43 Favourite route ...... 9 Wokingham District? (Tick those which apply) Scenery of area ...... Near to public house...... Lack of information about available Lack of time ...... 11 17 6 routes...... 10 Quality of paths...... Other...... Sharing use with other users ...... 0 4 4 Poorly maintained paths ...... 3 Please specify other Influence of agriculture ...... 0 Paths not accessible...... 1 5 Health restrictions...... 4 Lack of useful routes ...... 3 Don't like walking/cycling...... 1 Personal safety concerns ...... 19 No interest in using PROWs...... 1 Irresponsible users ...... 5 Other...... 12 Q10 How satisfied are you with the Public Rights of Way network in Wokingham Lack of signs...... 2 District Please specify other Very Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied dissatisfied No opinion 14 Information ...... 2 24 14 1 7 Vegetation clearance ...... 3 31706 Waymarkers ...... 2 34308 Condition of stiles, gates, bridges ...... 2 32805 Q14 What 3 actions would encourage you to access the countryside more? Available routes...... 2 29816 Improved rural transport ...... 7 Surface condition ...... 3 30 11 0 3 Reduced need to use roads to link ...... 11 Accessibility...... 3 36503 More routes and links for pedestrians, horses and cycles...... 13 Q11 Have you contacted WDC regarding Public Rights of Way? More routes and links for pedestrians, horses, cycles and motor vehicles...... 4 Yes ...... 3 No ...... 45 Better signage...... 7 Better surfacing...... 8 If 'no' please go to Q13 Better maintenance of existing paths...... 6 Better information about the routes available ...... 20 Q12 How satisfied are you by the service provided by Wokingham District Council regarding Rights of Way issues? More guided walks...... 11 Very dis Improved accessibility for wheelchairs/pushchairs ...... 8 Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied satisfied No opinion Other...... 6 Staff response to enquiries ...... 0 1 0 2 1 Please specify other Response to maintenance issues ...... 0 0012 7 Response to enforcement issues ...... 0 0022 Q15 Given that the population of Wokingham is set to expand considerably, what Q16 Would you be interested in taking part in a one-off focus group discussing improvements do you think we need to be addressing to accommodate Public Rights of Way? future needs? Yes ...... 10 No ...... 37 42 Q17 If yes, please could you give your name and a contact telephone number/email address: 9 Name...... 9 Tel/Email ......

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

Q18 Are you... ? Q23 What is your family status? Male ...... 14 Female...... 34 Married/living with partner - with Separated/divorced/widowed - no children ...... 14 children ...... 0 Married/living with partner - no children. Single - with children ...... Q19 Where do you live? Please give your postcode: 48 6 2 Separated/divorced/widowed - with Single - no children...... 26 children ...... 0 Q20 Is your mobility restricted by disability or long-term illness? Yes - sensory...... 1 Yes - physical ...... 2 No ...... 45 Q24 Please indicate what you consider your ethnic background to be? White - British ...... 40 Asian or British - Pakistani...... 0 Q21 What is your age? White - Irish ...... 1 Asian or British - Bangladeshi ...... 0 Under 25...... 22 45 to 54...... 4 75 or older ...... 0 White - Traveller of Irish Heritage...... 0 Any other Asian or Asian British 25 to 34...... 12 55 to 64...... 1 background (please state below)...... 0 White - Gypsy/Roma ...... 0 35 to 44...... 7 65 to 74...... 2 Black or Black British - Caribbean ...... 0 White - Any other background (please state below) ...... 0 Black or Black British - African ...... 1 Q22 Which of the following best describes your current situation? Please tick the Mixed - White and Black Caribbean ...... 1 Any other Black or Black British appropriate box. background (please state below)...... 0 Mixed - White and Black African...... 0 Working in full time employment...... 15 Wholly retired from work...... 2 Chinese ...... 0 Mixed - White and Asian...... 1 Working in part time employment ...... 11 Full time student ...... 11 Other...... 2 Mixed - Any other Mixed background Not working but available for work...... 1 Other...... 1 (please state below) ...... 0 I do not wish an ethnic background category to be recorded...... 0 Looking after the home/dependants ...... 5 Would prefer not to answer ...... 0 Asian or British - Indian ...... 2 Unable to work due to ill Please state 'Other' or other Mixed background 2 health/disability...... 2

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

Q7: Other activities pursued on the network

15 Hang out with my mate

Q9: Other reasons for choosing locations

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

Q13: Other things that discourage users from ROWIPs

1 More places to go with kids (pushchairs) 6 Was attacked in the fisherman's car park 17 lack of lights 18 No street light on Woosehill behind Safeway 19 Lack of cycle lanes for car drivers are naive and couldn't care less about cyclists. They drive far too close to cyclists I have been hit by cars on three occasions 22 Paths not suitable for pushchairs 27 Lazy 29 Dog fouling, horses 30 Cyclists on footpaths can be a problem 34 Illegal use of motorbikes - Pearmans Copse area 38 Kids on motorbikes, dog fouling 42 Bicycles - boys going too fast 45 Litter/graffiti 46 Lighting on PROWs

Q14: Other actions to encourage accessing countryside

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

Q15: Improvements to accommodate future needs

2 Don't build on green areas 3 Sort out the traffic 4 More reliable public transport and cheaper! 5 Move provision for more development, motor cycle routes to access the countryside 6 More roads and better public transport (trains) 7 More cycle paths, less roads. More encouragement for school kids to use bikes, fewer cars on school run 9 Stop building houses 10 Faster routes for traffic, another junction from M4 12 More links and network before development 13 Better networks and links 14 More information about them 15 No - happy 16 Safer parks at night 17 Yes - provide more safer parks 18 Yes - they need more places for young people to hang out 19 Road network eg Plough Lane if they get permission. Night buses from Reading as there are none late at night such as 1am to 4am 20 Better information of what's available. Education of the rights of way network for young people ie walks for school groups. 22 Careful planning of building sites/location of new housing to protect countryside and rights of way 23 Better information ROW in district and communicating what is there to school kids 24 Aim towards younger people - better safety - wardens 25 More appealing to younger people, making them aware of the activities available. 26 More advertising of where ROW are 27 Better public transport and maps 28 Keeping parks with trees, ponds for people to access locally without driving 29 Good publicity of existing facilities 30 Linking open spaces 31 More public transport to get to links, more frequent 32 Better links, work - countryside etc 33 More routes 34 Footpath links - schools, leisure centres, shops 35 More links between houses and shops. More different routes. 36 Local area - fine, but further afield needs more 37 Too many people already, more car parking 38 Better signage, improve surfacing and general upkeep of ROW 39 Ensure gates are wide enough 40 Ensure cycle paths to schools from near houses 41 PROWs should be included at planning stage 42 Keep PROWs, encourage walking 43 Try to keep green spaces between Earley and Wokingham 44 More rubbish collection 47 Put networks in before development 48 More recycling facilities APPENDIX 6. HORSE USER FOCUS GROUP MINUTES

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE HORSE USERS FOCUS GROUP Held on Friday, 9th December 2005 at Dinton Pastures Country Park.

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

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

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

1: Using the Network:

a) What do you most value about access to the countryside:- Positives:- • Freedom from traffic • Safety • Enjoyment of countryside – peace and quiet • Exercising of horses in a pleasant environment • Scenery/wildlife • Challenge posed by riding in countryside – sense of achievement to get back safely.

Negatives: • PROWs under-used by many horse riders/carriage drivers - better signage needed • Some areas not having PROW network – Bramshill, for example. • Safety issues

It was generally felt that a clearer differentiation is needed between ‘countryside’ and ‘off road’.

b) Do you use PROWs purely for recreation or also to reach local amenities, work, etc? A number of people said they used their horse to get to work, to make deliveries, to go shopping and to the Pub.

Views were expressed that local amenities definitely benefit from the use of the horse, and that this can make a massive contribution to the local economy via tack shops, liveries, etc. An equine ‘park & ride’ was suggested. A pub in Kidlington already uses this system.

c) If there were suitable routes created, would you consider using them for work/recreation?

RW/EC – interested to know how many used their horses in everyday life? = 4/5 at meeting.

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

Answer: Yes, better access, better usage.

Views were expressed that better access would have to ensure that:- • cars did not park across entrances to tracks. • Logs not placed across access points • Address the problems of flytipping • Address the problems of overgrown vegetation

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

Views:- Lots of conflict with:-

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

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

How do we Resolve? (It was noted that The Coombes is felt to be a good area for riding – well used by all and with no known accidents occurring.) • Maintain relationships between all users • Publicise ‘good practice’ – general lack of awareness by public on safety issues, etc. Not enough communication and information on how to deal with horse riders. Public should be educated and effects will be felt over time. • Motorcylists (legal) seem to have more awareness re: safety and horses.

In relation to using highways it was noted that:- • Bus Drivers (particularly in Newbury) – not helpful. Show very little care for safety. • Skip Drivers, Builders Merchants, Foreign Lorries – all show little or no consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problems on PROW’s • Hard surfacing of bridleways causes problems. Surface will dictate usage by multi-users. Hard surfacing causes increase in volume of traffic – and speed. • PROW problems include rutting from 4x4’s, sharp hardcore. • Many of the country lanes are not surfaced often enough and therefore become very smooth and slippery. • The new surfacing – SMA – is worst. Councils and Companies need to be made more aware of effects of this surfacing on users.

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

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

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

Unanimous YES – how about temporary traffic regulations on worst?

RW/EC – have taken note of comments raised and will make judgements accordingly.

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

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

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

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

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

4. User Needs: a) Users with mobility problems – ease of access to PROWs, sign posting, promoted routes, facilities near by.

The general view was YES, there are problems.

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

EC:- Are there problems with mounting/dismounting?

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

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

Summary of Problems: Gates, width of track, surfaces, security – especially for women.

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

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

Big difference on ‘Access’ between WDC and West Berks – WDC suffer from poor access.

EC: Useful to hear opinion that access is very important. The ideal would be not to have to use a trailer to get to rides. EC/RW: will aspire to make this happen. EC: Traffic regulations order would be contentious but will take note of desire.

5. Management of Network

a) Which areas have good paths and why? • Englefield (Although private land, has permitted access) • Three Mile Cross to Beech Hill • Bramshill • Lambourne Downs • Bucklebury – (although not for carriage drivers during winter) • Chobham Common • The Ridgeway (North Heath) • Chievely • Headland • The Ridges, Finchampstead – and gravel pits

4b) Which areas not so good?

• Hurst • Swallowfield Bypass (fencing broken – lots of rubbish) • Stock Cross • Tidmarsh • Bradfield • Nine Mile Ride • Greenham Common (bad surfacing) • Stratfield Saye to Beech Hill

Estates with ‘permits’ are good – no permit system, bad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A question was asked on overgrown hedges on farmland?

RW: Approaching farms can be done by Highways on horse riders behalf.

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

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

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

Should DEFRA be involved?

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

6. Future:

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

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

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

RW/EC explained that all users are being met with and reports written up for ROWIP 2006/7.

It was hoped to feed-back to all users.

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

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

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

Rounding Up:

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

The meeting closed at 4.25pm

APPENDIX 7. LANDOWNER FOCUS GROUP MINTUES

Land Owners’ Focus Group

Notes from Meeting of 09.02.06 held at Dinton Pastures Country Park

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

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

Apologies: -

Introduction and Welcome

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

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

1. Using the Network a) What type of public access is available on your land (footpaths, bridleways, BOATs, Access Agreement, Countryside Stewardship, Voluntary/permissive Access, Previous legislation eg commons)?

• Between the members of the groups all of the above categories where represented. b) What do you think in general about the existence of PROWs? Do you think they are important?

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

• Leisure. • Sport. d) Do you rely on any PROWs in order to transport machinery/ livestock around the land?

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

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

• Areas close to conurbations can be affected by social problems. • Active people / groups can often be uncompromising and difficult, as they believe that they have a right to roam anywhere. • Relationships are improving, as landowners are trying to engage with the public. • Requires investment and time. • It was agreed that there were issues with people who were new to the countryside having brought a home in the countryside they think that they have a right to access – social change. b) What could be done to help minimise these conflicts?

• Education – educate people at an early age to understand right from wrong. • Consultation – although, this has its own issues as people do not always get involved in the consultation process, but kick off when work starts. • A lot of landowners feel threatened, access is being forced upon them, and perhaps handled badly by all parties involved in the process. • Promotion of the network – use parish magazines, notice boards, etc. • Codes of conduct – should be big, bold and pictorial (as not everyone can read), well distributed. • Good signing.

c) On vulnerable unsurfaced byways, do you think there should be any winter controls on motorised recreational vehicles?

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

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

• People believing that they have a right to roam anywhere. • Uncontrolled dogs. • Horse riders destroying path surfaces. • Motorised vehicle destroying path surfaces.

e) If the public are trespassing, what do you do? What response do you get?

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

3. Promoting the Network

a) What type of path information is available on your land eg Signposts, waymarks, information boards

• Problems with signs staying in place. • Council signs could be more secure, and better positioned. • Permissive Paths are less know about and used, but have varied usage.

b) Do you think there is sufficient information for users to follow the correct lines of the paths?

• In some cases, although its not always appropriate to have signs everywhere – do not always compliment the surrounding beauty.

c) What do you think is the best way of promoting responsible use of the countryside?

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Questions were raised about how often people with mobility issues would access the countryside. • Kissing gates not the right solution to replacing stiles, as sheep have been know to get through them. • Kissing gates more difficult to install, often installed incorrectly and require more maintenance, gates often become crooked.

5. Management of the Network

a) Do you know who (LO/HA) is responsible for : Surface maintenance of paths (HA), Clearance of obstructions (LO), Width of paths eg crossfield path to legal width (LO), Maintenance of stiles (LO), Maintenance of bridges over natural features eg streams (HA), Maintenance of bridges over artificial features eg canals (LO), Signing from metalled road surfaces (HA), Gates (LO), Overgrown Vegetation eg upgrowth/grass (HA), Overgrown Vegetation eg crop/hedges (LO)

• The group were well informed about responsibilities, although it was suggested the guidance in this area is always welcomed.

b) Do you know who to contact at the Highway Authority (Council) if there are any path problems

• Although the group didn’t appear to have concerns regarding who to contact at the council, it was agreed that clear guidance is always useful.

c) How satisfied are you by the service provided by the three authorities regarding PROW?

• Group agreed that they were overall satisfied, although agreed that RoW should be prioritised and funded and staffed accordingly. • It was suggested that economic impact assessments of RoW work should be carried out to prove value for money.

d) What would they like to see done differently in the management of the countryside rights of way network?

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

6. Future

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

• No, better to maintain current network, although with rationalisation it might be possible. • Riverside and woods are a sensitive issue. • The problems lye with ‘new’ sports using public spaces, such as mountain biking. • Important to initially look at how are the current network is served by public transport – joined up thinking, dropping people off on circular routes, etc.

b) Are there any PROWs that you think should be modified/diverted/extinguished/extended? Why?

•

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

• Depends on the individual cases, comes under rationalisation – there are packages and deals to be made.

d) Would you be happy to see any existing footpaths upgraded to bridleways?

• No, but in individual cases of improving safety it would be considered. • Main objection was to the damage incurred. • Should be up to each landowner whether he/she wishes to ‘upgrade’. • Might be accepted if the surface was appropriately improved.

e) What do you think would encourage landowners/managers to create new PROWs across their land?

• Rationalisation – for long distance paths an agreement might be reached, to consider improving links, if ‘deadend’ paths were taken out or re-routed. • A modification order acknowledging the existence of PROWs. • Retaining some control, eg. permissive paths or being able to move them. • Permits - if people pay for access rights they respect them more and are much keener to " police" them to the benefit of all.

f) Given that the population in this area is set to expand considerably, what improvements do you think we need to be addressing to accommodate future needs?

• More recreational facilities. • RoW should benefit from development, rather than causing conflict. • It’s about leisure. • Should be developer lead. • RoW should be given greater priority within the Authorities. • Landowners reiterated that its about working together.

APPENDIX 8. DISABLED / LESS MOBILE USER FOCUS GROUP MINUTES

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

USING THE NETWORK What do you value most about access to the countryside? The freedom and would ideally walk 20 miles a day, even if can actually only walk 10 yards ! It is a main hobby and form of enjoyment. It is of benefit to health. Access to fishing. Do you use rights of way purely for recreation or also to reach local amenities, work etc? You feel very vulnerable on a fast road if you are disabled, and if this is the only access then you cannot use it. This is similar to the problems horse-riders face! Also, if a path has an obstacle on it e.g. a stile, then it cannot be used. If there were suitable routes created in the future, would you consider using them to access work/local amenities? There are suitable routes but often they have barriers e.g. stiles. A big problem is how to reach the suitable routes, as people with wheelchairs will still need transport to the beginning of the access. It is felt that the wheelchair people ought to let the councils know how access can be improved. The group raised the point that such improvements need to be incorporated into council action plans. The council access officers also need to be involved. Furthermore, when councils renew structures they should replace them with disabled- friendly structures. Not to do this is inexcusable! CONFLICT Conflict between users. How good or bad are the relationships with different types of user when using the rights of way network? Sometimes horses gallop along footpaths and this is dangerous. It is felt that people who ‘rent out‘ horses are often less responsible than people who own their own. Litter and mess are a problem for people in wheelchairs. Areas with many pedestrians (e.g. the towpath in Hungerford) are helpful because the presence of a lot of pedestrians discourages motorcycles etc.

c:\documents and settings\nicspe\local settings\temporary internet files\olk2c4\app 8 minutes of mobility meeting rowip 12.12.05.doc 1

Notices telling people not to allow dogs to foul paths do not work. Policing plus financial penalties are the only way to reduce the problem. A couple of well-publicised fines would also help to reduce the problem. What could be done to help minimise these conflicts? The group felt that people need to be willing to be educated. Erection of structures – sometimes the structures seem to have no purpose e.g. a recently-erected concrete bollard in Wokingham in the middle of a path that is too narrow for cars! Care is needed before steps are ever installed. Thought needs to be given as to who will use them. Would you be prepared to support multi-use of routes if this were the only way of widening the network? The group felt that vehicles cause surface damage and reduce accessibility for others. Multi-use tracks can be OK but it depends on the locality and the width /durability of the surface. On vulnerable unsurfaced byways, do you think there should be any winter controls on motorised recreational vehicles? The group felt that winter controls are needed. They are not needed if the councils are prepared to renovate surfaces regularly, and is not happening. Councils do not have the money for this. Winter traffic orders are needed. PROMOTING THE NETWORK What would inspire non-users to use the countryside? Publicity and word of mouth. What do you feel is the best way to communicate the presence of rights of way and the various routes within the area? Where should users get this information from? Leaflets and media are considered the most effective. All local newspapers should be encouraged to have articles. When ROW leaflets are produced, there should be an included element for disabled and less mobile users. Leaflets need to be circulated to doctors’ surgeries. More leaflets, not glossy leaflets e.g. “ Around Hungerford” or “Around Pangbourne”. USER NEEDS Thinking of the needs of users with mobility problems when using the countryside, in terms of, for example, ease of access to the rights of way, signposting, promoted routes, facilities nearby, etc Advanced warning of barriers is vital. Signage can be improved and there needs to be a standard convention which is nationally accepted. There are already lots of paths that are already fine and all they need is better signage and publicity. See all the guidance from the Countryside Agency etc – they all advocate good common sense measures. Ease of access e.g. hire buggies on site (see National Trust, where sites have disabled buggies for hire, as has the Royal County of Berkshire Show). It can be difficult to c:\documents and settings\nicspe\local settings\temporary internet files\olk2c4\app 8 minutes of mobility meeting rowip 12.12.05.doc 2

transport one’s own buggies to sites. Loading and unloading can be a problem. Which three things do you feel are the most important to people with mobility problems when using the countryside and using local rights of way? Access / toilets / access in that order! Note: ease of access includes ease of parking and room to unload buggy. Also add to the list the need for knowledge of where you can go and what obstacles may be ahead. Important point: the more people seen with mobility problems, the greater the awareness among the general population. What other issues do you feel are key, when considering the rights of way in mid and west Berkshire? People go into the countryside in order to enjoy the results of the consultation efforts presently taking place ! Would like to see a change such that all disabled people can plan trips to all areas in the same way that able-bodied people do. Please do not just direct those with limited mobility towards the same old routes and parks ! MANAGEMENT OF THE NETWORK Which areas have good paths/ not so good paths to use e.g. your favourites and least favourites, and why? What are the main problems you encounter when using public rights of way in the area of the three authorities ? It is not an issue of good and bad areas. It is an issue of promotion and work to improve conditions on the ground. Specific areas: Devil’s Highway is impassable. Much of Bucklebury Common is now impassable due to mud caused by vehicular damage. Group does not want the countryside tarmaced! Disabled and less mobile people want to experience the natural countryside (including natural mud) in the same way as everyone else. How satisfied are you by the service provided by the three authorities? Could do better. Specific complaints to West Berkshire are usually dealt with (e.g. carriage – driver groups). Wokingham is so far less successful. Winter controls on vehicular use considered important but a uniformed police presence was recommended. In the last two years, what do you think has happened/what will happen to path maintenance standards? Optimistic about future improvements arising out of Improvement Plan As user group representatives, what are people’s opinions about: • accessibility for people with disabilities • quantity of information provided by the unitary authorities and partners about routes for different types of user. The more information the better.

c:\documents and settings\nicspe\local settings\temporary internet files\olk2c4\app 8 minutes of mobility meeting rowip 12.12.05.doc 3

Signage is the most important mechanism for raising general public awareness. What would you like to see done differently in the management of the countryside rights of way network? More money and staff needed at the councils. Council managers who design roads and footpaths often appear to have little idea about measures that should be built into designs to aid access by disabled / blind /those with limited access. Given that financial resources are limited, what three actions would make the greatest improvement to your ability to access the countryside rights of way? List in order of priority. Better publicity, including signage. More thought and consideration on how to improve access by altering barriers. Surface improvement plus maintenance (achieved by enforcement of illegal use if necessary). FUTURE

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

c:\documents and settings\nicspe\local settings\temporary internet files\olk2c4\app 8 minutes of mobility meeting rowip 12.12.05.doc 4 APPENDIX 9. CYCLE USER FOCUS GROUP MINUTES

Minutes of the Cyclists’ Focus Group Meeting 01/03/06

Meeting held at 8:30 in The Griffin Pub, Caversham

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

1. Using the network

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

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

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

2. Conflict

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

B Continue respecting other users, enforce restrictions.

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

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

3. Promoting the network

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

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

C As above

4. User needs

A Ease of access to rights of way 1, Sign posting 2 More routes 3

B Yes

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

5. Management of the network

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

B Any areas that put cyclists at risk, example of Wokingham A329. It was felt that there was a need to involve cyclists at design stage. Wokingham’s network was felt to be deficient,

C To ensure that PROW do not have dead ends eg bridleway turning into a footpath and link together. Routes should be useable in both directions and have a pleasant and safe feel. Too much street furniture.

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

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

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

G No views expressed (‘depends on budget’).

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

I No view expressed

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

6. Future

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

APPENDIX 10. PARISH COUNCIL FOCUS GROUP MINUTES

Minutes from Parish Council Focus Group

26th April 2006 Dinton Pastures Country Park

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

Introduction and Welcome

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. User Needs Which things do you feel are the most important to people when using local rights of way? • Parking • Pubs/places of interest • Maps readily available near to where people walk. • Clear waymarking, including: o Clear demarcation between bridleways, footpaths, byways etc. o Cross-field paths should have a mid-way indicator which is clearly marked in blue/yellow, eg. as the National Trust use.

Should the rights of way network consider conservation needs? • Paths should avoid sensitive areas. • “Dog on lead” signs should be used in certain areas. • PROWs are generally used for accessing natural areas, so conservation needs should be considered.

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

5. Management of the Network What are the main problems in your parish regarding Public Rights of Way? This question had largely been covered already. Additional points were: • Maintenance – large variations exist across the district in maintenance standards. All parishes in Wokingham District should have the same standards. Parish Councils would like to know if stiles are being replaced. • Landowners – should do furniture repairs but often do not. In Finchampstead the Parish Council buys furniture and WDC installs it. Finchampstead have a good relationship with landowners. Parishes may be able to help with information about landowners, eg. contact details. • Ownership – it should be made clear which areas WDC own and which are privately owned, as the perception is that WDC owns more than it does. • Enforcement – WDC should more readily enforce the law, particularly with maintenance issues.

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

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

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

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

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

Minutes from Vehicle Users Focus Group

24th April 2006 Reading Borough Council Offices

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

Introduction and Welcome

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

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

1. Using the Network

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

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

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

2. Conflict

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

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

Would you be prepared to support multi-use of routes if this were the only way of widening the network? • Yes as vehicle users only have access to 1.4% of the network

On vulnerable unsurfaced byways, do you think there should be any winter controls on motorised vehicles? • Yes there should be some controls • Some damage is done by farmers using the PROWs • Used to be a liaison group where people were asked not to use certain paths • A regularly updated council website with information about bad routes would be good, as then these routes can be avoided. A couple of private websites exist that show routes with problems. • Users do not want to spend all day using winches to get out of wet holes. • WBC commented that a recently cleared route in West Berks had severe damage done to it by a convoy of 4WDs a week after works were carried out. This sort of action gives the user group very bad publicity. • The user group representatives explained that there are two types of vehicle user: the responsible users and the irresponsible users. • It was agreed that sometimes Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) and physical barriers are necessary when works are being carried out or in the winter. Also strategically placed police can help, but knowledge amongst the police force is currently lacking. • It was noted that Voluntary Restraint Orders used to be used in West Berks, but no longer as LARA were not happy with the legislation. • Communication between users and local authorities is very important in these matters.

3. Promoting the Network

How would you inspire non-users to use the countryside? • No promotion is wanted, because when the NERC Bill comes in, fewer routes will be accessible to vehicle users; therefore these routes will be over-used. • If surfaces were sustainable, publishing circular routes taking in historic features, etc would be useful. • Websites could be used for advertising. • Educating walkers and cyclists could be part of promotion. Informing them of who can use routes.

What do you feel is the best way to communicate the presence of rights of way and the various routes within the area? Where should users get information from? • TRF tried to get an article in the local paper, explaining the NERC Bill problems, but was not permitted. • Supplier outlets, eg motorbike shops, would not be interested in having information on display, as it is not beneficial for their business and some are unhappy with the forthcoming legislation and the effect it will have on their business. • Educating school children when they visit the countryside is important.

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

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

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

5. Management of the Network

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Given that financial resources are limited, what three actions would make the greatest improvement to your ability to access the countryside now? • Better signage and information about routes • Hedges cut back to allow use • More suitable surfaces, dependant on usage • Not losing anymore routes

6. Future

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

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

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

APPENDIX 12. WALKER FOCUS GROUP MINUTES

Walking Focus Group Notes from Meeting of 17.10.15 held at Dinton Pastures Country Park

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

Apologies: Adrian Lawson Reading Borough Council

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

1. Using the network What do you most value about access to the countryside? • Clearly signed and easily walkable PROW’s • Seeing changing seasons, wildlife, fresh air, peace, exercise. • If PROW network didn’t exist, would need to walk on roads. • Social element of walking in group

Why do people not walk on PROW’s? • Cultural for some • Will not try, doesn’t appeal, effort involved • Fear of walking alone • People do not know where to walk. Routes need to be well signed e.g. on and from housing estates. • Hot spots such as country parks often do not have PROW marked on publicity maps. National Trust seldom has PROW’s on their land. Access land marked on new OS maps will help situation. • Lack of communication between LA departments often results in PROW pavements not being considered for new build estates.

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

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

2. Conflict Conflict between different users. How good or bad are the relationships with different types of user when using the Right of Way network? • Horse riders had good relationships with walkers. • Relationships were more difficult with cyclists. There was uncertainty about which sections of the Thames Path could be used by cyclists, mainly due to lack of signage. Cyclists ignored non-designated sections. Signage stating ‘Thames Path’ was misleading. The public did not know what the path status was. Elaine Cox stated that the signage and cycling policy was being reviewed. Landowners could allow different uses on their land e.g. footpath could be used as a Sustrans route. One comment was that it was preferable to see illegal cyclists on footpaths rather than them being at risk on dangerous roads. • 4x4 vehicles were not wanted at all because of the damage caused.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the main problems that you encounter when using the PROW’s in Wokingham District, Reading Borough and West Berkshire? • Summer growth • Ploughed out paths and not-reinstated. The way that ploughed paths were reinstated was also an issue. • Underfoot conditions • Barbed wire across stiles or nearby

Which places would you like to visit using the paths but can’t and why? Beside rivers e.g. Crookham (W. Berks). Historically, paths were not designated on floodplains.

How satisfied are you by the service provided by the three authorities? Wokingham District Council • Improving relationship and work done. • Need to act faster on enforcement issues • Need standard procedures for dealing with issues such as ploughed paths.

West Berkshire Council • There were problems in responding to complaints • Postcards were not always being sent. • Elaine Cox (WB) responded that it was not always possible to get back to customers when work was completed. • Issues were seldom taken to legal e.g. Inkpen 31 gun incident.

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

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

What was the group’s opinion about accessibility for people with disabilities? • There was a need to increase priority for disabled people as UK demographics highlighted an aging population trend. Paths within recreational parks should be available to disabled users. • Mike Bruton had spoken recently to the Disabled Ramblers. His view was that the main issue for modern buggies was barriers, not the surface. He felt that disabled ramblers would not want the countryside spoilt by unsympathetic surfaces. • It was important to remember users with pushchairs. • It was noted that Mike Bruton would not necessarily speak for everyone. There should be a selective grading system backed by published information.

What was the group’s opinion about the quality of information provided by the unitary authorities and partners about routes for different types of user? • The general public do not understand who is responsible for PROW’s. The RA often got calls from the public with regard to maintenance. Did the councils have displays and shows that improved understanding? • An example of how things can go wrong was sited. WDC’s directory lists ROW under ‘Public Rights of Way’. Would people know to look under the word ‘public’?

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

APPENDIX 13. PROPOSED NEW ROUTES

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

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

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

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

Figure 7.1 Proposed new routes for the public rights of way network.

Requested Parish Proposed Route Justification By

Create new Mole Road field-edge To form safe Barkham - Coombes / ARBO BHS BR and Church Lane verge track. Arborfield - Carters Hill circular routes. NE-SW route on S bank of R.Loddon Waterside path. Would form part of a ARBO from Hall Farm to A327 at Arborfield Loddon Valley Path from Wargrave to RA Bridge Basingstoke. Route from existing path SE of Provides Arborfield Cross residents with off ARBO Arborfield Church parallel to road to road route to church and the path network RA a point close to Arborfield Cross. in the Loddon Valley.

97 Links existing truncated path to village and to path network to N. Creates off road link Cllr Gary Cowan, NE-SW route on SE side of ARBO between village and Arborfield Garrison. RA & Arborfield Arborfield Cross from B3349-A327. Links network to N with network to SW PC avoiding busy roads. Waterside path. Provides increased opportunities for circular walks for residents NE-SW route on N bank of River of Shinfield and Spencers Wood. Provides ARBO, Loddon from A327 at Arborfield off road route between Shinfield and SHIN, RA Bridge to path at Sheepbridge Swallowfield villages. Would form part of a SWAL Court Farm. Loddon Valley Path from the confluence with the Thames at Wargrave to the source at Basingstoke. To provide off road access for horse riders BARK Upgrade BARK FP 8, 9 & 10 to BRs. between Barkham Street and Evendons BHS Lane. To provide off road access for pedestrians, BR route from east end of Arbo BW WBC BARK, cyclists and horse riders to the PROW 15 across Arborfield Garrison to link Countryside FINC network in Farley Hill and Finchampstead. up with Finc BR 14 Service To provide an off road link from Arborfield WBC BARK, FP linking Finc FP 28 with Bark BW to Finchampstead. Countryside FINC 18 Service

Path linking BR 14 (Barkham Street) WBC BARK to BR 11 (nr California Country Countryside Park). Service Provides connections between existing Routes using Nashgrove Ride and paths. Allows Nine Mile Ride residents off BARK connecting tracks in countryside RA road access to path networks to the NW around Barkham Church. without using roads. Off road path linking existing path from N-S route on W side of Bearwood Emmbrook to path network around BARK, Road from opposite Simon's Lane Barkham. Avoids busy road. Would provide RA ARBO to Coombes Lane. only direct link to countryside for many residents on W side of Wokingham town. An existing well-used, attractive permitted From Church Road, Earley through path, avoids roadside walking and gives open-space alongside playing fields, EARL direct access to Bulmershe Park & North RA east then northeast to join Woodley Woodley for a large number of Woodley FP1. residents. From Elm Road to Pepper Lane along the backs of houses in Falstaff Earley TC EARL Avenue. From Wokingham Road to Nuthatch Earley TC EARL Drive. From Wokingham Road to Courts Earley TC EARL Road. EARL Along Maiden Erlegh Drive. Earley TC Upgrade “The Greenway” which runs from Gypsy Lane along the backs of EARL Earley TC houses in Silverdale Road, to a PROW. From the southwest corner of FP 11, running south westerly parallel to the WBC EARL Lower Earley Way, continuing over Countryside the A327 and meeting Shinfield FP Service 10. EARL Getting to Winnersh Triangle Station. Earley TC

98 Cycle route from the town boundary Gives good cycle access from Woodley to in Town Lane, north along Pitts the Thames area. Lane, across the new pedestrian crossing at the top of Pitts Lane, across the new crossings at the EARL London Road, proceeding Earley TC westwards along the northern side of the London Road into Shepherds House Lane and circumnavigating Suttons Business Park and Thames Valley Park. Across university land from EARL Whiteknights Road to Shinfield Earley TC Road. Path from FP 15 on the west side of the Lower Earley Way, running WBC EARL parallel to the Lower Earley Way in a Countryside south westerly direction, to join FP Service 12. Avoids road walking on only link between S-N route parallel to road from N of large population to N and path network to EARL RA M4 to R.Loddon at Sindlesham Mill. S. Links residents of Sindlesham village to path by R.Loddon. Waterside path. Improves currently sparse NE-SW route on N bank of River walking opportunities, including circular EARL, Loddon from Sindlesham Mill to routes, for residents of Lower Earley. RA ARBO existing path crossing river at Hall Would form part of a Loddon Valley path Farm. from Wargrave to Basingstoke. Link up Finch BR34 & BR26. Finchampstead FINC PC Complete creation of BR from Finchampstead FINC Spring Gardens to Wick Hill. PC Connects a dead-end path to the network. SE-NW route between end of Creates a useful undeveloped route in an RA & diverted Devils Highway path N area where many rights of way are FINC Finchampstead of Armholes to existing bridleway developed for residential access and suffer PC N of Ridge Farm. from traffic. Provides circular walks opportunities. SE-NW route along existing track Off road link between existing paths and RA & FINC and Wick Hill Lane from The minor roads. Connects networks E&W Finchampstead Ridges to B3016 W of Church Farm. avoiding busy roads. PC N-S route from road (Park Lane) Connects (via short road walks) paths FINC past Wheatlands Manor to existing around the N of Eversley. Provides circular RA path N of Eversley (FP 28). walks opportunities from Eversley. E-W route from B3348 to A327 on Provides off road link from W side of village FINC RA N side of Eversley. to path network to NE. Avoids busy roads. Off road link between existing isolated path E-W route on existing track from and network to W. Creates circular walks FINC A327 N of The Leas to existing opportunities for Eversley residents. With RA path to Farley Hill. 25 above links networks to E&W of Eversley. NW-SE route along Longwater Provides off road link between Berks and Lane from Blackwater Valley Path Hants networks. Provides direct off road RA & S of Finchampstead Village path between Finchampstead and Eversley FINC Finchampstead across R.Blackwater to Eversley Cross. PC Cross (Part in Hants). Requires bridge over river. N-S route through California Links network to S to paths to N. Provides FINC Country Park from existing an off road link for Nine Mile Ride residents RA bridleway to Nine Mile Ride. to path network to SW. E-W route between paths S of Completes off road E-W route. Provides FINC Greenacre Farm. circular walks opportunities S of Nine Mile RA Ride. 99 N-S route from A327 at Eversley Provides off road link to path network in on existing track across River Hants. Provides circular walks FINC RA Blackwater to existing path in opportunities for Eversley residents. Hants (part in Hants). Upgrade footpath running E-W Horse use is considerable in this area and along river to a BR. this section would provide a substantial BVCP & FINC Finchampstead area of off-road access for horses and link PC up with existing access. Reclassify to bridleway the existing This has been used by equines for at least FP20 from Ambarrow Lane via the 35 years. It links Ambarrow Lane and the Mr Macey & FINC east of Beech Hill to junction with bridleway south of Lower Sandhurst Road Finchampstead RB36/FP19. with bridleways near Ridges/Simon’s Wood PC and takes equines off the roads. This is a broad track that could be used by equestrians to access the east end of the Reclassify to bridleway existing Ridges. National Trust should then be Mr Macey & FINC footpath (FP19) from RB36 to B3348 pressed to allow a permitted east/west Finchampstead at east end of the Ridges. bridleway along the top of the Ridges. This PC would create a circular off-road route using RB21 or link with the proposed bridleways. The busy B3348 is the only reasonably Create a bridleway/footpath direct pedestrian/equestrian route from alongside the northern hedge of Crowthorne/Ridges to Finchampstead. Mr Macey & FINC B3348 from west end of the Ridges There is no safe pavement and no kerb. Finchampstead to the junction with Dell Road/Wick Creating this bridleway will contribute to PC Hill. circular routes and will get non-motorists off the road. Create a bridleway running south from the entrance to California Country Park and link to BR11. The broad plan would be to link BR14/46 FINC Mr Macey from Commonfield Lane and Barkham Ride, through California Park, via BR11 to Finchampstead Church with only one road crossing. Many pedestrians walk on B3348 from FP8 Mr Macey & Create a pavement on west side of and FP29 (BVP) to/from Eversley to make FINC Finchampstead B3348 from FP8 and 29 to A327 connection with BVP south of Blackwater or PC FP3. Walking on B3348 is dangerous. Create a circular bridleway around Mr Macey & the perimeter of the gravel workings Creates a circular, off road route for FINC Finchampstead that will soon be complete to the pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists. PC east of B3016. A new bridleway running alongside This would provide horse riding access the current footpaths 33 & 29 and a from Finch village to Fleet Hill Farm and Finchampstead FINC bridleway created from FP33 south Fleet Hill and eventually beyond and PC linking to FP54 perhaps one day to Bramshill. Between Remenham and REME Remenham PC Wargrave. SW-NE route from A4130 to path on Off road link between existing paths. Links REME district boundary. Thames Path to network to south. Avoids RA busy road. Links Medmenham village to Thames Path Footbridge over Thames at and Wokingham path network. Links REME district boundary (share costs RA Wokingham paths to Chiltern path network. with RBWM & Bucks CC) Link to pub. Upgrade existing flood-only paths to High scenic value. Provide very useful off full rights of way. road links in popular area. Southern one REME RA provides part of link between Wargrave and Henley Bridge/Remenham. Milley Bridge/Stanlake Bridge/New Safe access from traffic – busy roads RUSC Ruscombe PC Road/Castle End Road. adjoin paths. Work with Wokingham BC to RUSC RBWM upgrade Waltham St Lawrence FP 100 9/Ruscombe FP 4 for horse riding use. From southern end of FP39, running WBC SHIN parallel to Cutbush Lane and ending Countryside at Shinfield Road. Service From the eastern end of FP 8A, WBC running in a southerly direction SHIN Countryside parallel to Church Lane and joining Service with FP 13. From opposite the eastern end of FP WBC SHIN 10 running south westerly parallel to Countryside the B3270 and joining FP 8. Service Linking parish footpaths across Shinfield PC & SHIN the district and adjoining districts. Sonning PC Millennium walk route in Shinfield SHIN Shinfield PC (never completed). NW-SE route from existing path to Links residents of Spencers Wood to SHIN new path 15 above. proposed riverside path. Links riverside to RA path network. Links residents of Spencers Wood to NW-SE path from end of existing SHIN proposed riverside path. Links riverside to RA path to new path 15 above. path network. Bridge over A33 between existing The A33 is an extremely busy and paths to W and E. dangerous road to cross. It has no dedicated grade separated path crossings for over 4km north of the Loddon crossing. This bridge provides a direct link between SHIN severed paths on both sides. It provides a RA

safe crossing and direct link for Spencers Wood residents wishing to use the path network in the open country to the W (the network to the E is mainly in a developed

area). Provides off road link for residents of Three E-W route from Mereoak Lane along Mile Cross to path network to W. With SHIN existing track past Great Lea Farm other paths, provides continuous off road RA then to join existing N-S path. route from Shinfield Village to path network to W. With proposed path 1 in Reading, provides N-S route on E bank of Foudry mainly off road link from path network in SHIN Brook from road S of M4 to existing RA Green Park and Reading to existing path path. network to S. SE-NW route from Sonning Lane to Provides direct off road link for residents of SONN Thames Path by Thames Valley Sonning and Woodley to reach the Thames RA Park. Path. St George’s Field through Broadmoor Lane and Milestone SONN Sonning PC Avenue returning along Thames Path. St George’s Field through SONN Broadmoor Lane returning along Sonning PC Bath Road and Pound Lane. From St George’s Field, past Bluecoats School, through the church ground and along the SONN Thames to the nature reserve at Sonning PC Thames Valley Park (with opportunity to return via Shepherd’s Hill and Pound Lane). From St George’s Field, via Thames SONN Street, past the Mill and Sonning Sonning PC Eye to Reading Sailing Club. SONN From St George’s Field, via Sonning Sonning PC Lane and across the churchyard to 101 cross Sonning Bridge, past French Horn and up Spring Lane through the allotments to the Flowing Spring pub. W-E route between golf course and Provides off road link for residents of SONN, railway from Duffields Bridge to Park Woodley and Sonning to reach paths by RA CHAR Lane. River Loddon and Twyford village. From junction of Church Hill and Linking village and school with church. Hurst Village STNH Sawpit Lane to top of Church Hill. Society Extending permissive path/creating STNH new path from Sawpit Road to Hurst PC connect to FP34 STNH. E-W route linking Lodge Road to STNH River Loddon, possibly from Sawpit Hurst PC Road. E-W route linking Lodge Road to STNH River Loddon as above but also for BHS horse use. Avoids a very dangerous piece of road which forms part of the circuit linking us to Lands End from the other direction, thus Permissive upgrade of footpath next forming one side of the circuit, which links to River Loddon to allow horses - left back round Woodley to Dinton again, or Hurst Riders STNH similar to arrangement at Dinton with right to the new bridleway then across the Club Hurst Riders. A321 Twyford Road to the RUPP which takes riders across towards Poplar Lane.

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

Links existing paths together in an area where the network is sparse and SW-NE route from B3034 E of Bill disconnected. Avoids extended road STNH RA Hill to road W of Beech Wood. walking. Part of potential route N for Wokingham residents towards Waltham St Lawrence. A path to link up byway 23, which comes out into the Basingstoke SWAL Swallowfield PC Road, Riseley to footpath 17 in Trowes Lane. Between Swallowfield Village SWAL Swallowfield PC and Farley Hill School. Between Riseley Village and SWAL shop/PO/surgery in Swallowfield Swallowfield PC (same for Farley Hill). Between end of FP from Riseley SWAL Part Lane to church and from church Swallowfield PC to Nutbean Lane.

102 Waterside path in attractive parkland. With paths 15, 15A & 15B, it provides off road routes from Swallowfield to Spencers Wood SE-NW route from Swallowfield and Shinfield. Also provides an off road Church along N bank of River route for the residents of Swallowfield to Blackwater (Broadwater) across reach the path network around Farley Hill. R.Loddon to join proposed Loddon With 16B below it completes the SWAL Valley path (see 15 above). Bridge Blackwater Valley Path as a true riverside RA over Loddon required. Includes W-E route and links it to the proposed Loddon branch along Park Drive from Valley Path. If completed, these paths Swallowfield village street to the would provide a continuous public transport riverside path. served regional riverside route serving most of the towns of NE Hampshire, SW Surrey and mid Berkshire, and linking them to the Thames Path National Trail. SE-NW route from last riverside Waterside path. Avoids road walking. path on Blackwater Valley Path Provides circular walk opportunities for SWAL RA along N bank of R.Blackwater Swallowfield residents. See comments in (Broadwater) to road 16A above about Blackwater Valley Path. N-S route on W bank of River Waterside path. Provides local circular Loddon from existing riverside path walks opportunities. With other existing and near Kings Bridge under A33 via proposed paths in Berks and Hants would existing subway to district boundary form part of a Loddon Valley Path from the S of The Priory. Includes two confluence with the Thames at Wargrave to SWAL sections further S where the the source at Basingstoke. RA boundary crosses the river and a short N-S section on the E bank between the road at Stanfordend Bridge and the Hants County boundary. E-W path parallel to road on S side Provides off road connection between 4 SWAL through Great Copse and New paths. RA Plantation. SWAL 31 BW – mounting blocks Calleva SWAL for A33 bridge Canterers Broadhinton to Broadwater/Hurst TWYF Twyford PC Park Road. TWYF High Street to River Loddon and A4. Twyford PC Twyford Railway Station to Silk Mill TWYF Twyford PC development in High Street. Twyford Brook behind Hurst Road TWYF Twyford PC needs a linking path. Wargrave has very minimal river WARG Wargrave PC frontage for the general public. New footpath sites within the WARG development of Park Place, Wargrave PC Remenham. Eliminates dead-end nature of Thames Route from A321 by minor road Path here, allowing circular routes and WARG junction across Hennerton better access to east bank of river in an RA backwater to Thames Path. area where access is otherwise very restricted. High scenic value. There is no Thames crossing between Henley and Sonning (10km). Creates direct riverside walk from Footbridge over Thames at former WARG Wargrave to Henley. Doubles walking RA Hennerton Ferry site. opportunities for both Wargrave and Shiplake residents. Links Berkshire and Chiltern paths networks. Waterside route. Links isolated path to S-N route along E bank of Wargrave village avoiding very busy road. Hennerton Backwater from existing WARG Creates circular walks from village. With RA footbridge to A321 opposite existing bridge (2D above), forms a link between path near Hennerton Farm. Berkshire and Oxfordshire path networks. 103 W-E route along existing Offroad link for residents to reach path "Countryside Access" path from network. WARG RA Upper Wargrave to existing bridleway. Make permanent. Footbridge across Thames at High scenic value. There is no Thames Wargrave Ferry. crossing between Henley and Sonning (10km). Creates direct riverside walk from WARG Wargrave to Henley. Doubles walking RA opportunities for both Wargrave and Shiplake residents. Links Berkshire and Chiltern paths network. NE-SW route from Wargrave Station Links public transport to the path network. WARG along Loddon Drive to join existing Provides link from Wargrave village to path RA path. network and riverside walks to the west. NE-SW route from Wargrave Station With 4B & 4C above would provide circular WARG access road along bank and around walk and access to River Loddon. RA STW to E bank of River Loddon. W-E route from Kiln Green at A4 to Connects village to path network to E. WARG junction of paths N of Weycock Hill RA (Part in RBWM). NW-SE route from A4 to minor road Connects village to path network to E. WARG RA at Scarletts Home Farm. A severe gap exists in the Northern Parishes in the open countryside. There are considerable amounts of paths between the Henley branch line and Knowl Hill but nothing between the branch line WARG Create a FP along the Loddon Drive. and the Thames at Sonning. Just such a Mr Illenden gap would be filled if Loddon Drive were included allowing free movement and by using public transport, principally the Henley branch line off the main Paddington - West connection. High scenic value. Fills gap in network along River Thames. There is currently no S-N route from minor road near WARG, off road route between Wargrave and Hennerton House to join path RA REME Henley Bridge/Remenham on east side of network near Henley Bridge. Thames. Avoids very busy and narrow road. High scenic value. Waterside path. There NE-SW route along S bank of River is currently very little access to the river at WARG, Thames from road at Wargrave Wargrave. This would help to fill the gap. RA SONN Station to existing path at Thames Links public transport to the path network. Drive. Provides link from Wargrave village to path network and riverside walks to the west. Waterside path. Provides direct & attractive off road route between villages of Twyford and Wargrave. With 4B above WARG, N-S route along E bank of River provides route for Twyford residents to RA TWYF Loddon from Loddon river to A3032. reach to Thames-side paths. Would form part of a Loddon Valley Path from Wargrave to Basingstoke. Path from FP 6 (Bearwood Path) to WBC WINN Earley FP 15 on the west side of the Countryside Lower Earley Way. Service NE-SW from existing path SW of Provides off road link for Winnersh WINN Winnersh to road S of Sindlesham residents to reach river Loddon and path RA Mill. network to SW. Bridleway routes within Woodcray WOKI BHS Manor Farm. This would allow access to Woodcray A BR link with Luckley Road via the Manor Farm (see above) by riders from WOKI short access path (suitably BHS Wokingham Equestrian Centre, Heathlands upgraded) in Luckley Wood. Riding Centre and many small livery 104 stables on the south side of Wokingham, without the need for riding on Finchampstead Road. WOKI Upgrade WOKI FP 7 to BR BHS Path linking FP 16 to FP 14 and then WBC WOKI running west parallel to A329M to Countryside eventually end at Dinton Pastures. Service Links existing paths together in an area where the network is sparse and S-N route from road N of disconnected. Avoids extended road WOKI Wokingham over A329M to existing walking. Part of potential route N for RA path on N side. Wokingham residents towards Waltham St Lawrence.

N-S route along W side of railway Off road path linking built-up area on S side WOKI RA linking Eastheath to path 18 above. of Wokingham to path network further S. Route from A321 across Woodcray Off road path linking built-up area on S side Manor Farm golf course, mainly of Wokingham to path network further S. WOKI using existing drive, to W side of RA FINC railway, then S to join existing path N of Silverstock Bog. Make WOKW BW 30 into a circular There are many horses stabled along WOKW route linking up with Redlake Lane, Easthampstead Road with very little safe BHS using neighbouring fields. riding available. Safer horse access to the Nine Mile WOKW Ride end of Gorrick Wood with horse BHS box parking. BR from Heathlands Road to private Allows access to Wokingham Equestrian WOKW BHS road to Ludgrove School. Centre without using Easthampstead Road. Upgrade WOKW FP 10, 11, 12, 14 WOKW BHS and 16 to BRs. New WOKW “Pipeline” BR, Upgrade WOKW BHS WOKW FP 18 and 34 to BR. WOKW E-W route from Easthampstead Provides an off road connection between Road along existing drive past paths E to W. Improves circular walks RA Ludgrove School to existing path S opportunities for Wokingham residents. of Chapel Green Farm. Link to pub. As part of the Sandford Farm development consideration be given to establishing a public right of way WOOD Woodley TC from the proposed retirement village access and for the developers to build this into their plan. A route starting at the junction of Mohawk Way the length of Beggars WOOD Woodley TC Hill Road be established as a public right of way. A route starting from the Aviation This would guarantee long term access to WOOD Museum car park to follow White Dinton Pastures and Hurst Network of Woodley TC Lane to the junction at Sandford Mill. Rights of Way. This path would route across fields to cross A route starting at the junction of the river Loddon and join onto Hurst WOOD Mohawk Way and Beggars Hill Woodley TC footpath 30. This will require consideration Road. to a footbridge over the River Loddon. The path will need to be inside the existing A route starting from the right hand hedge back from the road giving a safe and WOOD side of the junction of Mohawk Way secure route to Sandford Bridges and Woodley TC and Sandford Lane. Dinton Pastures for people to walk. Currently this route is a busy narrow road. From Church Road, Earley An existing well-used, attractive path eastwards within strip of open space largely through mature woodland. A very WOOD RA then through High Wood to important direct east-west route linking Kingfisher Drive, Woodley. Earley with the south-lake area of Woodley.

105 Creates a right of way over an existing and Route between Colemansmoor well-used path. Without public rights over WOOD Road and footbridge over River this short path, the PROW created from RA Loddon. Loddon Bridge northwards could become isolated.

106