CAMBRIDGESHIRE LOCAL ACCESS FORUM MEETING ON TUESDAY 15 NOVEMBER 2016 AT 7.00 PM SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL OFFICE (Monkfield Room), CAMBOURNE, CAMBRIDGE CB23 6EA Members of the public are warmly invited to be present. AGENDA 7.00pm Questions from the Public Anyone wishing to speak should provide details of the issue to be raised, together with the specific question to be asked, to the Secretary. They must include their name and address and whether they are representing any particular group. This information should normally be submitted by post or e-mail to the Secretary in advance of a week before the meeting. The Chairman has discretion to allow items outside of this timescale to be heard. Presentations Proposed Fen Edge Trail presentation by Stewart Howe from the Fenland Trust (10 mins with 5mins for questions) Anglia Level Crossing reduction strategy update from Nicholas Eddy from Network Rail (10 mins with 5 mins for questions) 1. Apologies for absence 2. Declarations of interest 3. Minutes of meeting on 16 August 2016 - Correct Record 4. Matters arising or carried forward from the last meeting not covered elsewhere on the agenda 4.1 (6.4) LAF membership and recruitment (PC) 4.1.1 (4.7) New members - Introductions from Cllr Mandy Smith, Cllr Adrian Dent (10 mins) 4.1.2 Potential new members Stewart Howe from Fenland Trust and Sam Davies, Chair of Queen Edith s Community Forum. (5 mins) 4.2 (4.7) Network Rail TWAO consultation update (LS) 4.3 (4.8) A14 update to note response from Highways England 4.4 (4.9) Southern Fringe development update on S106 allocation by Laurence Smith, CCC (10 mins) 5. Members reports and items for info only or the next agenda unless stated 5.1 City Deal better bus journeys report on meeting (MS) 5.2 Report on Ouse Washes conference (MS) 5.3 Review LAF Budget - LAF Standing item for November meeting 5.4 Input into the CCC CST Budget and ROWIP - LAF Standing item for November meeting 5.5 Presentation Bradley Unwin Green Lane Association motorised use of PROWs 6. County Council items 6.1 (4.9) Northstowe 6.1.1 Update and proposed footpath diversion (LS) 6..1.2 Northstowe Travel Plan (20 mins) 6.1.3 SCDC S/2776/16/RM Application for approval of reserved matters (Appearance, landscaping, access, layout and scale) for 40 dwellings including 25% affordable housing following outline planning permission S/0388/12/OL Parcel H3, Phase 1, Northstowe, Station Road, Longstanton (10 minutes) 6.2 Corporate Capacity Review Phase Two. (10 mins) 7. Correspondence and Consultations 7.1 Draft SPD Huntingdonshire Design Guide 7.2 BHS - Auditing List of Streets A role for LAF s? (LS/CH) (20 mins) 7.3 To note LAF s responses, submitted between meetings, on consultations 8. Dates and venues of meetings for 2017 9. Closure of meeting and items for the next agenda Cambridgeshire Local Access Forum Secretary, Mrs Gail Stoehr, 30 West Drive, Highfields Caldecote, Cambridge, CB23 7NY Tel: 01954 210241 email: cambslaf@lgs-services.co.uk
LAF Secretary report including supporting information on items on the agenda of the meeting on 15 November 2016 Where I have information to support the items on the agenda this is below. Presentations 1. Apologies none at the time of writing. 3. Minutes of meeting on 16 August 2016 - Correct Record - attached 4. Matters arising 4.1 (6.4) LAF membership and recruitment (PC) 4.1.1 (4.7) New members - Introductions from Cllr Mandy Smith, Cllr Adrian Dent (10 mins) 4.1.2 Potential new members Stewart Howe from Fenland Trust and Sam Davies, Chair of Queen Edith s Community Forum. (5 mins) 4.2 (4.7) Network Rail TWAO consultation update Laurence Smith to report. He writes: A report is being taken to the County Council s Highways & Community Infrastructure Committee on 7 th December which will formalise the County Council s position in respect of each of the 32 individual crossing closure proposals. The County Council is minded to object to some of the closure proposals, as Network Rail have not taken sufficient steps to mitigate the effect of the proposed closures on the public rights of way network in some cases. The report will be available on the County Council s website two weeks prior to the meeting and will be available on this page: https://cmis.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/ccc_live/meetings/tabid/70/ctl/viewmeetingpublic/mid/3 97/Meeting/521/Committee/7/SelectedTab/Documents/Default.aspx Anyone may attend the meeting if desired. We note the LAF s response to NR of 28 th June 2016. Details of the latest proposals, some of which were amended following consultation responses are available at http://www.networkrail.co.uk/anglialevelcrossings/. Any further views that LAF as a whole or those of any organisations represented on the LAF on the individual proposals are welcomed by the County Council and will be taken into account in our final response to NR. 4.3 (4.8) A14 update - to note response from Highways England Highways England have written to Roger Buisson as follows: Highways England takes very seriously our commitment to making provision for all forms of non-motorised users into the design of our schemes. Our Strategic Business Plan 2015-2020 re-affirms this commitment by emphasising our desire to create a more accessible and integrated network by providing for the safe movement across and alongside our network by cyclists, pedestrian and equestrians. In the run-up to the Examination-in-Public of the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon scheme, we undertook research into routes that horse riders in the area use and the location of local stables. As a result of this research we have incorporated bridleway rights along many of the non-motorised user routes, such as that which parallels the Local Access Road, and on many of the bridges that cross the A14, such as at Robin s Lane, New Barnes Lane, Potton Road, and Silver Street. Of the two special NMU bridges, the one located close to Bar Hill will be suitable for equestrian use but the one located close to Swavesey would not. This decision was made following consultation. The Development Consent Order application is clear that only the Bar Hill Bridge would be suitable for equestrian use. The application was taken to examination over a 6 month
period where the Examiners took evidence on a range of subjects. On 11 th May 2016 the Secretary of State for Transport made a decision granting the Development Consent Order, and with respect to the special NMU bridges the Order was unchanged from that submitted for examination. On 1 st June 2016 the Development Consent Order was approved and is the basis of the scheme we will deliver. I would hope that you would accept that the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme has incorporated equestrian facilities into a great many of its non-motorised route provision. There will be full equestrian use of the bridleway that will parallel the Local Access Road from Girton to Fen Drayton, and on many of the crossings across the new road. The proposed non-motorised user bridge at Bar Hill will be a spectacular bridge that equestrians will be able to enjoy to the full. If you have any questions, would like more information or would like to talk with someone about the scheme, do please make contact and this can be arranged. Kind regards Penny Penny Fletcher, Senior Communications & Engagement Manager 4.4 (4.9) Southern Fringe Development table of monies, deadlines and expenditure Laurence Smith to report. He writes: Unspent Section 106 Funds for the Cambridge Southern Fringe Development The Local Projects Officers who have been employed to assist in s106 scheme development visited the sites of the proposed schemes to assess how much each one is likely to cost. This assessment was completed during the week beginning 1 st November 2016. The next stage is for this information to be incorporated into the scoring system to see which of the proposed schemes score highest. This will be done during November and the results of this will be provided to the LAF. 5. Members reports and items for info only or the next agenda 5.1 City Deal better bus journeys report on meeting (MS) Mary Sanders writes: I attended the Presentation last evening at Shire Hall. It is all now in the public domain on www.gccitydeal.co.uk and was in the CEN today. They said the slides would be sent out, but we weren't on the attendance list, so it might be necessary for Gail to ask for them. Most of the representation was from local councillors. The ones from Newnham got very heated. There was an awful lot of technobabble, and the slides were completely impossible to read because of the minute font size. They used the term "designated" bus route, but were reluctant to use the word "guided". It will not necessarily be guided on concrete rails, but it seems the funding is for some sort of "guiding" either optical recognition or kerb guiding. They had small-scale maps, but don't want to use large-scale maps and draw a line on yet for the exact route. They've definitely decided on another Park & Ride site at Madingley Mulch. When it comes into the city, it has to come in at one of the following: the Rugby field, Adams Road, Herschel Road, or Cranmer Road. it either cuts through Coton country reserve or the protected west fields. There is a meeting tonight with Newnham residents, which should be a riotous walk in the park for them. There will be a 4 m cycle path along the side of it, just like the guided bus has. Rejected suggestions were two lanes in each direction on Madingley Hill (no room), a wider bridge over the M11 (not strong enough)
A different group are focusing on the western orbital project joining the M11 and going to Addenbrookes, and another on the NW Cambridge project. They talked about going though the University site and then through the NW area to get to the new North Cambridge Station. This would be quite a wind around. 5.2 Report on Ouse Washes conference (MS) 5.3 Review LAF Budget - LAF Standing item for November meeting 5.4 Input into the CCC CST Budget and ROWIP - LAF Standing item for November meeting 5.5 Presentation Bradley Unwin Green Lane Association motorised use of PROWs 6. County Council items 6.1 (4.9) Northstowe 6.1.1 (4.9) Northstowe update and proposed footpath diversion Laurence Smith to report. He writes: We have been liaising with the developers in trying to secure a bridleway as part of the diversion of Longstanton Footpath No. 5 which is being undertaken to enable the development to be carried out. This would provide a link for equestrians and cyclists as well as pedestrians between Magdalene Close, Longstanton and Station Road (B1050) to the west of the development. The route of the diversion is shown on the attached plan. Map attached. 6..1.2 Northstowe Travel Plan (20 mins) 6.1.3 SCDC S/2776/16/RM Application for approval of reserved matters (Appearance, landscaping, access, layout and scale) for 40 dwellings including 25% affordable housing following outline planning permission S/0388/12/OL Parcel H3, Phase 1, Northstowe, Station Road, Longstanton (10 minutes) 6.2 Corporate Capacity Review Phase Two. (10 mins) 7. Correspondence and consultations 7.1 SCDC S/2776/16/RM Application for approval of reserved matters (Appearance, landscaping, access, layout and scale) for 40 dwellings including 25% affordable housing following outline planning permission S/0388/12/OL Parcel H3, Phase 1, Northstowe, Station Road, Longstanton Previously circulated to members. http://plan.scambs.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/wphappcriteria.display 7.2 Draft SPD Huntingdonshire Design Guide consultation Draft SPD: Huntingdonshire Design Guide 2016 will be available for you to view and comment between the following dates: Start date: 31/10/16 16:30 End date: 12/12/16 17:00 Please select the following link to view this event: http://consult.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/portal/pp/spd/dg If the link appears to be broken, please try copying the entire link into the address bar on your web browser. Lynda Warth writes:
I have looked through this and it seems to be what it says it is - a design guide for the construction industry / developers. There are only a couple of mentions of rights of way which I could spot but it does say that footpaths and bridleways should be created to add to the network. There are quite a few references to shared cycle / pedestrian routes which I will comment on separately. It seems to me to be a very technical and in depth design guide. I'm not certain what the LAF could add other than maybe to stress the importance of designing multi user access into new projects from the outset. 7.2 BHS Auditing List of Streets A role for LAF s? (LS/CH) (20 mins) - attached 7.3 To note LAF s responses, submitted between meetings, on consultations Network Rail level crossing closures to note LAF s response LAF has concerns about the public notification of the consultation. August is not the best month to notify the public and landowners/farmers, and placing information in village magazines can require a month s notice. LAF asks whether local landowners within about 5 miles of the byway crossings have all been notified, as they might wish to take these routes to stay off-road. LAF would be grateful for clarification as to the type of crossings listed as N/A and whether there are notices at the crossings. It is not good enough to provide the maps as information, without details of the Rights of Way routes affected. LAF asks whether all the footpaths are going to be stopped up with no other route provided around the railway, which would presumably leave the route on either side as dead ends. LAF is also concerned that some routes are to be downgraded to footpaths, particularly as the Rights of Way pre-existed the railway. Alternative routes should therefore be put in place, as the increasing interest in the countryside for recreation means that all existing links should be preserved and ensured safe for users. There are several byways used by agricultural vehicles as well as the occasional recreational motorist. Consideration should be given to keeping the most used crossings open. The proposed closures will destroy many circular routes, both footpaths and byways. Network Rail should strive to keep as many crossings as possible open to allow access. Improvements to the most used crossings should be prioritised. A14 Graveley to Hilton NMU route to note LAF s response LAF supports and welcomes this proposal. LAF wishes to comment that signage warning traffic that pedestrians are crossing would be wise, and that the crossings should also be suitable for horses. CCC Use of 4 x 4s and motor cycles on PROWs to note response from the LAF As there was not a consensus within the LAF all comments received have been forwarded to Laurence Smith as requested by the Chairman. Other: A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet consultation Highways England has responded: I can confirm that the Cambridge Local Access Forum will be added to our current list of stakeholders and that you will shortly receive an invite to a proposed 2 nd round of Forums currently planned for late 2016.
In regards to the February meeting, at this stage we would be unable to confirm attendance due to planned activities in February but when you have a confirmed date, please let us know and we will attend if at all possible. 8. Dates and venues of meetings in 2017 9. Closure of meeting and items for the next agenda
Minutes of the Cambridgeshire Local Access Forum (LAF) Meeting Held on Tuesday 16 August 2016 at 7 pm at South Cambridgeshire Hall, Cambourne Present: Members Mary Sanders (Chairman), Roger Buisson, Erika Wedgwood, Lynda Warth, James Winter and Alex Sossick. In attendance: Philip Clark (CCC), Laurence Smith (CCC, Definitive Map Officer), George Hay (CCC Enforcement Officer) and Mrs A Griffiths (Minutes Secretary, LGS Services). Questions from the Public None. Presentations None. 1. Apologies for absence Apologies had been received from Jill Tuffnell and Bradley Unwin. Alex Sossick, representing cycling interests, was welcomed to the meeting. 2. Declarations of interest Roger Buisson declared an interest in any item relating to the Waterbeach development as his employers were involved. 3. Minutes of meeting of 17 May 2016 Correct Record The minutes of the meeting of 17 May were approved as a correct record. 4. Matters arising from the last meeting not covered elsewhere on the agenda On a proposition by the Chairman, the order of business was varied to take items 4.7 and 4.8 next. Laurence Smith was invited to give an update. 4.7 Network Rail TWAO consultation Laurence Smith reported that CCC had met with Network Rail and worked through the crossings. CCC had informed Network Rail what it would like to see done. Some crossings proposed for closure had been obstructed, including two at Prickwillow which had been rendered unusable by heavy duty fencing. Network Rail had been asked to remove the obstructions and repeat the census. The outcome of the discussions was awaited and Laurence Smith will provide a further update at the next meeting. A question was asked about the proposed change to the crossing at Abbots Ripton, which was a separate project. The route of the public footpath may go to the south of the crossing. It was felt this might be beneficial. 4.8 (9.3) A14 update Laurence Smith reported on a Legacy Fund meeting with Highways England regarding projects for matched funding. One proposal is for road planings to surface 21 Rights of Way in need of improvement. The LAF expressed its concern that road planings might be used on bridleways and CCC was advised to consult equestrian users, as covering grass tracks with road planings was regarded as totally unacceptable for horses. The LAF also stressed that the use of ungraded planings could represent a trip hazard and any planings used should be of a finer grade. A suggestion was made that ungraded planings could be provided for repair of Moats Way at Hemingford Abbots which is Council owned but not being maintained. Cambridgeshire LAF minutes Tuesday 16 August 2016
Laurence Smith was asked to provide the LAF with a list of the ROWs concerned so that it could comment. He explained that these were just being scoped at the moment. The County Council is having regular meetings with Highways England about temporary closures and diversions as part of the scheme. Laurence Smith is still following up with Highways England the issue of the Swavesey bridge specification not being adequate for equestrian use. The LAF has also expressed its concerns to Highways England at a meeting and by letter. CCC will continue to press them on this matter. 4.1 Secretary s report to note The Secretary s report was noted. (5.2) The comments of the National Trust regarding the sharing of their response was noted. This had previously been published along with the last agenda, but there will be no active sharing of the National Trust s response. 4.1.1 To review any matter which LAF members think is still outstanding and to consider how to proceed None raised at this point in the meeting. 4.2 (1.2) Review Mission Statement, Terms of Reference, Public Participation Policy and Review of Objectives No changes were proposed. 4.3 (1.2.1) To agree targets for the next 12 months and appoint lead members to oversee the delivery of the targets The draft list of LAF priorities for 2016/7 was approved, subject to: An additional bullet point Waterbeach under the section Assess implications and opportunities of major transport schemes. Erika Wedgwood will make enquiries about any plans for a new station and the future of the existing station and report to the next meeting. It was also felt that a better route was needed from Denny Abbey as Waterbeach Station was dangerous to drive past. It was observed that the Waterbeach structure plan was only meant to proceed if adequate travel arrangements were in place. The specific inclusion of Walking, cycling and horse riding as a new bullet point under the section Making the most of the Health Agenda. Alex Sossick was invited to outline his interests relating to cycling. It was observed that Sustrans were currently lobbying and recruiting following some restructuring following the retirement of Rohan Wilson. A comment was made about the speed of cyclists sweeping round Sturton Street and Kingston Street, making it hazardous for pedestrians. Concerns were raised about routes not being maintained, and being overgrown with brambles, and about the lack of subsequent funding for maintenance of new ROW set up with S106 money. 4.4 (8.2) City Deal Memorandum of Understanding consideration of any shared objectives Philip Clark reported on work by the Local Nature Partnership, Tanya Sheridan and Stuart Walmsley, on setting up a Memorandum of Understanding with bodies such as Natural England, Defra and the Environment Agency to ensure good communication. Philip Clark will suggest that LAF is also included so that these bodies recognise LAF as a statutory consultee with a view to LAF being consulted at an early stage. A paper has been drafted to the project board. Cambridgeshire LAF minutes Tuesday 16 August 2016
LAF raised the need to ensure quality of life for local residents, including greenery and an attractive environment for people to enjoy, which should be borne in mind when new developments and transport schemes were being planned. 4.9 (9.4) Southern Fringe development to consider a table of monies and deadlines and how the funds are being spent Laurence Smith spoke to his written report and that the expected contribution from the Southern Fringe developments for Public Rights of Way Improvements had to be spent by 2021. CCC are currently scoping out different projects and inspecting sites for viability. He will provide an update for the next meeting. LAF asked about funding from the Northstowe developments. Laurence Smith explained that CCC had not been successful in securing funds for the ROW improvements requested under Phase 1 but they would continue to press for further funds. As regards green space in Phase 1, there will be a path across the golf course, and the developers will keep the path as a shared use/cycleway. They have been asked that the path around the outside of the development should also be a bridleway and circular route. Phase 1 is now being built. 4.6 (12) Report on fly grazing problems George Hay, Enforcement Officer, outlined the background to the issue of fly grazing, which affected some settlements more than others. Following several complaints, CCC is working with the Police in a team approach. There is a pilot scheme for a No tethering zone in the worst affected areas and funding has been received for seizure and signage. Liaison with the community also takes place and the problems relate to a small section of the community. It was noted that the number of horses had reduced and the extension of the scheme throughout the county may be considered. The cost of seizure is 1500 per horse. Lynda Warth encouraged the Police to attend a forthcoming seminar on fly grazing and welfare and asked CCC to keep the British Horse Society informed on developments. George Hay was invited to attend future meetings to provide an update from time to time. 4.7 Network Rail TWAO consultation Taken earlier. 4.8 (9.3) A14 update Taken earlier. 4.9 (9.4) Southern fringe development to consider a table of monies and deadlines and how the funds are being spent Questions were invited on the table of money provided. LAF asked whether there was an expiry date on the expenditure, which should be used for the benefit of residents. Laurence Smith confirmed that if the money was not spent it would have to go back to the developers. The work had not yet been done as CCC were still scoping out projects. As regards the timescale, he hoped to have more information for the November meeting, as officers would be surveying the sites and options to ascertain costs. 4.10 (10.1) Report on Living Sport Workshop on 7 July Philip Clark had been unable to attend but outlined the background to the Sport England strategy, whereby walking, cycling and outdoor physical activities such as orienteering were being considered for funding as part of the Olympic Legacy. Groups can put forward projects and there may be a role for the LNP and LAF in promoting ROW projects, with opportunities for links with health and the environment. Philip Clark will circulate a report. 4.11 (10.2) Report on Community Green Spaces Network on 25 May Mary Sanders reported on a meeting held at Amey, with speakers on Green Spaces, covering sources of funding and assistance in setting up groups. The aim is to set up a network for Cambridgeshire LAF minutes Tuesday 16 August 2016
sharing information, training and solutions to problems, covering volunteers, recruitment, documentation, and access to grants, which are often not taken up. Grants from recycling bodies are available for green spaces groups. A website is to be set up. Philip Clark will circulate the link to the Local Nature Partnership website giving more information. 4.12 (10.3) Report on Wicken Fen Access Forum Nothing to report. Jill Tuffnell and Lynda Warth are to attend in September. 5. Members reports and items for info only or the next agenda None. 6. County Council items 6.1 Cambridgeshire ACRE Outline Proposal for new HLF Project Giving Nature an Edge Enhancing Corridors This is a follow up to the Ouse Washes Landscape Project. Philip Clark reported that he had been invited to sit on a group to develop a network of drains as a habitat with outcomes including use of volunteers and access. He had submitted a comment on the draft proposals that LAF and CCC should be consulted regarding promoting access to the landscape and ROW. 6.2 Maintenance cut update The schedule has fallen behind but the first cut is now being completed and the second will be carried out soon. Weather and the need to respond to specific complaints or safety issues can interrupt the schedule. The cutting of footpaths and bridleways is sometimes difficult due to lack of knowledge of bridges and gates and the appropriate equipment, especially when sub-contractors are being used. There will be only two cuts this year. 6.3 Wisbech Missing Links Some funding has been received from the Sustainable Transport Fund. There is some interest in setting up ROW volunteer groups to carry out ROW management. Wisbech Town Council and Huntingdon District Council are setting up Project Green Teams for the longterm unemployed, etc, to do work and gain an NVQ. 6.4 LAF membership and recruitment Cllr Peter Topping has stepped down and Cllr Mervyn Loynes is no longer a LAF member. Democratic Services has written to all CCC members regarding the vacancies and Philip Clark has drawn up a flyer to be sent to Parish Councils seeking volunteers. 7. County Council Reports 7.1 CCC Use of 4x4s and motor cycles on PROWs The letter from the Department for Transport is to be sent to Bradley Unwin and Mike Irving for any comments. Clarification was sought about the package of reforms. Laurence Smith explained these included a streamlined procedure for Definitive Map Modification Orders, powers for local authorities to scrutinise, an evidential test and appeal arrangements. There will no longer be a requirement to advertise in the press. Bradley Unwin and Mike Irving are to be asked for their comments by September to pass on to Defra and to Laurence Smith at CCC. 7.2 A1307 Three Campuses to Cambridge initial ideas for bus and cycle links consultation LAF s response was noted. 8. Closure of meeting and items for the next agenda It was understood that a briefing meeting at Shire Hall by the City Deal Team on the A428 proposals had been postponed to September. The date when known is to be circulated. Cambridgeshire LAF minutes Tuesday 16 August 2016
Rebecca Britton of Urban and Civic and a representative of Network Rail are to be invited to the November meeting. Lynda Warth had attended the Peterborough Green and Biodiversity event which had included great ideas. Peterborough LAF is to be informed. The Peterborough LAF s contact details are to be circulated. A report giving an update on Northstowe was requested from Laurence Smith in advance of the next meeting. Concerns were expressed at pavements sloping into the road and how safety would be ensured with the narrow roads. Laurence Smith undertook to provide an update and plans. Asked about Nine Wells and County Farms, Laurence Smith replied that some projects had been identified for S106 funding and consideration was being given to which were to be taken forward. He was unaware whether there was public access through the NW Cambridge site. The NIAB site is not open yet. Laurence Smith reported that the new Definitive Map was now printed and in the CCC offices ready to be sealed. It will then be published and will formally supersede all old maps and documents for Cambridgeshire as at 7 May 2016. A working copy will be placed online. The next meeting will be held on Tuesday 15 November at South Cambridgeshire Hall (Monkfield Room). The Chairman declared the meeting closed at 8.57 pm. Cambridgeshire LAF minutes Tuesday 16 August 2016
Auditing the list of streets: a role for local access forums 1. The stakeholder working group on rights of way recommended that: "Routes identified on the list of streets/local street gazetteer as publicly maintainable, or as private streets carrying public rights, should be exempted from the cut off. 1 " The British Horse Society expects this recommendation to be given effect in regulations made under section 54(1)(d) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, exempting routes from the cut-off provisions in Part 2 of the 2000 Act. 2. The 'list of streets' is maintained by every highway authority under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980: "The council of every county, metropolitan district and London borough and the Common Council 2 shall cause to be made, and shall keep corrected up to date, a list of the streets within their area which are highways maintainable at the public expense." The list should contain every way which is maintainable at the public expense, regardless of whether the way is, in fact, currently maintained. Most public rights of way are maintainable at public expense 3, and 'street' being defined so as to include paths 4, ought to appear on the list; however, very few highway authorities are believed to have included all publicly maintainable public rights of way on their list. But it is not unusual to find urban alleyways and some byways open to all traffic on the list of streets. 3. An exemption for routes on the list of streets may be valuable in preserving routes not on the definitive map and statement which would otherwise be extinguished by the cut-off in 2026, primarily: unsealed routes (often referred to as unclassified county roads, UCRs, and frequently marked on Ordnance Survey maps as 'other route with public access', ORPA 5 ) which, on evaluation, are found to be public footpaths or public bridleways 6 ; urban footpaths, alleyways, ginnels etc. 4. Surveying authorities and rights of way researchers may wish to rely on the exemption (if granted) for routes on the list of streets so that scarce resources may be focused on applying to record other routes which will not be exempted. However, an exemption is dependable only if: the terms of the exemption apply to a particular route, a route is currently shown on the list of streets 7, and the route will continue to be shown on the list of streets at a date (expected to be close to 2026) specified in regulations. 1 Stepping Forward The Stakeholder Working Group on Unrecorded Public Rights of Way: Report to Natural England (NECR035): proposal 25. 2 i.e. of the City of London. 3 Some public rights of way, particularly many ways presumed to have been dedicated since 1949 through long use, are not publicly maintainable. 4 Section 329(1) provides that, "except where the context otherwise requires street has the same meaning as in Part III of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991". Section 48(1) of the 1991 Act provides that: "a street means the whole or any part of any of the following, irrespective of whether it is a thoroughfare (a) any highway, road, lane, footway, alley or passage, (b) any square or court, and (c) any land laid out as a way whether it is for the time being formed as a way or not." 5 For a fuller explanation of ORsPA, see pannageman.craddocks.co.uk/#post32. 6 There is no provision to extinguish any type of roads (i.e. carriage roads of whatever character) in 2026, except roads which are shown in the definitive map and statement as a public footpath or public bridleway and which are not otherwise excluded from extinguishment.
5. Rights of way user groups and researchers believe that some highway authorities amend their list of streets without any external oversight or engagement: it is alleged that, in those authorities' areas, numerous minor or unsealed routes have been deleted without due process or accountability. Of course, it is a requirement that the authority "shall keep [the list] corrected up to date" to reflect, for example, new roads which are adopted by the authority, publicly maintainable streets which are stopped up under a legal instrument, and publicly maintainable streets which cease to be maintainable on the order of a magistrates' court 8. But a highway authority should not remove a street from the list simply because it no longer wishes to maintain it, or because it sees no value in maintaining it, without following a statutory procedure to relieve it of the obligation of maintenance, or to extinguish it. Even if the highway authority believes an entry in the list to be mistaken, the Society believes that the authority should follow a transparent, accountable process to corroborate its belief. Given that reliance may now be placed on entries in the list being retained up to and beyond 2026, the Society asks local access forums to address highway authorities' present practice, and where that is found to be deficient, to press for a transparent, accountable process and public engagement where appropriate. 6. The Society recommends that the following questions could be addressed by the forum to highway authorities in the area covered by the forum: What unsealed highways have been removed from the list of streets since 1998 (the year in which the Ordnance Survey collected such data for the purposes of showing ORPAS on leisure mapping)? If the forum is concerned that routes have been removed from the list of streets prior to 1998, an earlier date might be substituted and appropriate evidence presented. 7. If the response to this first question is 'we don't know', then clearly, the highway authority has no easily accessible record of changes made. What procedures apply to any proposal to remove a highway from the list of streets, other than in response to a legal event (such as a magistrates' court stopping up order, or a Town and Country Planning Act diversion order)? 8. If the response suggests that changes, including removals, may be made by officers without any reference to a council committee, and without any external consultation, it is not safe to rely on a route being exempted owing to its inclusion on the list of streets, because that route is vulnerable to removal at any time. 9. Assuming that the response to these questions is insufficient, the forum may propose that No highway (or part highway) should be removed from the list of streets, other than pursuant to a legal event, unless to correct a mistake where there has been consultation with local interests (such as the local access forum and parish council), the correction is fully documented for archiving and indexation, and the decision is taken transparently within the authority on the basis of a report by officers (e.g. by a committee or by the executive). 7 The exception from extinguishment may apply to routes added to the list of streets in the future, but before the date specified in regulations. However, until such routes are added, they are not obvious candidates for protection from extinguishment. 8 Sometimes referred to as a 'cessor order': see section 47 of the 1980 Act.
10. Highway authorities may be reluctant to engage in time-consuming, costly processes to amend the list of streets. But the question remains: what power does the authority have to amend the list other than consequential to a legal event? And if the intention is to correct what is perceived to be an 'error', then the evidence for such a correction should be presented in a report after engagement with local interests, the decision taken by local authority members, and details of the correction should be made available to the public. Removing a route from the list of streets, where that route is not recorded in the definitive map and statement, has the same impact as removing a public path from the definitive map. The latter process involves a familiar and fair public process. Why should we accept anything less for deletions from the list of streets?