HALTON BOROUGH COUNCIL...Halton Borough Council Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2009/19 HALTON...

1

Halton Borough Council Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2009/19

HALTON

BOROUGH

COUNCIL

RIGHTS OF WAY

IMPROVEMENT

PLAN

2


HALTON BOROUGH COUNCIL RIGHTS OF WAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2009

CONTENTS

Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4-5 1.0 INTRODUCTION 6-8 2.0 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HALTON 8 2.1 Urban Development 8 2.2 The Countryside 9 2.3 Green Corridors 9 2.4 Transport Network 10 3.0 POLICY CONTEXT 10 3.1 The Importance of Policy 10 3.2 Local Policy and Strategy 11 3.3 Regional Policy 14 3.4 National Policy 15 3.5 European Planning Guidance 20 4.0 THE NEEDS OF DIFFERENT USERS 18 4.1 Walkers 18 4.2 Cyclists 22 4.3 Horse Riders 24 4.4 Carriage Drivers 27 4.5 Motor Vehicles 28 4.6 Access For All 29 4.7 Non Users 33

5.0 USE, DEMAND AND REASONS FOR ACCESS 35 5.1 Population Pressure 35 5.2 Socio-Economic Profile 36 5.3 Recreation, Leisure and Tourism 37 5.4 Healthy Living 38 5.5 Commuting and Utility Use 39 5.6 Latent Demand 40 5.7 Conflicting Interests 43 5.8 Landowning and Farming Interests 43 6.0 CURRENT PROVISION 44 6.1 The Public Rights of Way Network 44 6.2 The State of the Network 46 6.3 Legally Defined 47 6.4 Properly Maintained 53 6.5 Well Publicised 56 6.6 The Wider Network 57 6.7 The Transport Network 64 6.8 Open Access Land and Registered Common Land 70 6.9 Other Issues to Consider as part of the ROWIP Research Process that

3


Impact on the Network 72 7.0 ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE 75 NETWORK 7.1 Why Assess the Adequacy of the Network? 75 7.2 Conclusions 77 8.0 SPECIFIC POLICIES RESULTING FROM SA /SEA ASSESSMENT 83 9.0 PLANNING FOR ACTION 84 9.1 Statement of Action 84 10.0 ACTION PLAN 85 11.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING 101 11.1 Implementation 101 11.2 Monitoring 101 11.3 Identifying ‘Quick Wins’ 101 12.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS 102 13.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 105 14.0 APPENDICES 107

Appendix A – Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) Policies Appendix B – Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental

Assessment. n Tables Table 1: UDP Policies that complement the ROWIP 12 Table 2: Main Reasons (Nationally) for not undertaking activities in the countryside 33 Table 3: Main Reasons (Nationally) for low levels of use 34 Table 4: A Comparison of Key Population Statistics (Source: 2001 Census) 36 Table 5: Proportionate Spread of Public Rights of Way in Halton. 45 Table 6: Halton’s Performance Indicator Figures. 56 Table 7: Public Open Spaces and Parks. 57 Table 8: Sites with cycle parking spaces 70 Table 9: Proposed Action Plan 83 Charts Chart 1: Reasons for not using the Public Rights of Way network or other access routes in Halton. 34 Chart 2: Other Reasons for non-use in Halton. 35 Figures Fig 1: Locational Map 9 Fig 2: Distribution of Public Rights of Way in Halton. 45 Fig 3: Sandymoor Bridleways 59 Fig 4: Woodland Trust permissive bridleways 60 Fig 5: Proposed Greenway Network 61 Fig 6: Current formalised and recorded cycleway routes 62 Fig 7: Core Bus Route Network – Widnes and Runcorn 67 Fig 8: Open Country and Registered Common Land 71 Fig 9: Village Greens in Halton. 72

4


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 requires all highway authorities to produce a ‘Rights of Way Improvement Plan’ (ROWIP). The ROWIP is required to contain: an assessment of the extent to which local rights of way meet the present and likely future needs of the public; the opportunities provided by local rights of way for exercise and other forms of outdoor recreation and enjoyment of the area; and the accessibility of local rights of way to blind or partially sighted persons and others with mobility problems. The statutory guidance also states that the ROWIP itself should not focus on detailed site specific assessments, but draw broader generic conclusions, which are then the focus of a ’statement of action’ for the management of local public rights of way and for securing an improved network of paths. The Process The process of developing the plan has been influenced by a number of factors, including the statutory ROWIP guidance, the Highway Authority’s statutory duties and powers, Countryside Agency (now Natural England) advice and wide ranging stakeholder consultations with the Merseyside Local Access Forum, Cheshire and Warrington Access Forum, statutory agencies, path user groups and parish councils. The delivery of significant improvements to the public rights of way network and other access routes in Halton will be dependent on working in partnership. The Assessment Halton’s ROWIP assessment identifies and evaluates the needs of various users and summarises the current levels of public rights of way and other access provision. Some of the key issues identified in the assessment are:

� There is no effective bridleway network as such available to horse riders and there is no provision to cross the River Mersey on horse back;

� With proper provision the Silver Jubilee Bridge (SJB) has the potential to provide the only suitable sustainable river crossing and to be the gateway for all north/south long distance routes;

� The footpath and cycle track networks are both fragmented in parts; � There is the opportunity through cross boundary working to extend the network

across the borough boundary into a wider network for all users; � There are very few circular routes for walkers, cyclists and horse riders; � Some routes are severed by busy roads and railway lines; and � More links are required to create greater connectivity of the public rights of way

network and other access routes and to connect with strategic routes and initiatives.

The core of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan is a Statement of Action, which outlines the work the authority proposes to undertake to secure an improved network of local rights of way and access opportunities.

5


Implementation Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, Halton Borough Council has a statutory duty to prepare and publish a Rights of Way Improvement Plan, but not to implement the Plan. However, developing and publishing a ROWIP will amongst other things enable the Council to seek external funding for access improvements. Such funding would be in addition to existing public rights of way funding, which is used to undertake statutory duties. The Government has indicated that ROWIP’s will be an important step in working towards a more integrated and sustainable transport network. As a result, ROWIPs have been identified in statutory guidance as becoming a distinct strand of the Local Transport Planning process with full integration expected from 2010/11 onwards. Consultation The Draft Rights of Way Improvement Plan was used as the basis for a 12 week consultation and the document along with a questionnaire was sent out to a wide range of users and stakeholders to enable their views to be taken into consideration in the preparation of the final document. The consultation exercise was also advertised in the local papers and copies of the document were available on the Council’s website and in the local libraries and Direct Links. Questionnaires were also deposited at nearly 100 locations including health centres, shops, businesses, Norton Priory, visitor centres, post offices, community centres etc. Fourteen formal written responses and twenty seven questionnaires were returned. A summary of these and the Council’s responses can be found on the Council’s website.

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Under the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive and Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 there is a requirement to undertake a Strategic Environmental Assesment (SEA) and Sustainability Appraisal (SA) on certain plans and programmes such as the ROWIP. Mott MacDonald was commissioned by Halton Borough Council (HBC) to undertake an integrated Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Halton Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) in accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and SEA Directive respectively. The methodology for undertaking the SA/SEA followed the SEA Directive requirements and the Department for Communities and Local Government’s (DCLG) Guidance ‘Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents’ (November 2005) which sets out the SA process as required under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. . As a result of the SA/SEA process a number of recommendations have been developed by Mott MacDonald, which included the development of additional policies to further increase the sustainability performance of the plan. These are discussed in Appendix B and Section 8.

Equality Impact Assessment

6


The ROWIP was also subject to an Equality Impact Assessment which identified that the Plan aims to deliver safe and sustainable access on PRoW’s, cycleways bridleways and other access routes, available for use by all the residents especially those on low incomes and visitors to Halton, regardless of race, sexual orientation, age, religion and disability. 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Public Rights of Way (PRoW) are a fundamental element of an integrated transport system. Halton’s current Local Transport Plan covering the period 2006/07 to 2010/11 acknowledges that PRoW help to address all four shared transport priorities and all seven of the Quality of Life issues. These contributions are summarised as follows:

� Tackling Congestion – by providing routes remote from motorised traffic that

cater for sustainable transport modes; � Delivering Accessibility – by providing and maintaining routes that give

access to local facilities and employment; � Safer Roads – by providing routes for otherwise vulnerable road users that

are remote from motorised traffic; � Better Air Quality – by encouraging less polluting modes of transport; � Sustainable and Prosperous Communities – by providing opportunities for

walking and cycling, the plan offers affordable travel to those who do not have access to a car;

� Enhancing ’People Friendly’ Places – by creating a network of routes that are safe and which increase accessibility to the countryside;

� Protection and Enhancement of Landscapes and Biodiversity – by ensuring that routes are maintained in ways that protect the needs of plants and animals;

� Enhanced Personal Security – by designing walking and cycling routes to maximise personal security;

� Healthier Communities – by providing and promoting a comprehensive network of attractive routes, where people can exercise through walking and cycling, which in turn can assist in promoting general well being along with reducing obesity and diseases such as coronary heart disease, strokes and diabetes;

� Fewer Transport Related Noise Problems – by providing convenient alternatives to car based travel for short journeys; and

� Progress Towards Climate Change Objectives – by providing walking and cycling facilities that reduce dependence on motorised traffic and thereby carbon emissions.

1.2 Section 60 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 introduced a

requirement that all highway authorities in England and Wales prepare a Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP).

1.2.1 Rights of Way Improvement Plans are not about rights of way in isolation, they are intended to deliver an integrated network of routes in and between town and country. The Rights of Way Improvement Plan must assess:

� The extent to which the local rights of way meet the present and likely future

needs of the public;

� The opportunities provided by local rights of way for exercise and other forms of outdoor recreation and enjoyment of the authority’s area; and

7


� The accessibility of local rights of way to blind and partially sighted people and

others with mobility problems. The plan must contain a Statement of Actions that the highway authority intends to

carry out in order to improve its network with particular regards to issues identified within the assessment. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has issued guidance1 to local authorities on how it should approach the preparation of its Plan and we have followed this guidance.

1.3 The Rights of Way network is undoubtedly a major element of access to the

countryside and to services but on its own does not show the full picture as it is also a major recreational and transport resource. In addition, there are many other routes and sites that are used by the general public for informal countryside access and every day journeys that are not legally recorded as definitive public rights of way.

1.4 With this in mind the Rights of Way Improvement Plan for Halton considers the

whole network of non-motorised routes, public open spaces and sites, including the potential of ‘Open Country’, as well as definitive rights of way and highways. It also looks at the whole spectrum of users and journey purposes, from disabled access needs to routes to open access land.

1.5 Once the ROWIP is published the Council is required to make a new assessment

and review it within 10 years. Thereafter, it is required to review the plan at not more than ten year intervals. This is Halton’s first full 10 year Rights of Way Improvement Plan.

1.6 The ROWIP is a strategic document and will eventually form a distinct strand of

Halton’s next Local Transport Plan (LTP3). It is also supportive of the Council’s Mersey Gateway’s Sustainable Transport Strategy.

1.7 The Vision Statement for Halton’s PRoW is as follows:

Halton Borough Council aims to develop, promote and protect a local rights of way network that meets the needs and likely future needs of the public for outdoor recreation, exercise and access to services. Through the preparation and implementation of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) the Council will evaluate and improve access to local rights of way and other access routes2, the countryside, and services within and around Halton for residents and visitors.

1.7.1 In order to achieve this vision ten Strategic Aims have been derived following a

network assessment and consultation with the public and members of user groups, these form the basis of the ROWIP and are as follows:

1. To improve standards of maintenance across the network; 2. To maintain an accurate and up to date Definitive Map and Statement; 3. To promote the health benefits of the network and make it easier for people to

incorporate exercise into their daily lives and lead healthier lifestyles;

1 Rights of Way Improvement Plans – Statutory Guidance to Local Highway Authorities in England (2002)

2 Other Access Routes – Routes for non-motorised traffic that are not definitive public rights of way e.g Cycleways,

amenity/leisure paths, independent footpaths etc

8


4. To improve accessibility by improving and developing routes that cater for the needs of people with disabilities;

5. To increase the use of the network for sustainable transport and utility trips; 6. To improve the safety and attractiveness of routes affected by other parts of the

transport network; 7. To support the rural economy, local businesses countryside, and tourist sites

through the promotion of Halton’s PRoW network and other access routes, to residents and visitors;

8. To seek opportunities to enhance the network through the planning process, and through the various plans and strategies developed by the Council;

9. To improve connectivity of the Network and create opportunities for walkers, cyclists and equestrians; and

10. To seek opportunities to enhance and extend the public rights of way network and other access routes through cross boundary working.

These ten strategic aims are derived in Chapter 8 of this ROWIP and expanded upon to form an Action Plan, as detailed in Chapter 9.

1.8 Under the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive and Planning and

Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 there is a requirement to undertake a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Sustainability Appraisal (SA) on certain plans and programmes such as the ROWIP. Mott MacDonald was commissioned by Halton Borough Council (HBC) to undertake an integrated Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Halton Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) in accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and SEA Directive respectively. The methodology for undertaking the SA/SEA followed the SEA Directive requirements and the Department for Communities and Local Government’s (DCLG) Guidance ‘Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents’ (November 2005) which sets out the SA process as required under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

1.8.1 The SA/SEA process seeks to ensure that the environmental, social and economic

effects of implementing a plan are considered. The SA/SEA process has shown that implementation of Halton’s ROWIP and associated policies will have significant positive effects on social inclusion, accessibility, health, tourism, landscape and air quality. The process has also acted as a checking mechanism to ensure the effects of proposed ROWIP policies are considered in a robust manner. The SA/SEA process has assisted in developing a framework for monitoring. Indicators have been developed which will be used to monitor the implementation of the Halton ROWIP, to check that the policies are effective in delivering their predicted benefits.

As a result of the SA/SEA process a number of recommendations have been developed by Mott MacDonald, which included the development of additional policies to further increase the sustainability performance of the plan. These are discussed in Appendix B and Section 8.

1.8.2 The ROWIP has also been subject to an Equality Impact Assessment which,

identified that:

� The Plan aims to deliver safe and sustainable access on PROW’s, cycleways, bridleways and other access routes, available for use by all residents especially

9


those on low income and visitors to Halton, regardless of race, sexual orientation, age and religion; and

� Halton, through the ROWIP, will be improving accessibility to people with disabilities. Such improvements will have wider benefits for all users.

2.0 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HALTON 2.1 Urban Development 2.1.1 Halton sits on either side of the River Mersey, at its lowest bridging point, adjacent

to Merseyside in the North West of England approximately 10 miles upstream from Liverpool. It shares boundaries with Liverpool, Knowsley, Warrington, St Helens and Cheshire West and Chester Councils. The Borough is made up of the towns of Widnes and Runcorn together with the villages of Hale, Moore, Daresbury and Preston Brook. Other villages have been incorporated into the towns at different times as they grew, but they still retain a particular character and distinctive buildings.

2.1.2 Halton is an urban, industrial area whose traditional businesses include freight

distribution, chemicals, food processing, clothing, metal products and fur manufacturing. The main service sectors are retail, financial & health administration.

2.1.3 The population of Halton is 119,5003 and it is ranked 30th most deprived local

authority in England in the index of deprivation4 for 2007. Halton has low car ownership and the Borough suffers from poor health issues and high levels of social exclusion.

Fig 1: Locational Map

3 This is the 2007 mid year population estimate released by the Office for National Statistics.

4 Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2007

10


2.2 The Countryside 2.2.1 The majority of Halton’s footpath network routes are south of the river and users

can pass through the countryside without having to leave the Borough or link to a wider network through Warrington or Cheshire West and Chester.

2.2.2 North of the river, however, is urbanised and to go out into the countryside residents have to actually leave the Borough. The paths linking with the neighbouring authority boundaries are usually quite short, some only a matter of metres. This means that north of the river the majority of the network in the countryside is out of the control of Halton Borough Council and that there is little room for improvement to the network with such short lengths of path. Therefore, the greatest potential for a comprehensive rights of way network lies to the south of the river.

2.2.3 Most of the existing recreational routes tend to run east-west along the Mersey Valley (Trans Pennine Trail, Mersey Way, Bridgewater Canal towpath, Mersey Valley Timberland Trail). However, as indicated above, the south presents the best opportunity to develop a more comprehensive rights of way network to provide access to attractive countryside. The biggest untapped potential, are the links from Runcorn south into the Weaver Valley and into the proposed Weaver Way. There are two routes one from Whitehouse to Dutton and the other Clifton to Frodsham. These were identified in the Halton Greenways Study 2000, which was undertaken by Groundwork Mersey Valley (now Groundwork Merseyside) and are shown on the Greenways’ proposals plan. Whilst options in the north are more limited, there is still potential to link with the route in St. Helens, along the disused railway (old mineral line).

2.3 Green Corridors 2.3.1 Although Halton is predominantly an urban borough, it is generally well served by

open space provision, with excess in some places, as identified in the 2004 Open Space Study.

2.3.2 There are also some valuable ‘green corridors’ that reach the heart of the urban areas, provided by former railway lines, rivers and canals. An important aspect of these ‘green’ corridors is that they form an integral part of a potential network of spaces, routes and features that when linked together, provide routes through the urban area and out into the countryside.

2.4 Transport Network 2.4.1 Following local government reorganisation in 1998, Halton became a Unitary

Authority. This meant that Halton was now the highway authority for its area and, as such, was responsible for managing and maintaining a network of key roads and footpaths covering 714 km.

2.4.2 Many of the roads in the area experience high traffic volumes, in particular, the Runcorn/Widnes bridge (Silver Jubilee Bridge), especially in peak hours. However, increasingly, congestion is being experienced at key junctions within the Borough, often resulting from much needed regeneration of the town centres.

11


2.4.3 One of the benefits of being a predominantly urban area is that the public transport network is relatively well provided for, through both bus and train services. This is especially the case for south of the river with the development of the new town area and the construction of the new town busway network.

2.4.4 A more detailed summary of Halton’s transport system can be found in section 6.7. 3.0 POLICY CONTEXT 3.1 The Importance of Policy 3.1.1 An important consideration in developing Halton’s Rights of Way Improvement Plan

is to ensure that it supports key themes and complements the aims and objectives of existing plans and strategies within the Council. It is intended that the Rights of Way Improvement Plan in turn will be reflected in those plans and strategies.

3.1.2 The identification and reflection of policies within other relevant documents will

assist with delivery of the plan and lend weight to funding bids from both the highway authority and bodies with complementary aims and objectives. It will also provide potential opportunities for partnership working, the pooling of resources and the delivery of Best Value.

3.1.3 The ROWIP will adopt a number of Policies that are required to support its strategic aims and these are highlighted throughout the document and summarised in Appendix A

Policy R1 - Halton Borough Council will seek to support the aspirations and work of partner authorities and organisations in identifying opportunities and securing improvements and additions to the rights of way network and other access routes through their own policies and the planning system. The Authority will look to partners for support in pursuing the aims and objectives of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan, including cross boundary working.

3.2 Local Policy and Strategy 3.2.1 This section briefly reviews local policies and strategies that will influence the

development of the ROWIP and help ensure that the Plan is relevant to the needs of residents and businesses and visitors to Halton.

3.2.1.1 A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY STRATEGY FOR HALTON 2006- 2011

The Sustainable Community Strategy aims to enhance the quality of life for local communities through actions to improve the economic, social and environmental well being of the area and its inhabitants. The Strategy is developed by the Local Strategic Partnership, known as the Halton Strategic Partnership. One of the roles of the Community Strategy is to guide the development and implementation of more detailed actions to be undertaken by the Council, the Police, Health Agencies and others to provide a common sense of direction and purpose.

12


Halton’s current Community Strategy, published in 2006 and refreshed in 2009, identifies five key priorities for the area:

� A Healthy Halton; � Halton’s Urban Renewal; � Halton’s Children and Young People; � Employment, Learning and Skills in Halton; � A Safer Halton;

The Rights of Way Improvement Plan supports these priorities by promoting the development of the rights of way network and other access routes to provide a safe, sustainable, fair and inclusive network to enable equality of access to opportunities and facilities.

3.2.1.2 ‘IT’S ALL HAPPENING IN HALTON’ – THE CORPORATE PLAN 2006-11

The Corporate Plan sets out Halton Borough Council’s priorities for making lives better for all the communities of Halton. The Corporate Plan has adopted the five priorities outlined in the Community Strategy with the addition of a sixth priority ‘Corporate Effectiveness and Business Efficiency’.

The Rights of Way Improvement Plan will help to meet the Corporate Objectives by improving the quality and sustainability of the environment, improving accessibility to the countryside and increasing access to employment, training, health, education and retail shopping opportunities.

3.2.1.3 HALTON UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN – ADOPTED 7TH APRIL 2005

The 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act introduced major changes to the way the planning system operates. The adopted Halton Unitary Development Plan (UDP) will be replaced by the emerging Local Development Framework over the coming years and UDP policies will eventually be replaced by Development Plan Document policies. UDP policies yet to be replaced are known as the ‘Saved Policies’ of the UDP.

The saved policies within the UDP promote the development of a strategic greenways network that will provide a safe and sustainable network for pedestrians, cyclists, people with disabilities and where appropriate horse riders. They will also give support to measures that protect and enhance the recreational potential of the public rights of way network. In particular, where public rights of way are affected by development proposals improvements to the network, including securing new links from built up areas will be sought.

The UDP saved policies which complement the ROWIP with regards to non-motorised transport and outdoor recreation are listed below:

Table 1: UDP Policies that complement the ROWIP

Policy

The Green Environment

GE5, GE6, GE7, GE10, GE11, GE12, GE20, GE29

13


Transport

TP6, TP7, TP8, TP9, TP10, TP18

Leisure, Tourism and Community Facilities

LTC8, LTC9, LTC10

Housing

H3

3.2.1.4 “Halton Core Strategy

The emerging Halton Core Strategy is the central document within the Local Development Framework, and will form the overarching strategy for the development of the Borough to 2026. The document is a Development Plan Document, which means its policies will replace some of the UDP ‘Saved Policies’, and will be adopted in 2011. The draft policy content of the Core Strategy prioritises the use of sustainable transport modes, placing a particular emphasis on the use of walking and cycling modes for short journeys. Like the UDP, the Core Strategy will protect and enhance the PRoW network, including the Borough’s Greenways and Green Infrastructure network, and will be broadly complementary to the approach adopted in the ROWIP.”

3.2.1.5 Provision of Open Space Supplementary Planning Document, (Draft, 2007)

This document complements the Saved Policies of the UDP which recognise the importance of open space within the Borough. When adopted, the document will set out guidelines for developer contributions towards the provision of open space. This includes contributions towards the Greenway Network and Bridgewater Way, where appropriate.

3.2.1.6 HALTON’S LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN 2006/07- 2010/11

The Local Transport Plan 2006/7-10/11 (LTP2) is based on the four shared transport priorities, which, have been agreed by Central Government and the Local Government Association these are:

� Congestion � Accessibility � Safer Roads � Air Quality

The local rights of way network (as defined in section 60(5) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000) has a major role to play in increasing the accessibility of key services such as education, training, health, leisure, retail shopping and social facilities. This is particularly the case for those communities, which can be excluded from everyday activities by not having access to a car. However, encouraging greater use of the rights of way network can have additional benefits of reducing congestion, pollution and harmful climate change gases, as well as improving the health of people by promoting the use of cycling, walking & horse riding as means of transport and leisure.

14


The Primary Transport Strategies within the LTP2 Toolbox, which will assist in the delivery/implementation of the ROWIP are:

� No3 – Cycling;

� No 7 – Highway Maintenance

� No10 – Provision for People with Disabilities;

� No11 – Public Rights of Way and Greenways;

� No12 – Quality Transport Corridors;

� No17 – Travel Plans; and

� No18 – Walking.

3.2.1.7 Economic and Tourism Development Strategy 2004-2007 – ‘Halton Gateway to Prosperity’

The strategy aims to give Halton’s economy a much needed boost and to help it to develop quickly towards achieving a more vibrant and balanced economy, providing a better place to live and visit. The development of the rights of way network and other access routes as recreational facilities will help to develop the tourism sector locally, sub-regionally and regionally. It will benefit industries directly and indirectly, which are associated with bridleways & cycle ways e.g. livery yards and pubs and therefore assist in the sustainable development of the rural and urban economies. The bridleway/Greenway networks, which comprise ‘off-road’ routes, (quiet lanes, public rights of way, canal towpaths, cycle tracks and bridleways)5, will contribute to the future growth of countryside recreation, sustainable tourism and active leisure pursuits.

3.3 Regional Policy

3.3.1 The following regional policies are considered to be relevant to the ROWIP and have influenced its development.

3.3.2 The North West of England Plan: Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (Government Office for the North West, September 2008)

The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) replaces Regional Planning Guidance 13 (RPG13) and forms the regional level of planning policy in the North West. Along with the UDP (and its replacement) adopted by the Council, the RSS forms part of the development plan and is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications, as well as forming an important policy framework for the development of local policy. Policy RT1 of the RSS emphasises the need for integrated transport networks, and the importance of developing sustainable, integrated and accessible solutions for all users. In addition, Policy RT9 focuses on walking and cycling in particular, and advocates partnership working to develop integrated networks of continuous, attractive and safe routes for walking and

5 The following terms will be used regularly throughout this document Public Rights of Way (PRoW), Quiet Lanes,

Cycle Tracks, Bridleways and Greenway. Definitions of each of these terms are given in the Glossary in Section 11,

15


cycling, to widen accessibility and capitalise on potential environmental, social and health benefits. Supporting text for RT9 emphasises the importance of ROWIP production, advocating the development of networks of regional and sub-regional footpaths, bridleways, cycleways, quiet lanes and greenways, linked to each other and to National Trails and the National Cycle Network. The role of walking and cycling routes within the Green Infrastructure Network, and as part of Regional Parks, is also mentioned.

3.4 National Policy

3.4.1 The following national policies are considered particularly relevant to the ROWIP

and have strongly influenced its development:

3.4.2 The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

The Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW Act) is a balanced package of measures that allow people to enjoy more of the countryside whilst providing safeguards for landowners and occupiers. The CROW Act has created a new statutory right of access and modernised the rights of way system.

The Act is divided into 5 parts;

� Part I – Access

� Part II – Rights of Way

� Part III – Nature Conservation and Wildlife Protection

� Part IV – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

� Part V – Miscellaneous – Town and Village Greens

The Statutory duty to produce a Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) is included within Part 2 of the Act. Other key elements of the Act relevant to the development of the ROWIP are:

3.4.3 The Right to Roam

Part I of the Act gives people the ‘right to roam’ on foot across mountain, moor heath and down, in addition to registered common land. More information relating to the provision of open access land in Halton can be found in section 6.8.

3.4.4 Changes to Rights of Way Law.

Part II of the CROW Act changes public rights of way law in a number of ways, which include: introducing a cut off date for recording historic rights of way; providing greater access opportunities to existing routes for people with mobility problems; and amending enforcement procedures to combat the driving of motor vehicles off road and failure to remove obstructions.

3.4.5 Local Access Forum

16


Part V of the CROW Act requires the highway authority to set up an independent Local Access Forum (LAF) to provide: ‘advice as to the improvement of public access to land in that area for the purpose of open air recreation and enjoyment of the area, and any other matters as may be prescribed’ The Forum members are required to be drawn from a variety of local groups of walkers, cyclists, horse riders and disabled groups, as well as farmers, landowners, and representatives of other relevant local interest groups.

To fulfil these requirements Halton joined with Liverpool City Council, and the Metropolitan Borough Councils of Knowsley, Sefton, Wirral and St Helens to form the Merseyside Local Access Forum, which was established in September 2003. In recognition of the importance of cross boundary working, Halton also attends meetings of the Cheshire and Warrington Local Access Forum.

3.4.6 Opportunities within the Planning System

The following section describes the wide range of planning documents that provide the overarching national planning policy framework, which informs the development of ROWIPs.

3.4.7 Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) (January 2005)

PPS1 states that Local Planning Authorities should ensure that development plans contribute to global sustainability by addressing the causes and potential impacts of climate change – through policies which, reduce energy use, reduce emissions (by encouraging patterns of development which reduce the need to travel by private car), or reduce the impact of moving freight. Also in preparing development plans, Planning Authorities should encourage accessible public transport provision to secure more sustainable patterns of transport development.

3.4.8 Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3) (November 2006)

PPS3 recognises the importance of good design and states that Local Planning Authorities should develop a shared vision with their local communities of the type of residential environments they wish to see and develop plans and policies aimed at creating places, streets and spaces which meet the needs of people; are attractive; have their own distinctive identity; and positively improve local character. In addition, PPS3 states that proposed residential development should be easily accessible and well connected to public transport, community facilities and services, and should be well laid out so that all the space is used efficiently, is safe, accessible and user friendly. It also states that streets should be pedestrian, cycle and vehicle friendly.

3.4.9 Planning Policy Guidance Note 4: Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms (PPG4) (November, 1992)

17


PPG4 advocates the encouragement of new development in locations, which reduce the need to travel, especially by car; are accessible by public transport; and can be served by more energy efficient modes of transport.

PPG4 will be replaced by Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Development (PPS4), the content of which was consulted on in 2008. Similarly, PPS4 also promotes a wider range of more sustainable travel choices to be available at sites identified for economic development.

3.4.10 Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport (PPG13) (April 2001)

This requires that new development helps to create places that connect with each other sustainably. The aim of PPG13 is to provide the right conditions to encourage walking, cycling and the use of public transport and to put people before traffic. It notes that places that work well are designed to be used safely and securely by all in the community. The Note also encourages local authorities to use their planning and transport powers to give greater priority to walking, as set out in the Government’s national guidance Encouraging Walking: Advice for Local Authorities (March 2000).

3.4.11 Planning Policy Guidance Note 17: – Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (PPG17) (July 2002)

PPG17 states that authorities should avoid any erosion of recreational function and maintain or enhance the character of open spaces. In reflecting and interpreting guidance contained within PPG17 the Local Planning Authority can, in exercising their powers, encourage an applicant to enter into an agreement to provide specified public benefits as part of a development, under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This is commonly referred to as a ‘Section 106 Agreement‘ The Agreement can be used to address issues directly related to the site, in the immediate locality or further a field in the authority area, and to further the progress of other policies.

There is great potential for the Rights of Way Improvement Plan to benefit from PPG17. The protection and enhancement of rights of way appears at various points in PPG17 as Paragraph 32 demonstrates:

‘Rights of Way are an important recreational facility, which local authorities should protect and enhance. Local Authorities should seek opportunities to provide better facilities for walkers, cyclists and horse riders, for example by adding links to existing rights of way networks.’

3.4.12 Towards a Sustainable Transport System

The Department for Transport outlined its proposed approach to long-term transport planning in its publication Towards a Sustainable Transport System (TaSTS), which was published in October 2007. This was in response to the Eddington Study and the Stern Review, which were both published earlier that year.

18


Delivering a Sustainable Transport System

The Department for Transport (DfT) has since published for consultation a further report Delivering a Sustainable Transport System (DaSTS) (November 2008), which seeks views on a range of proposals relating to the long term transport strategy in England.

Within DaSTS, the Government articulates its high level national strategic goals for transport, which are:

� To support national economic competitiveness and growth, by delivering reliable and efficient transport networks;

� To reduce transport’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, with the desired outcome of tackling climate change;

� To contribute to better safety, security and health and longer life- expectancy by reducing the risk of death, injury or illness arising from transport, and by promoting travel modes that are beneficial to health;

� To promote greater equality of opportunity for all citizens, with the desired outcome of achieving a fairer society; and

� To improve quality of life for transport users and non-transport users, and to promote a healthy natural environment.

DaSTS then goes on to set out:

� The key challenges to be addressed on each of the three types of network (city and regional, national and international); � Generating a range of cross modal options to address the challenges,

looking at the role of regulation and price as well as infrastructure; � Appraising the options on the basis of their delivery against transport

goals and their value for money.

The Government intends to undertake this work through a network approach, based on an examination of projected future transport demand on:-

� Strategic National Corridors - examining strategic road, rail and inland

waterway passenger and freight movements – work led by the Government and will include new rail electrification, new high speed rail lines and active traffic management options;

� International networks – examining future options through a series of gateway and freight studies, again led by the Government;

� City and Regional Networks – This work will be led by regional bodies and local authorities, and will build on the existing methodologies already developed for Regional Funding Allocations (based on 5 year funding programmes). This work will run alongside and complement priorities identified for strategic national corridors and international networks.

How Halton’s Public Rights of Way network and other access routes will help to Deliver a Sustainable Transport System

Halton’s PRoW and non-motorised network will help deliver the Department for Transport’s five goals for transport at a local level, by the following means:

19


Supporting Economic Growth – by providing access to work by sustainable modes; Tackling climate change – by providing walking and cycling facilities that reduce dependence on motorised traffic and therefore greenhouse gas emissions; Contributing to better safety, security and health – by providing and promoting: � Routes for otherwise vulnerable road users that are remote from

motorised traffic; � Well designed routes to maximise personal security; and � A comprehensive network of attractive routes, where people can exercise

through walking and cycling, which can promote personal well being and assist in reducing obesity and the risk of diseases such as coronary heart disease, strokes and diabetes;

Promoting equality of opportunity – by providing for modes of affordable travel to those who do not have access to a car; and Improving quality of life and a healthy natural environment – by providing ‘people friendly’ places and ensuring that routes are well maintained and in ways that protect the needs of plants and animals.

3.4.13The National Cycling Strategy (July 1996)

The clear intention of this strategy is to achieve increases in cycle use, whilst reducing the risk to cyclists of traffic injuries. It stresses the need to create the conditions in which cycling is made more attractive than using private motor vehicles. It also seeks to ensure that cycling is seen as an integral part of a sustainable transport strategy, rather than a ‘bolt-on’ extra.

3.4.14 Delivering Choosing Health – The Health White Paper (November 2004)

This White Paper seeks to tackle the health problems of the nation by promoting exercise. It recognises that well-planned, designed, managed and maintained streets, open spaces and buildings will help to ensure our everyday surroundings maximize opportunities for activity. The ROWIP has a clear role to play in addressing these issues by providing access for all to well-maintained, safe, walking and cycling routes to enable people to lead more active lives and also to access to nearby parks and countryside.

3.4.15 By All Reasonable Means – A Guide to Inclusive Access to the Outdoors for Disabled People (October 2005)

Public open spaces are central features of local community life across the UK, and make a significant contribution to people’s well being and quality of life. These spaces are where public life takes place and where people connect with the natural world. Some public spaces or routes are valued mainly for recreation or educational use, while many are an important part of daily life, such as a route to a local shop. Many people, including disabled people, are often excluded from enjoying the use and benefits of such spaces because of a lack of planning or awareness of their needs.

20


The (British Telecom) BT Countryside for all Accessibility Standards have been widely used for assessing and planning routes and should be considered.

3.5 European Planning Guidance 3.5.1 The European Union’s approach to spatial planning is set out in the ‘European

Spatial Development Perspective’ (ESDP). This includes the spatial planning objective: Securing parity of access to: infrastructure and knowledge; sustainable development; prudent management and protection of natural and cultural heritage.

3.5.2 Where it is appropriate to encourage tourism development, plans should identify the

facilities needed to support it. These may include, for example: accommodation; improvements to public transport; regional footpath, cycle or bridleway routes; alterations to the rights of way system and opening up of inland waterways. Particular attention should be given to promoting links between urban areas and the countryside.

4.0 THE NEEDS OF DIFFERENT USERS 4.1 Walkers 4.1.1 Walking is a means of transport in its own right and usually accounts for at least

part of a journey made by other modes e.g. walking to and from the bus, train or car. Walking is of vital importance for informal exercise and recreation and is usually free i.e. it requires little specialised equipment or skill and there is rarely a charge for the use of the land for walking (exceptions might include a site to which an admission fee is charged). As well as having recreational advantages, walking also provides health benefits and yet many of us do not walk enough to gain these benefits.

’Walking is one of the first things an infant wants to do and one of the last any of us

wants to give up doing’ The Magic of Walking (Sussman and Goode, 1967). 4.1.2 Put into context, the UK Day Visits Survey 1996 found:

� There are approximately 652 million walking day trips a year;

� Most walks are less than 2 miles; and

� Walking accounts for 18 times more journeys than cycling. 4.1.3 Walking is by far the most popular form of physical activity carried out for leisure

purposes, as can be demonstrated by the following data:

� An ICM research survey in February 2000 showed that 77% of UK adults say they walk for pleasure at least once a month, with 62% stating it as their main form of exercise;

� The General Household Survey for 1996 showed that 44.5% of adults had

gone for a walk of two or more miles in the previous four weeks (with walking being defined as walking for its own sake);

21


� During the 4 General Household Surveys carried out in the last 20 years,

walking has consistently come out as the most popular physical activity, scoring two to three times more than the next most popular activities such as swimming, cycling and ‘keep fit’;

� The median age for those who regularly walk two or more miles is 43.

4.1.4 Walkers are probably the most diverse group of users as they include everybody

from the very young to the very old, and those with a wide range of disabilities. They also fall into two distinct groups: those that walk for practical purposes – to get to school, work, shops etc; and those that walk for pleasure, recreation or health. The latter group may be divided into further groups such as dog walkers, casual walkers and ramblers. However, although walkers walk for different reasons their needs are often similar.

4.1.5 Much work has been carried out to improve the pedestrian network within Halton,

with the implementation of the ‘Quality Corridor’ programme. This initiative takes a comprehensive look at the needs of all highway users and develops schemes incorporating a wide range of measures, including safer crossing points for pedestrians and cyclists and a range of facilities to encourage increased levels of cycling and walking, as appropriate. The Quality Corridor schemes, however, concentrate largely on improving the highway network, which mainly benefits those who walk for practical purposes rather than pleasure.

4.1.6 However, the Rights of Way Improvement Plan focuses on the whole network of

non-motorised routes to meet the needs of all walkers for pleasure, recreation, health or practical purposes within urban areas, green spaces and the countryside.

4.1.7 Research carried out by ADAS (formerly Agricultural Advisory Service) for

Bedfordshire County Council as part of their pilot ROWIP took an in depth look at the needs of walkers. The project split recreational walkers into three groups and considered the needs of each group. The findings provide a very useful insight into the general needs of recreational walkers who use Halton’s network of local rights of way. Their findings are summarised below:

Needs of Casual Walkers:

� Natural looking paths – not smooth, artificial surfaces; � Variety of surfaces and terrain (but not too muddy); � Maps and information about routes, so you can chose a route suitable for

your ability; � Paths clear of obstruction; � Way marking – reassurance you are on the right track; � Safety; � Some areas with activities for children; � Benches; � Safe car parking; � Wildlife interest/attractive environment; � No litter, fly tipping; and � No children on bikes.

Needs of Dog Walkers:

22


� Sufficient dog bins that are emptied regularly; � Room for the dog to run off the lead; � Safe for the dog to run off the lead i.e. no vehicles, other walkers, livestock; � Controlled undergrowth; � No stiles or dog gates as dog gates are only suitable for small dogs; � Clear and sufficient signage; � Clear routes across fields; � Lighting in winter on local routes near to the road; � Attractive environment; and � Opportunities for the dog to drink (natural streams, ditches or water supplied

by pubs). Needs of Ramblers:

� Variety – differing grades, surfaces, scenery; � Natural surface and environment; � Not too muddy; � Adequate signage and way marks; � Ideally no busy road crossings, or at least a safe crossing point; � Paths not obstructed – clear across field paths. No obstructions caused by

farmers – headlands not ploughed, narrow paths, rubbish or slurry on paths; � Stiles and bridges in good repair, with gaps or kissing gates instead of stiles; � Adequate public transport for linear routes; � Safe and sufficient parking; � Effective response to complaints; and � Access to the Definitive Map, as required.

4.1.8 Common needs were identified throughout the Bedfordshire survey such as:

� Good way marking and signage; � Safe adequate car parking at start of route; � Paths clear from obstruction and re-instated by landowners; � Well maintained paths and stiles etc, good surface; � Refreshments, facilities and local amenities; � Information about the route/location; � Easy access for those with mobility problems; � Public transport; � Promoted routes/selection of circular walks of different lengths; � Availability of easy to walk routes without difficult stiles; � Attractive views; � No dangerous animals in fields; and � Indication of length of walk/time.

4.1.9 In 2007, Halton commissioned a Rights of Way User Survey6 to establish key factors influencing the use of the rights of way network and other access routes to provide a sound basis for the development of the ROWIP. The headline findings of the survey include:

� 80.5% of respondents stated that they use Public rights of Way and other

access routes in Halton for walking; 6 The Halton Rights of Way User Survey 2007/08 undertaken by Mott MacDonald can be viewed at

www.Halton.gov.uk

23


� Of the above respondents 50.2% stated that they do so for regular journeys e.g. school, work, shops etc and 77.1% for leisure/recreational purposes;

� Those that use the network for regular journeys do so because it is the most direct route (55.8%), a pleasant environment (45.6%) and a safer option than roads (31.6%);

� 62.6% of the above group of users also stated that on average they walked 1-3 miles, with 18% 3-5 miles and 4% 5-10 miles on these journeys. In comparison 45.2% of those that walk for leisure/recreational stated that, on average, they walk 1-3 miles with 34% stating that they walk 3-5 miles and 12.8% 5-10 miles; and

� Just over half of respondents stated that they preferred to use mixed user routes with 37.9% preferring routes for walkers only.

4.1.10 Walkers, along with horse riders and cyclists, are considered as vulnerable road

users. Safety is an important issue amongst these groups and 54.9% of respondents stated that off road routes where most important when developing new and existing routes for walkers. Within the urban areas of the Borough walkers are generally well provided for with ample footway provision and controlled road crossing points. In the more rural areas, the potential for conflict is significant. However, in non-urban areas, footway provision is sporadic and at the points at which the public rights of way network meets highways, walkers usually have to cross at grade with no controls or refuges, or walk along the carriageway to connect to an onward route.

4.1.11 Section 5.6 details, the results of the survey undertaken by Merseyside Information Services, which support many of the responses obtained from the survey undertaken by Bedfordshire detailed on pages 18-20.

4.1.12 Over the 5 year period 2004 to 2008, the following road traffic casualties involving pedestrians, in Halton, were recorded:

• Fatal – 6;

• Serious – 60; and

• Slight – 180. 4.1.13 These figures provide an overview of all collisions involving pedestrians, that have occurred in the Borough. Unfortunately, however, it is not possible to identify accurately from the records, those injuries which involved pedestrians walking to or from or between rights of way.

Policy R2 (U1) Walking - Halton Borough Council will protect and seek to enhance the network available to walkers and cater for their needs. Priority will be given to making the existing network more accessible to those with limited mobility, where appropriate.

4.2 Cyclists 4.2.1 Cycling is a popular low cost method of transport, and the mountain biking

phenomenon of recent years has enabled greater cycle access to the countryside in general and onto unmetalled tracks in both urban and rural areas. The construction of the National Cycle Network Routes NCN62 (Trans Pennine Trail – TPT) and NCN 5 through the Borough has contributed to the increasing popularity of cycling in the area.

24


4.2.2 Put into a National context, the 1996 UK Day Visits Survey found that:

� 32% of the population own a bicycle; � at least one bicycle is available to 50% of homes; � 1.6 million people ride daily; � 5.4 million ride at least weekly; � 17 million of us ride occasionally, equivalent to some 30% of the population.

4.2.3 In 2007, Halton commissioned a cycle survey7 to establish current usage and

expectations of the Borough’s cycle network. The cycle user survey found that:

� 62% of respondents use Public Rights of Way/cycleways and other access routes to cycle regular journeys and 73% for leisure/recreational purposes;

� Those that use the network for regular journeys do so because it is a safer option than roads (67%) and a pleasant environment (68%);

� Of these respondents 50% use the routes to travel to work, however, none of the respondents stated that they cycle to school or college;

� 38% also stated that on average they cycled 3-5 miles on these journeys. In comparison only 19% of those that cycle for leisure/recreational purposes stated that on average they cycle 3-5 miles

� When asked what sort of distance they liked to cycle on leisure or recreational routes 49% of respondents stated 10+ miles and 39% between 6-10miles; and

� Just over half of respondents (55%) stated that they preferred to use mixed user routes with 36% preferring routes for cyclists only.

4.2.4 Again, the work undertaken as part of the Quality Corridor initiative concentrates

largely on improving the highway network for cyclists in the urban areas, where the routes are used for the more practical journeys such as travelling to work and school.

4.2.5 Cyclists, like walkers and horse riders, are considered as vulnerable road users and

45% of respondents stated that off road routes were most important when developing new and existing routes for cyclists. Cyclists are exposed to considerably more danger per distance travelled than most other road users. Although, the potential interaction with vehicular traffic is certainly less of a risk to cyclists than to horse riders due to the level of control most cyclists have over their steeds. However, even in the more rural areas of Halton the potential conflict between cyclists and other road users remains. Whilst cyclists tend to travel quicker along and across the carriageway than walkers, the smaller proportion of Rights of Way or other off road routes accessible to them means that cyclists are likely to risk interacting with vehicular traffic for a greater distance in order to connect to the onward traffic-free route. Cyclists are often not segregated from traffic, and as with walkers there are limited safe crossing points where routes cross busy roads, and the rural cycling network in Halton is very fragmented.

4.2.6 Despite the above, rural cycling can still offer a pleasant experience if highway

conditions allow. This is why recreational cycling focuses on rural areas. As a group, rural cyclists are even more diverse in their needs than those that cycle for

7 The Cycle Survey was circulated to members of cycle user groups who live in Halton. All survey forms issued

included tick boxes to request additional survey forms of interest for example a recipient of the householder survey

could also request a cycle or equestrian survey if they wished.

25


practical reasons, to work or school for example. However, in general terms the need is for reasonably hard (but not necessarily sealed) surfaces to enable the wheels to grip, and adequate width for cyclists to pass one another and other users with the minimum of disruption to either party’s journey.

4.2.7 In a research paper to the Rights of Way Law Review by Palmer (2003) it was

suggested that the rural bike rider can be placed in several categories as follows:

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

� Casual and Occasional Cyclists, who have similar needs to family groups;

� Ramblers on Two Wheels, who are usually more map-literate and so will

probably venture onto the local rights of way network and tend to be more accepting of the variable conditions they will find;

� Active Lifestyle riders (needs not stated);

� Serious Enthusiasts. The Cyclists Touring Club suggest that the key need

of the serious enthusiast is a route of up to 5 hours duration, over terrain suited to their interest. This is validated through research using household surveys and focus groups by Entec (Rights of Way Use & Demand Study 2001), which reveals that mountain bikers (as distinct from those who may ride a mountain bike) prefer more challenging, unsurfaced routes.

4.2.8 In addition, the type of cycle that these groups use also affects their needs, for

example, cycles with panniers, child seats or even tandem cycles can be severely restricted by cycle barriers such as double chicane barriers and those that are put in place to control movement. Also cycles with small wheels, such as children’s bikes or folding cycles will be more affected by rough textured surfaces than larger wheeled bikes.

4.2.9 Over the 5 year period 2004 to 2008 there were the following road traffic accidents involving cyclists in Halton:

• Fatal – 0;

• Serious – 19; and

• Slight – 122. 4.2.10 These figures are borough-wide as the accident rate for cyclists travelling to or from or between rights of way cannot be identified.

Policy R3 (U2) Cycling – Halton Borough Council will protect and seek to enhance the network available to cyclists. Opportunities to expand the available traffic-free and ‘on–road’ networks will be pursued, where appropriate.

4.3 Horse Riders 4.3.1 Horse riding is a popular pursuit in this area and there are a number of livery

stables within the boundaries of Halton. Most of these are in the southern more rural part of the Borough. There are two registered riding schools in Halton, one situated in the northern part of the Borough, which is predominately urbanised and one in the southern part of the Borough. In addition, there are also a number of

26


yards just outside the boundary of Halton from which riders regularly venture onto Halton’s network.

4.3.2 With the current decline in farming, more farmers particularly in the south of the

Borough are diversifying into horse livery. This is especially evident in the parishes of Moore and Daresbury. The farms are also able to supply hay, straw and other feedstuffs to the equine population, which along with diversification helps underpin the rural economy of the Borough.

4.3.3 Put into context, in a 1996 survey by the British Equestrian Trades Association it

was estimated that:

� 1% of the national population are horse owners;

� 3.8% are occasional riders; 4.3.4 The British Horse Society (BHS) released figures in 2001, which updated these

findings. The BHS figures show that 2.4 million people (or 4.5% of the population) ride regularly. Unless most of the 3.8% who were occasional riders have increased the amount that they ride during the intervening 5 years, the figures would suggest that the popularity of horse riding is on the increase. If this is the case, the demand and pressure on facilities including the available network is also going to increase and may perhaps put more riders and their horses at risk of serious injury.

4.3.5 In order to assess the demands and needs of horse riders, two surveys were

commissioned to inform the Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) process. These being:

� An equestrian survey undertaken by Merseyside Information Services (MIS)

in 2007. This was a postal survey and took the form of a general equestrian questionnaire and

� A bridleway study carried out by Groundwork Merseyside (formerly

Groundwork Mersey Valley) in 2007, which concentrated on assessing bridleway usage in the Halton area. This study took the form of questionnaires and face to face interviews with horse owners and the owners of equestrian businesses.

4.3.6 Like cyclists and walkers, horse riders are again considered as vulnerable users,

and in many respects are the most vulnerable. Nationally there are at least 3000 accidents involving horses on roads every year (8 a day) and over 100 horses are killed on roads every year. Recent reports suggest that this figure might be nearer 29.2 per day that is 10,658 per year. The following figures illustrate the problem:

4.3.7 The Equestrian Survey

� 21% of respondents stated that they had had a road traffic accident whilst riding/driving on or alongside roads with 48% stating that they had had near misses;

� The primary requirement for horse riders is to be in a traffic free environment, 74% of respondents stated that off road routes where most important when developing new and existing routes for equestrians;

27


� In the urban environment there are few provisions made for horse riders, and few horse riders venture into that environment through choice; and

� In the non-urban areas provision within the highway boundary for horse margins (a duty under Section 71 of the Highways Act 1980 where ‘desirable or necessary for road safety) is low in terms of positive management. The lack of managed provision of margins increases the risk of interaction with vehicular traffic. The potential for interaction with vehicular traffic is certainly more of a risk to horse-riders than to cyclists due to the level of control most cyclists have over their inanimate mount, as even the most experienced riders on a usually ‘bomb-proof’ horse can occasionally have handling difficulties, due to the presence of larger vehicular traffic e.g. tractors or even other horses.

4.3.8 Again whilst horse-riders tend to travel quicker along and across the carriageway

than walkers, the smaller proportion of rights of way or other off road routes accessible to them mean that they are likely to risk interacting with vehicular traffic and travel for a greater distance in order to connect to the onward traffic-free route. Horse-riders are often not segregated from traffic, and, as with other users, there are limited safe crossing points where the public rights of way cross busy roads, and the bridleway network in Halton is very fragmented.

4.3.9 The Bridleway Study 4.3.9.1The bridleway study showed that horse riders needs are similar to other vulnerable

road users, in that they require ‘off road’ routes and safe crossing points where a route crosses a busy road. A number of ‘off road’ and ‘on road’ hazards where identified by the study. Those of greatest concern are summarised below.

‘On Road’ Hazards: –

� Traffic (53%) – involving speeding drivers, poor manoeuvring and ‘cutting up’ horses;

� Crossing Main Roads (20%) – in particular the A56 Chester Road, with 50

riders regularly using this to access bridleways and longer routes on both sides. 100% of riders questioned from the Moore and Daresbury areas stressed the importance and necessity for a Pegasus crossing across the A56 to link the bridleways network in Halton and Warrington; and

� Lack of signage warning drivers to slow down and watch out for horses

(13%). Other users, such as dog walkers and motorbikes were also equally highlighted as a problem (13%).

‘Off Road’ Hazards; –

� Dogs (29%)

� Overhanging vegetation (20%)

� Surfaces (16%)

4.3.9.2 Like the other users of the network, horse riders feel that it is important that these ‘off road’ routes;

28


� Are free from obstruction and other obstacles like difficult gates, electric

fencing, dogs, bulls, cows and other horses; � Have sufficient head clearance from overhanging trees and branches; � Are not overgrown with vegetation such as brambles and nettles; and � Are well signposted and way marked.

4.3.9.3 However, horse riders also require non-slip level surfaces free from rocks, broken

glass, pieces of metal, pot/rabbit holes etc. They also need to be well drained to prevent poaching8 with a natural surface suitable for horses. Tarmac surfaces are not appropriate for horse riders.

4.3.9.4The bridleway study indicated the following:

� 35% of horse riders in Halton hack out for 1hr, 18% for 1.5hrs and 15%

for 2hrs; this indicates that riders need routes to be at least 5 miles long; � 26% of owners don’t transport their horses outside the Halton area; � 40% of horse owners transport their horses out of the Halton area once a

month; � 7% of riders who participated, actively travel outside Halton to ride about

once a week; � The riders who transported their horses listed such trips as ‘fun rides’,

riding in Delamere Forest, Somerford Park, Hoylake/Beach etc. This shows that local riders are actively leaving the Borough to ride other routes and may indicate a perceived lack of suitable riding routes within Halton. It also indicates that safe parking for horse boxes and trailers is a requirement for many horse riders and should therefore be taken into consideration when looking at access for this group, especially if trying to encourage users from outside the Borough;

� 26% of participants rode out 4 times a week, 22% 5 times and 13% 7 times per week;

� The type of routes that participants would like to ride are circular routes (93%), canter tracks (93%), cross boundary links (64%) and links to National Trails (80%);

� The preferred length for potential routes would be 5-10 miles (38%), long routes with gallops (24%), any length (15%) (quote from rider “some routes whatever the design rather than none”), circular routes with exits (7%) and 1-2 miles (7%); and

� Routes that riders currently use, routes that they want to use e.g a footpath that requires upgrading, a route/link that needs creating or a route that is obstructed etc and those routes that they would like to use but cannot access e.g The Aston Ring, Frodsham Marshes etc. The routes identified are not exhaustive as not all stables were able to participate in the study.

4.3.9.5Full details of the Halton Bridleway Study and plans detailing the identified routes

can be viewed at www.Halton.gov.uk 4.3.9.6Over the 5 year period 2004 to 2008 there were no formally reported road traffic accidents involving horse riders in Halton.

8 Poaching is a term used where the ground becomes cut up and boggy from heavy use, another example would be

where cows regularly gather around water or at a gate

29


4.4 Carriage Drivers 4.4.1 Carriage driving, although not widespread, does occur within Halton. Yet again

carriage drivers are considered as vulnerable road users in the same way as walkers, horse-riders and cyclists. Like vehicular users, carriage drivers have a right to use BOATs (byways open to all traffic) and some RUPPs (roads used as public paths). However, due to the lack of provision they are at present forced to use the road network. In Halton, there are no routes with BOAT or RUPP status currently recorded on the definitive map. Therefore the Council does not hold any data as to the legal use of the rights of way network by this group in Halton.

4.4.2 The Equestrian Survey only produced one response which stated the respondent

was a carriage driver, but that it was not their main involvement in equestrianism. None of the respondents stated that they were a member of the British Driving Association; therefore it is not known how many members, if any, the Association has within Halton.

4.4.3 The Countryside Agency’s Rights of Way Condition Survey 2000 suggests that the

main needs of carriage drivers are very similar to those of horse-riders in that they require routes that are not obstructed by surface vegetation, or low growing trees and branches, surfaces should be well drained and not rutted, flooded or boggy, and routes should not be so narrow as to prevent use. They also share many attributes with horse-riders in terms of being vulnerable road users. Carriages tend to take up more road space than ridden horses and motorists are less likely to try and squeeze past them but they are still vulnerable when interacting with motor vehicles, yet due to the lack of suitable traffic free routes in Halton they are forced to use the road network.

Policy R4 (U3) Horse Riders and Carriage Drivers – Halton Borough Council will protect and seek to enhance the network available to horse riders and carriage drivers. Opportunities to expand and improve the available traffic free and ‘on road’ networks will be given a priority.

4.4.4 Over the 5 year period 2004 to 2008, there were no formally reported road traffic accidents involving carriage drivers in Halton. 4.5 Motor Vehicles 4.5.1 General access for motor vehicles in the Borough is provided for by an extensive

network of highways catering for local and strategic movements This level of vehicle accessibility can bring with it problems for other modes of transport, particularly those considered as being vulnerable, due to the high speed and level of motorised traffic, rat running and the severance caused to other routes.

4.5.2 Recreational off-road driving is generally undertaken within the rural environment,

where drivers can experience the challenge of difficult terrain. 4.5.3 Vehicle users, like carriage drivers, have the right to use BOATs and RUPPs.

Again due to there being no BOATs or RUPPs currently recorded on the definitive maps that cover Halton, the Council does not hold any data as to the legal use of the rights of way network by this group of users.

30


4.5.4 However, illegal use is common, especially by motorcycles and quad bikes, which are often unlicensed machines ridden by young people. Controlling this illegal access on Halton’s rights of way and minor highways networks is difficult to achieve, as standard access controls, designed to prevent unlawful use, also tend to prevent access by legitimate users, especially horse-riders, and those with mobility problems.

4.5.5 Halton therefore adopts a multi-agency approach to manage the illegal use of rights

of way, which is administered through the Halton Safety Partnership. A Tasking and Co-ordinating Group meets each month to discuss and plan solutions to community safety issues. To address ‘off-road’ motorcycle use, the Group has used a variety of options including press and publicity campaigns, targeting retail sales of mini-moto’s and under-age fuel sales at petrol stations to name but a few. Also, at the Groups disposal is a team of off-road motorcycle riders from Cheshire Constabulary’s Traffic Division that has powers to seize unlicensed machines. This multi-agency approach has proved very successful in managing this type of activity.

4.5.6 ‘Off road’ drivers, like any other user, require a connected network of routes that are

free from obstruction. Research carried out by Faber Maunsell on behalf of Nottingham County Council suggests that recreational drivers are happy to share routes with other users, however, recreational drivers also prefer challenging terrain, which often conflicts with the needs of walkers, cyclists and equestrians who require a more convenient surface.

4.5.7 Due to both the lack of routes available to off road drivers and the flat terrain it is

thought that this user group travel further a field to partake in off-road driving.

Policy R5 (U4) Motor Vehicles – In pursuing the aims of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan, Halton Borough Council will have due regard to the rights of motorised vehicular users, where appropriate.

4.6 Access For All 4.6.1 In considering the wide range of needs and demands of the rights of way users,

there is an overarching obligation to ensure that access for those who have both temporary (e.g. push chair users) and permanent mobility difficulties are not adversely affected – ‘Access for All’. These needs can often be conflicting and therefore careful consideration is required to ensure that by addressing the needs of one group, another is not unfairly disadvantaged. For instance, the introduction of a style or a barrier to control illegal use of a right of way can result in the exclusion of whole sections of the community. This issue is discussed in more detail in section 5.7.

4.6.2 The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW Act 2000) requires all local

authorities to take into account the needs of people with visual impairment and mobility problems. Furthermore, Section 69 of the CROW Act 2000 places a duty on local highway authorities to have regard to the needs of people with mobility problems when authorising the erection of barriers on footpaths or bridleways. A wider remit has been used for the purpose of producing Halton’s ROWIP, which includes the needs of other disabled people and older people who have difficulty with ‘intellectual’ access.

31


4.6.3 There are currently an estimated 11 million disabled adults in the UK. Many have less obvious or non-visible impairments arising from mental illness or chronic illness conditions whilst others are more visibly ‘disabled’ due to physical or functional problems and difficulties. In Halton, 21% of the population have a limiting long term illness and 11% are not in good health.

4.6.4 The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) defines disability as ‘a physical or

mental impairment which has a substantial and long term adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities’. This definition includes the following:

� Wheelchair users and ambulant disabled people � People with poor manual co-ordination or little strength � People with sensory impairments � People who lack memory, concentration and understanding

4.6.5 Older people may not consider themselves disabled, but can experience many of

the same barriers because of a general reduction in stamina, mobility and sensory acuity. Demographic changes are resulting in a greater proportion of older people in society. This raises a particular concern in Halton as its percentage of aging population is growing faster than England as a whole; the number of older people aged 65+ is projected to grow by 43% by 2021.

4.6.6 The DDA introduced in 1995 makes it unlawful to discriminate against anyone on

the grounds of his or her disability in connection with employment, public transport, education and the provision of goods or services. Parts II and III of the DDA 1995 apply to service providers’ premises; a term that includes land.

4.6.7 Public rights of way are classified as a service under the terms of the Disability

Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA). This means that Halton Borough Council as highway authority and service provider, must consider the needs of disabled users in all work it carries out. The implications of the DDA Section 21 (2)a,b,c on public rights of way work can be demonstrated by the following extract:

‘From 2004, service providers will have to take reasonable steps to remove, alter or

provide reasonable means of avoiding, physical features that make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service.’

4.6.8 The Act does not outline specific standards, but requires simply that reasonable provision should be made. What should be considered reasonable is not defined and ultimately this will be determined by the courts, although guidance can be found in the Disability Rights Commissions (DRC) Code of Practice (2002).

4.6.9 The Rights of Way Use and Demand Study (Entec, 2001) found that most disabled

users felt that they were victims of tokenism regarding the network currently available to them or promoted for their use. With this in mind, the principles of the DDA need to be fully embraced by the ROWIP as an overarching philosophy, quite apart from meeting any specific minimum physical standards.

4.6.10 The accessibility of the network to all classes of users can be greatly improved by

ensuring the least restrictive option when providing access structures. The modification of path furniture is a relatively straight forward way of increasing access to disabled users with less limiting disabilities, elderly users and family

32


groups with push chairs. For a truly accessible and inclusive network able to accommodate disabled users who have to rely on wheelchairs and mobility scooters or people with larger push chairs/prams: all routes must be barrier free.

4.6.11 Disability issues are not just confined to users who walk. Horse riding and cycling

can greatly increase accessibility for mobility impaired users, although this is often overlooked by providers. In addition, the levels of challenge and capability can vary greatly as much within people with disabilities as any other group of users.

4.6.12 People with disabilities have varying needs and capabilities and their aspirations

are as diverse as any other user group. Highway authorities need to be sensitive to these aspirations for example, disabled use should not only be restricted to just those who walk or use wheelchairs/motorised scooters. Cycling and horse riding can increase access for people with disabilities and therefore consideration needs to be given to these much wider requirements. Over the last 15 years the problems faced by disabled people have been well documented by organisations including the Countryside Agency, Fieldfare Trust and the Sensory Trust, local authorities, the National Trust, Forest Enterprise, National Parks and Trails. The common requirements for physical access to paths and rights of way are summarised below:

Needs of Wheelchair users;

� Signs at eyelevel; � Gates which are easy to open and close, with catches which are easy to

reach and operate; � Space on car parks to transfer from their cars to their chair; � Accessible toilets; � Handrails at appropriate heights with views unrestricted by hand rails or

walls; � Surfaces which are firm, level and non slip, with a minimal cross-fall or

camber on paths. � Spaces to sit next to companions at seats and accessible picnic tables; � Space to pass other users; � Space to turn corners; � Minimum gradients on all paths with level space next to ramps or gates.

Needs of People with Walking Difficulties or Dexterity/Balance Problems:

� Level even surfaces on paths; � Steps with handrails and even treads and risers; � Seats that are easy to rise from; � Minimum gaps in the path surface; � Minimal gradients along and across paths; � Easy to negotiate stiles and gates; � Gates that are not heavy and catches that are easy to operate; � Passing places on paths; � Resting places at regular intervals.

Needs of Visually Impaired People:

� Space to pass other path users; � Clear edges to paths; � Even and clearly marked steps;

33


� Warning of hazards at head height; � Even path surfaces; � Easy to use catches on gates.

4.6.13 The specific needs of people with hearing impairment or learning disability are

primarily about clear information provision and the welcome they receive from on-site staff, such as Rangers or Community Leisure Officers.

4.6.14 The needs of disabled horse riders and cyclists often tend to get overlooked.

However, it is useful to remember that the needs of younger or inexperienced riders can be much the same as older or disabled riders. Like other disabled users, these groups need good information about accessibility such as locations of gates, gradients, surfaces and supporting facilities such as toilets. Like able bodied riders many disabled riders travel to a ride using horseboxes, so location of good parking needs to be considered.

4.6.15 The recent equestrian survey undertaken in Halton although limited did find that the

main requirements of older and disabled riders centre around difficulties with gates. 4.6.16 There is a wealth of information about the needs of people with disabilities and the difficulties they face, however, this needs to be translated into a local context through consultation before priorities and work programmes are set. Only a small number of respondents (16.1%) stated that they had a disability which limited the information obtained on disabled needs. It would therefore seem appropriate to undertake an accessibility study of the Rights of Way network and other access routes to fully understand the needs of disabled people in Halton. It is therefore proposed that this study should identify access routes that are:

� Fully accessible to wheelchair users and other disability vehicles; � That have excellent access for the visually impaired people in Halton; and � Are accessible to elderly and ambulant disabled.

4.6.17 The study should also identify where this is not the case and what if anything can

be done to make the routes more accessible. 4.6.18 Invariably, by taking into account the accessibility needs of people with visual and

mobility problems, the needs of other users are also met. Increasing accessibility can be as much about increasing awareness, confidence and links with transport, as opposed to physical improvements to path surfaces and furniture.

4.6.19 All the above information, supplied by a number of organisations concerned with

disability access, as well as the findings of the Rights of Way Use and Demand Study (Entec 2001), point to three general principles that apply to all disabled groups:

� Route Condition – A good quality path surface of a suitable width with

minimal cambers, and gradients and disabled friendly barriers and access features;

� The Provision of Information – Availability of publicity and information

regarding the suitability of the network so that people with mobility problems are encouraged to make use of public rights of way and can

34


make informed decisions about which paths are suitable for their degree of mobility; and

� Facilities – Parking and toilets suitable for disabled users are particularly

important to disabled users when planning an ‘expedition’.

Barriers to Access

4.6.20When considering the accessibility of local rights of way and other access routes it is all too easy to focus solely on the physical barriers on-site. The Sensory Trust developed the concept of the Access Chain, which was reproduced in the Countryside Agency publication ‘By All Reasonable Means’ (CA215). The concept views access as a chain of events that begins with the decision to visit and ends with the visitor’s safe return home.

� Visitor experience:- If any one of the links in the access chain is

broken, then the visit may end unsatisfactorily or may never happen.

� Decision to visit:- The decision to visit a site or route is normally made at home. If there is insufficient information, or information is not accessible, then the decision is made more difficult or might not be made at all.

� Journey and arrival:- If suitable transport is not available, then the visit

is unlikely to take place. If the site itself is largely inaccessible, then a visitor might feel frustrated and may not return.

� On-site experience:- Access improvements must embrace all the links

that make up the access chain, otherwise piecemeal access improvements are likely to be under used or have little impact

� Return home

Policy R6 (U5) Access for All – In developing and improving the local rights of way network and other access routes, Halton Borough Council will have due regard to the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Council will seek to make the local rights of way network and other access routes as accessible as possible to people through the provision of clear information and by adopting an approach of the least restrictive option in route management, as outlined in Policy R15 (M2) Authorisation and Management of Structures on Local Rights of Way

4.7 Non-Users 4.7.1 It would be easy to focus on provision for the various existing users of the network

as these sections of the community have clear views on what is required to improve the network for their benefit. However, the Statutory Guidance on Rights of Way Improvement Plans published in 2002 by DEFRA states that the Rights of Way Improvement Plan must have regard to future use as well as current demands. It is therefore, necessary to consider why those who do not currently use public rights of way chose not to do so, and what can be done to encourage greater use of the network.

4.7.2 The reasons for non-use of the network are varied. Given the right information

(signing, leaflets etc) and appropriate routes, (absence of barriers, suitable

35


surfacing, a good level of connectivity etc.), many non-users may be encouraged to become regular users. However, it has to be accepted that some non-users will still simply not be interested and have no desire to use public rights of way no matter what provisions are made.

4.7.3 At a national level, the Rights of Way Use and Demand Survey Study (Entec 2001)

established that 44% of households surveyed had no member undertaking activities in the countryside. The main reasons given are shown in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Main Reasons (Nationally) for not undertaking activities in the

countryside

Reason

Too busy/no time 24%

Health Problems 16%

Old Age 13%

Not Interested 12%

4.7.4 From all respondents the main reasons for low use levels are shown in Table 3

below: Table 3: Main Reasons (Nationally) for low levels of use

Reason

Not enough information 58% Routes badly signposted

51%

Routes in a poor state 58% I feel unsafe 44% Not enough routes 45%

4.7.5 In comparison Halton’s household survey identified that 19.5% of respondents don’t use the local Public Rights of Way Network or other access routes for walking in Halton. The reasons stated by these respondents are shown in the following chart:

Chart 1: Reasons for not using Public Rights of Way or other access routes in Halton

36


Reasons given by respondents for Not us ing the PROW

netw ork and other Access Routes for Walking in Halton

Not Intersted

9.1%

Health

Reasons

34.5%

Don't Know

w here they

are

27.3%Don't Feel

Safe

29.1%

Routes

Obstructed

5.5%

No Suitable

Paths Near

Home

9.1%

Lack of

Information

12.7%

Don't Know

w hat they are

14.5%

Other

Reasons

9.1%

You Can't get

there

0%

The Routes

are not w here

you w ant

them

0%

4.7.6 *Note Total percentages are greater than 100% because some respondents gave more than one reason.

4.7.7 9.1% of these respondents stated other reasons for not using the Public Rights of

Way network and other access routes which are shown in Chart 2. Chart 2: Other Reasons for non-use in Halton

Other Reasons

25%

25%

50%

To Busy/No Time

Live to Far Aw ay

Too Old

37


4.7.8 It would seem that the level of usage of the network within Halton is above the national average although non use due to ill health reasons and old age are much higher.

4.7.9 A simple first step to increasing usage of the network might be to improve the available information and/or access to it, and to continue to maintain and signpost all routes as well as possible. This may increase the use of the network by both those who already have an interest and possibly those who are discouraged by a lack of information and perceived barriers.

Policy R7 (U6) Encouraging Greater Use of the Network – Halton Borough Council will seek to raise awareness of the availability and benefits of the rights of way and access network. The Authority will support the aims of other bodies promoting greater use of the network and encourage partner authorities to be pro-active in their efforts to meet the needs of existing and potential users.

5.0 USE, DEMAND AND REASONS FOR ACCESS 5.1 Population Pressure 5.1.1 The size and density of the population will obviously influence demand for access

within an area. In 2001, Halton’s population was 118,208. This represents a steady fall from a peak of 124,815 in mid 1991. The change is a fall of 5.6% overall, or an average of 660 persons a year. Since then the population has begun to increase again to 118,400 in 2003 and 118,900 in 2004. Statistics involving population in this report are based on the 2001 census population figure of 118,208.

5.1.2 The population of Halton is divided by the River Mersey with 51% of the population living south of the river and 49% north of the river. The more rural villages of Moore, Daresbury, Hale and Preston Brook account for 30% of the population.

5.1.3 A substantially urbanised population places a greater impact on the area and the access network within it. The size and density of the population generally increases the usage of the access network, and the reason for that demand may vary dependent on locality. A rural network adjacent to an urban area may have greatest use as a leisure resource, whilst paths within and between urban areas may have a more utilitarian use, such as commuting to work, school, the bus stop or station etc. Size and density of the population as well as increasing the usage can also make it more difficult to use in that roads crossed or otherwise negotiated by those using the public rights of way network are likely to be busier and therefore more dangerous, deterring use by those on public rights of way.

5.2 Socio-Economic Profile and Social Exclusion 5.2.1 Social Exclusion is the result of a number of factors which combine to prevent

individuals from benefiting from the opportunities that most people take for granted. These factors include low income, poor health, lack of education, difficulties in reaching services and no involvement in decisions which affect their future.

5.2.2 The traditional barriers to enjoying Countryside access include –

� Unemployment and poverty;

38


� Lack of private transport; � Lack of information; � Lack of public transport; and � Scared of the unknown.

5.2.3 According to the Index of Deprivation, 2007, Halton ranks as the 30th most deprived

Local Authority in England (out of 354 districts) and 3rd most deprived in the Merseyside area. The unemployment rate at the last census was 4.5%.

5.2.4 Whilst economically poor areas suffer from multiple types of deprivation, they often have good public transport reflecting the low levels of car ownership, which create a greater reliance on walking and cycling for local journeys.

5.2.5 The levels of wealth can also influence demand for access. The majority of affluent

households own at least one car, with levels of ownership decreasing in line with socio-economic status. Other factors affecting car ownership are health, age and personal choice. However, the predominant factor is socio-economic and key statistics drawn from the Census 2001 are summarised in Table 4 below:

Table 4: A Comparison of Key Population Statistics

(Source: 2001 Census)

% of Population

Halton England/Wales Households without a car 29.3 26.8 People with long term illnesses 21.5 18.2 Unemployed 4.5 3.4 Retired 12.8 13.6 No qualifications 34.6 29.1

5.2.6 Transportation is a key element in the regeneration process by providing safe

affordable and convenient access to employment, training, education, health, leisure, retail shopping and social opportunities. However, it is important that the increased accessibility is provided by sustainable means of transport to avoid problems associated with, congestion, delay, pollution and green house gases, arising. These issues are taken very seriously in Halton’s LTP2 and the role played by the rights of way network is acknowledged.

5.2.7 Despite the above, it must be borne in mind that those who live in more rural areas

often do not have the same transport choices as those in urban areas, meaning that many own a car out of necessity rather than choice.

5.2.8 The PRoW network not only assists social inclusion by providing safe routes to key

services, but it also has a less obvious role to play by helping to facilitate Halton’s Supported Employment Schemes.

5.2.9 ‘Supported Employment’ is open to any person of working age who has a disability,

lives in the Halton area, and would like help to find work or training towards work. Groundwork Merseyside runs a Supported Employment project using environmental improvements, which enables people with special needs to play a more active role in their community through a work placement and at the same time gain a recognised qualification in landscape management and conservation.

39


5.2.10 The PRoW maintenance and improvement works identified in the annual works

programme that are undertaken by Groundwork help to support this project.

5.3 Recreation, Leisure and Tourism 5.3.1 It is well known that the origins of the public rights of way network date back to

times when walking played a much greater role in travel. The network was functional, linking farms and villages together. Whilst this network has not changed a great deal, it is acknowledged that its primary use today is recreational, particularly in the less urban areas. This is reflected in the DEFRA Statutory Guidance for the ROWIP which advises authorities to consider the wider benefits, and environmental benefits etc. From this it can be presumed that the focus is on developing a network for recreational use first and for the functional journeys second.

5.3.2 The countryside, particularly on the urban fringe, has for a long time been important

in terms of providing a focus for recreation. With the general reduction in work hours (e.g. increase in temporary/part time working patterns, earlier retirement ages increasing the number of retired people with longer life expectancy), there has never been a greater demand on the facilities the countryside has to offer.

5.3.3 In the Countryside Agency’s ‘The State of the Countryside 1999’ summary, it is

estimated that in 1996, 1.3 billion day visits were made to the English countryside. (A day visit is termed as being one of over three hours duration and primarily for recreation or tourism). This significant number of visits can be equated to roughly 22 day visits per person per year for tourism and recreation. This suggests that the number of day visits generated by Halton residents could be in the region of 2,500,000 per year of which a good proportion are likely to be made within the Borough.

5.3.4 Halton’s countryside does not have any of the traditional ‘honey pot’ sites, although

there are several smaller sites, which are well used by the immediate local population and some visitors. These include the rivers and canal corridors, which are a great resource, along with:

� Wigg Island Visitor Centre; � Norton Priory; � The Catalyst Museum; � Daresbury Church – Lewis Carroll; � Halton Castle; � Trans Pennine Trail; and � Mersey Way.

5.3.5 The majority of these day visits will usually involve an element of walking, cycling or

horse riding, even if in conjunction with car use. The potential effect on Halton both financially and environmentally should not be underestimated as users are often customers of village pubs and other premises serving refreshments, local businesses and shops.

5.3.6 The Countryside is a popular and appealing location for a wide range of leisure

activities. Nationally, half of all day visits take place within five miles of home, and

40


with three out of the four people living in urban areas this demonstrates the importance of the local countryside around towns.

5.3.7 Therefore, it should not be forgotten that Halton’s countryside is a valuable

commodity, especially to its own residents who, for whatever reason e.g. no car, ill health, unemployed etc, cannot travel outside the Borough to be able to enjoy the countryside experience.

5.4 Healthy Living 5.4.1 It is widely acknowledged that moderate, regular exercise is necessary as part of a

healthy lifestyle. Due to the benefits that informal active recreation, particularly walking and cycling, have to offer they have long been a popular method of keeping fit. Little or no specialist equipment is required, although plenty is available, and only basic skills and confidence are required. In addition, the countryside is generally free to use and enjoy and the rights of way network is available 24 hours a day. To gain the health benefits from walking as little as 30 minutes a day is required.

5.4.2 Where horse riding is undertaken as part of a healthy lifestyle the use is more likely

to be limited to the vicinity of the stables/livery, although some riders will travel further a field and horses may be transported by road to a suitable location if necessary. Due to the demands of horse ownership essential exercise of both horse and rider occurs as part of the daily routine.

5.4.3 Walking, cycling and horse riding are all forms of exercise which improve quality of

life and increases the enjoyment of the countryside. Everyone can benefit from exercise regardless of age, size or physical conditions.

5.4.4 The Department of Culture, Media and Sport Strategy Unit Report, 2002, indicates

that nationally a 10 per cent increase in adult activity would save approximately 6,000 lives and £500 million per year.

5.4.5 It is a fair assumption that as the population becomes increasingly health

conscious, demand for and use of the access network will increase. This will be particularly so in the densely populated areas where walking and cycling will be used for both recreational and functional journeys. Horse riding patterns are less likely to change; however, livery yards and stables may increase in number, within the urban, urban fringe and rural areas as the popularity of this activity grows.

5.4.6 In Halton, according to the 2001 census, 67% of the population regard themselves

to be in good health. 5.4.7 As well as moving people with special needs towards employment the Supported

Employment scheme managed by Groundwork Merseyside referred to in section 5.2. also provides valuable health and well being benefits for its participants.

5.5 Commuting and Utility Use 5.5.1 It can be seen from the 2001 Census Key Statistics, below, that walking and cycling

to work (commuting) is relatively low in comparison to journeys made by private or shared motor vehicles.

41


� 71% of Halton’s working population travel to work in private or shared private motor vehicles;

� 8% travel to work using public transport;

� 10% walk to work;

� 2% ride a bicycle to work; and

� 1% travel to work by motorbike or scooter

5.5.2 Despite around 29% of householders not possessing/having access to a motor car,

potential path users are often deterred from undertaking walking and cycling journeys by a number of factors which influence these figures:

� Walking & Cycling Distances – The distance a person will be prepared to

walk or cycle will often deter the use of these modes;

� Increasing Car Ownership, Car Use and Suburban Lifestyles – The move to suburban housing locations brought about by greater income has distanced people from essential services;

� Declining Travel by Public Transport - The increase in the availability and

convenience of cars has resulted in a decrease in demand for public transport;

� Personal Security/Crime Concerns – Real or perceived fears of violence,

particularly at night, encourages many people to use alternative modes of transport; and

� Road Safety Issues – Increased vehicle volumes and greater speeds create

barriers to pedestrian and cyclist movement. 5.5.3 Another utilitarian use of the access network is for children getting to and from

school, which is a form of commuting. In recent years the issue of how children get to school has risen high on the public and political agenda.

5.5.4 The number of children who walk or cycle to school has been steadily declining for

the last decade. Contributing factors to this include the following:

� Concerns over safety of children walking or cycling to and from school;

� The growing size of the catchment areas; and

� The introduction of parental choice over at which school to enrol their children.

5.4.6 The combination of these factors has led to the increased use of the private car on

the ‘school run’. This in turn has led to traffic congestion in and around school

42


localities at opening and closing times. Halton has several initiatives to try to reduce this, including school travel plans, safe routes to school and walking buses.

5.4.7 The following LTP2 objectives have been identified with particular relevance to

commuting and utility use:

� To address and manage both local and strategic travel demand to ensure that the area’s regeneration needs are met;

� To develop a sustainable and integrated transport system that meets the

social, economic and environmental needs of Halton’s residents;

� To manage and maintain the highway network to minimise congestion and delay;

� To resolve problems experienced by socially excluded communities, when

accessing key services, and enhance life chances and employment opportunities;

� To minimise the incidence of personal injury road crashes within the

Borough, through a combination of targeted physical measures and preventative road safety education and training initiatives; and

� To address air quality issues which have an impact on health and the

environment, through the management of travel demand and the provision and encouragement of environmentally sustainable travel choices.

5.6 Latent Demand 5.6.1 The Statutory Guidance on Rights of Way Improvement Plans published by DEFRA

in 2002 explicitly states that the ROWIP must have regard to future use as well as current demands for both local people and visitors to the area. It is therefore important that latent i.e. suppressed demand should be considered in the development of a ROWIP.

5.6.2 Walking and horse riding are on the increase as evidenced by the growth in

membership of relevant interest groups such as the Ramblers Association, British Horse Society and National Trust. The growth in membership of these organisations appears to show no sign of slowing down.

5.6.3 A Gallup Poll commissioned by the CLA in 1998 showed that 80% of respondents

would like to see more access to the countryside, with 41% more likely to visit the countryside more often if there was increased access provision within 5 miles of their home.

5.6.4 As part of the ROWIP process a series of surveys were undertaken by Merseyside

Information Services (MIS). These consisted of a general/walking survey, an equestrian survey, a cycling survey and a landowner survey. Questions regarding disabled access where incorporated into all surveys. The general/walking survey as well as being sent to known users was also used for a random household survey which was sent to 2000 households in the Borough.

43


5.6.5 The general/household survey revealed that 20% of respondents currently don’t use the local path network. The main reasons being given for not using the network being due to ill health (35%) and because they don’t feel safe (29%).

5.6.6 Current users were asked for suggestions as to how the network could be improved

and developed in the future. The main suggestions primarily involved:

� More off road routes; � Better maintenance; � More information about access i.e. suitability for prams/pushchairs/

wheelchairs etc; � Better Signing/way marking; � More improvements to the network e.g. create linkages/circular routes; � Need for improved/safer road crossings; � Physical improvements – more surfaced routes, better surfacing; � Installation of kissing gates instead of stiles and � Better lighting.

5.6.7 When asked what put them off using Rights of Way/walkways and other access

routes only 20% of respondents stated that it was because they don’t know where they are and 5% because they don’t know what they are.

5.6.8 The 6 top issues that discouraged respondents from using Rights of Way and other

access routes were; poorly maintained paths (49%); safety fears (43%); overgrown vegetation (40%); lack of signing/way marking (31%); lack of information (29%).

5.6.9 56% of respondents stated that they don’t use the network as much as they would like and when asked what would encourage them to use them more their responses were; better maintenance of routes (52%); safer routes (44%) and more routes (40%). 9% stated that nothing would encourage them to use them more.

5.6.10 The Halton cycle user survey identified that 70% of respondents don’t cycle as much as they would like, the main reasons given being; not enough time (52%); not enough routes (36%) and too dangerous (20%). When asked what would encourage them to cycle more 54% of respondents stated safer routes; 46% more routes and 31% better maintenance of routes. 12% stated that nothing would encourage them to cycle

5.6.11 The survey asked ‘What puts you off using Public Rights of Way/cycleways and

other access routes? 43% of respondents stated poorly maintained paths; 31% lack of signing/way marking; 31% overgrown vegetation; 26% busy roads and 26% lack of time.

5.6.12 The equestrian survey asked similar questions of horse riders and carriage drivers.

63% of respondents stated that they do not ride/drive as much as they would like. Some of the reasons given included; not enough routes (67%); not enough time (53%); and too dangerous (47%). When asked what would encourage them to ride more, 50% of respondents stated safer routes; 41% more routes and 9% better maintenance. 75% of respondents stated that the routes and land they have access to do not meet their current needs with 83% stating that they will not meet their future needs either. Some of the reasons given where; limited number of routes that do not cross main roads; no direct access to bridleways; roads too dangerous; all off road routes are very short/inadequate.

44


5.6.13 Some of the reasons given as putting respondents off using Rights of Way and

other access routes were; busy roads (63%); lack of information (58%); physical obstructions (54%); problems with gates (54%); busy road crossings (46%); don’t know where they are (46%); routes are inaccessible (42%); poorly maintained paths (42%).

5.6.14 It is clear that the reasons which prevent increased activity amongst current users

and non users differ. Non-users primarily gave reasons of ill health or fear of safety whilst users focused more on physical lack of routes or lack of suitable routes. The attitudes of current users are based on experience gained whilst using the network, whilst the perceived availability of attractive routes is an issue for non-users. It would appear that, all groups, desire the improvement and development of the current network, with cyclists and especially equestrians both wanting more off road routes creating. Although cyclist provision can be further improved, its development has been consistent over the last few years and provision has been substantially increased. The bridleway network is fragmented and provision requires increasing substantially to meet the needs of current and future users.

5.6.15 Halton’s BVPI 178 (footpaths that are easy to use) has consistently been in the upper quartile. This indicates that its PRoW network is generally well maintained. It follows therefore that more research may prove helpful in trying to determine why respondents feel that better maintenance of the network is required to encourage them to use the network more often (see also paragraph 6.4.6) 5.6.16 A Countryside Agency commissioned Use and Demand Survey in 2000 found that

70% of participants would increase countryside access activity if more routes were made available. The study also concluded that any increase in levels of activity is likely to be higher for those who already have an interest, although the level of increase amongst non users would still be significant.

5.6.17 The research also revealed the provision of additional facilities would increase

activity for a variety of journey purposes.

� For health/leisure/recreation - 84%; � Travel to local shops and other amenities - 20%; � Travel to work - 11%; and � Children travelling to school - 9%.

5.7 Conflicting Interests 5.7.1 It can be seen from the previous sections, there are many different and competing

demands for access, both in terms of the mode of travel and the reason for it. Due to the predominantly linear and restrictive nature of the local rights of way network, there is considerable potential for interaction between different users or between users and those who control the land over which a route may pass.

5.7.2 Conflict can occur in a number of situations including:

� Competition between different classes of user as a result of:

• high volumes of traffic on a route or

• individual biases and prior experiences; and

45


� With landowners and land interest groups.

5.7.3 The use of mechanically propelled vehicles on public rights of way and in the wider countryside is a regular cause of conflict throughout the Borough. In many instances this has led to an increasing level of security through the introduction of barriers and gates. This helps protect rights of way, countryside sites and users from the continuing and worsening problem of illegal motorbikes, quads etc. However, such actions also have the potential to deny access to more vulnerable users.

5.7.4 It is generally accepted that the best way to eradicate unsociable behaviour on

routes and to improve safety is to increase the number of legitimate users by improving facilities. Increased legitimate usage not only increases safety for users of the path but also increases security to those properties adjacent to them. In addition, enforcement against anti-social behaviour on paths and misuse by motorbikes, quads, etc is more effective and conducive to a socially inclusive network than the installation of barriers.

Policy R8 (U7) Minimising Conflict - In pursuing the aims of its Rights of Way Improvement Plan, Halton Borough Council will seek to ensure that the rights of farmers/landowners are respected and encourage responsible use of the network. Where appropriate, the Authority will initiate measures to minimise conflict between users.

5.8 Landowning and Farming Interests 5.8.1 The involvement of the farming/landowning community is essential in the provision

of a successful public rights of way network. In addition to involvement in the management of the current network, their support will be required in the future provision of additional public access.

5.8.2 As part of the ROWIP consultation process a Farmer/landowner Survey was

undertaken to gauge the attitudes of local farmers towards countryside access. Unfortunately, only eight of the landowners/farmers surveyed responded and therefore care has to be taken in interpreting the results. However, they do provide a useful insight into the problems experienced by these key stakeholders.

5.8.3 Farmers’ attitudes towards public access were as follows based upon seven valid responses:–

� I welcome public access across my land 14% � I am happy to allow responsible users 43% � I would prefer to have no public access 43%

5.8.4 All the landowners/farmers that responded indicated that they had a serious

problem with fly tipping. However, it is likely that this problem would arise regardless of the presence of public access. Nevertheless, most of the farmers/landowners felt that they experienced a problem as a direct result of path users.

5.8.5 Unfortunately, this view reflects a common perception that countryside access by

the public is problematic, which results in landowners/farmers being unwilling to

46


create additional routes. Only one of the respondents stated that they would allow a public footpath to be created on their land in the future.

5.8.6 Seven out of eight, (88%) of respondents stated that they would allow no types of

new public access to be created on their land in the future, this therefore presents a significant problem in developing the rights of way network. Clearly there is much work to be done with the landowners/farmers if new routes are to be established, to secure their confidence in our ability to address their concerns.

6.0 CURRENT PROVISION 6.1 The Public Rights of Way Network 6.1.1 The public rights of way network provides the public with a great opportunity to

explore the countryside. It enables people to get away from urban areas and enjoy parts of the countryside they would not otherwise have access to.

6.1.2 The public rights of way network has evolved over hundreds of years. Many public

paths were originally used as a means of travelling to coal mines, churches or local markets. The network remains important and provides a convenient means of travelling in both rural and urban areas for a variety of journey purposes, including access to leisure and employment.

6.1.3 Following Local Government Reorganisation in 1998, Halton Borough Council

became a Unitary Authority. As a result of this, the Council became the highway authority in its own right and inherited, from Cheshire County Council, the responsibilities to maintain and protect all public highways, including public rights of way.

6.1.4 The majority of Halton’s public rights of way network comprises of public footpaths

and bridleways that were identified and recorded under the provisions of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. These public rights are recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement, which are legal documents and are conclusive evidence that the rights exist. Both the Definitive Map and Statement are maintained by the Council.

6.1.5 Currently, Halton’s network stands at approximately 74km of public rights of way the

larger proportion of which (71km) are recorded as footpaths providing access for walkers. However, provision for horse riders and cyclists is limited to approx 3km of bridleways, which are also available to walkers. Table 5 summarises the situation with regards to public rights of way in Halton.

Table 5: Public Rights of Way in Halton Definitive Status Available to Approx

Length (kms)

Approx % of length of network

Number of Paths

Approx % of Number of paths

Footpath Walkers

71km

96

163

93

Bridleway Walkers, Horse Riders, Cyclists

3km

4

12

7

Total 74km 100% 175 100%

47


6.1.6 It can be seen from Table 5 that walkers are legally entitled to use the entire

definitive public rights of way network in Halton, compared to only 4% of the network being legally available to horse riders and cyclists.

6.1.7 As there are no legally recorded BOATs (byways open to all traffic) or RUPPs (roads used as public paths) in Halton, there are no public rights of way available to vehicular users and carriage drivers.

6.1.8 Whilst considerable progress has been made in recent years the public rights of way network is still somewhat fragmented, especially the bridleway network, which is shown in Figure 29. This fragmentation not only discourages greater use of the network, but also forces walkers, horse riders and cyclists onto busy roads where motorised traffic dominates. This fragmentation is worsened by the fact that the existing routes are frequently severed by busy roads, further reducing the attractiveness of the route

Fig 2: Distribution of Public Rights of Way in Halton

KEY:

FOOTPATHS

BRIDLEWAYS

Policy R9 (Imp1) Improving Network Connections – Halton Borough Council recognises that one of the biggest problems faced by users is the lack of connectivity of the internal and cross boundary networks, especially bridleways. Where problems are identified, opportunities will be sought to improve connectivity, where appropriate, with priority given to multi-user connections.

9 Figure 2 and subsequent figures only provide an indicative representation of the length and location of routes within

the Borough. The provision of detailed location plans is beyond the scope of this document.

48


Policy R10 (Imp2) Improving Network Safety – Halton Borough Council will seek improvements to the safety of vulnerable users where they have cause to cross a highway in order to access the local rights of way network and other access routes. Where safety is identified as being a concern, the Authority will consider a wide range of options such as revised verge management, improved visibility, signing etc. Priority will be given to improving those routes which cater for a combination of horse riders, cyclists and walkers.

6.2 The State of the Network 6.2.1 In April 1998, Halton Borough Council inherited a network that was, on the whole, in

a reasonable condition although there were a number of paths that required substantial works to bring them back to an acceptable standard. However, the same cannot be said for the Definitive Map and Statements that the Council inherited. Despite considerable resources being deployed into this area of work there is still a considerable amount to do in updating the Definitive Maps and Statements, as they are nearly 50 years out of date.

6.2.2 In 1987 the Countryside Commission (later renamed the Countryside Agency and

now Natural England), through its’ Milestones Initiative, identified three principles for achieving a useful and useable rights of way network. The ‘Milestones’ approach assisted Local Authorities in meeting the three national targets:

� Legally Defined

� Properly Maintained – Ensuring that public rights of way are open and

available so that any user is able to: find the start of any public right of way; follow the line of any public right of way, if necessary with the help of waymarks, guide books or map; and use any path in accordance with its legal status.

� Well Publicised.

6.2.3 These principals are still relevant to the current management of the rights of way

network and will provide the basis for its future development. 6.2.4 A legally defined, properly maintained and well promoted public rights of way

network is of great value to people who live in the Borough, as well as those who visit. A poorly maintained network creates problems not only for users, but also for farmers and landowners who may suffer trespass and damage as a result.

6.3 Legally Defined 6.3.1 All public rights of way are required by law to be recorded on the Definitive Map,

which is the legal record of all those rights recorded on it. Under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Council is under a duty to keep the Definitive Map under continuous review. This means ensuring that the legal records are kept up to date and reflect the true situation on the ground.

6.3.2 In addition to the above, section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 requires the

authority to make a ‘List of Streets’ within its area which, are highways, maintainable at public expense. A ‘street’ is defined in the Act as any road, lane,

49


footpath, square, court, alley, or passage. The list should include all footpaths, bridleways and carriageways, which are maintainable at public expense, whether or not they are shown on the Definitive Map. Work is progressing on this matter, but there is still much to do. However, Halton is not alone on this issue.

6.3.3 It is therefore a statutory duty to keep the Definitive Map and Statement up to date

and under continuous review. It is also a Statutory duty to have all publicly maintainable rights of way recorded on the ‘List of Streets’ and paths on the list shown on the Map.

6.3.4 Through the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW Act), the

Government set a deadline of 25 years for registering forgotten historic footpaths and bridleways on the local definitive maps of the rights of way network. Section 53 of the CROW Act provides that on 1st January 2026 all historic rights of way that have not been recorded on the Definitive Map and statement will be extinguished. However, Section 54 provides criteria whereby certain highways and rights of way are exempt from the cut off date contained within Section 53.

6.3.5 As indicated above, the List of Streets is a local highway authority’s record of all

highways that are maintainable at public expense; it is not a record of what legal rights exist over that highway. There is no exemption, under sections 53 or 54 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, from the extinguishment of unrecorded rights over a way on the basis that it is shown on the list of streets.

6.3.6 Consequently, any route that on 1st January 2026 is shown on the List of Streets but

not on the Definitive Map will have any unrecorded rights extinguished, subject to the terms of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

6.3.7 Halton recognises its responsibilities to ensure that any unrecorded footpath,

bridleway or restricted byway rights are recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement by the cut-off date of 1 January 2026, regardless of whether they are also shown on the ‘List of Streets’ and every effort will be made, within the constraints of available budgets, to address this issue.

6.3.8 The Definitive Map and Statement are the legal documents that form the basis for

all public rights of way work and the Council recognises its responsibilities in keeping them up to date to enable accurate information to be made available to the public, landowners and prospective developers.

6.3.9 Legal Event Modification Orders (LEMO) 6.3.9.1Every time a path is created, extinguished or diverted a legal order is required to

effect the actual changes on the ground. These are often referred to as Public Path Orders (PPO). These orders do not, however, allow the Definitive Map to be amended to reflect the change made on the ground. A separate Definitive Map Modification Order is required to do this. These are often referred to as Legal Event Modification Orders (LEMO).

6.3.9.2The fact that the LEMO process was not introduced until 30 years after the original

Definitive Maps were produced, has caused problems nationally. In many authorities, including Halton, there is a backlog of PPOs that still require a LEMO to be made. The updating of the Definitive Map has been ongoing since approximately 2001 and slow but steady progress is being made. Five Legal Event

50


Modification Orders have been processed to date covering the Parishes of Preston Brook, Daresbury, Runcorn, Sutton and Norton. On completion of the review the Council will publish an updated Definitive Map with a new relevant date.

6.3.9.3Paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 inserted

a new Section 53A into the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This enables authorities to make a combined order to both change the rights of way network and at the same time modify the Definitive Map, in a single order, to take account of the change. However, authorities may continue to make separate orders if they wish.

6.3.9.4These powers were enabled on 6th April 2008, when new regulations came into

force entitled ‘The Public Rights of Way (Combined Orders) (England) Regulations 2008’.

6.3.9.5The following descriptions of order are prescribed as orders to which section 53A of

the Act applies:

a) Those made under any of the following provisions of the Highways Act 1980:

� section 26 (compulsory powers of creation of footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways);

� section 118 (stopping up of footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways);

� section 118A (stopping up of footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways crossing railways);

� subsection (4) of section 118B (stopping up of certain highways for purposes of crime prevention, etc);

� section 119 (diversion of footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways);

� section 119A (diversion of footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways crossing railways);

� subsection (4) of section 119B (diversion of certain highways for purposes of crime prevention, etc);

� section 119D (diversion of certain highways for protection of sites of special scientific interest);

6.3.9.5.1 However, the legislation does not apply to orders made under

section 116 of the Highways Act 1980.

b) Those made under section 32 (power to extinguish certain public rights of way) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981;

c) Those made under section 294 (extinguishment of public rights of way over acquired land) of the Housing Act 1985;

d) Those made under any of these provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;

� subsection (2A) of section 247 (highways affected by development

orders by Secretary of State); � section 257 (footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways affected

by development: orders by other authorities);

51


� subsection (1) of section 258 (extinguishment of public rights of way over land held for planning purposes).

. 6.3.9.6Paragraph 6 of schedule 5, Part I to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

inserts a new subsection (3A) into Section 56 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This requires authorities to determine the relevant date for orders to which section 53A applies, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State. Previously, modification orders could be made at any time after the order had taken effect and therefore the determination of the relevant date could be a somewhat arbitrary process.

6.3.9.7The relevant date under the new legislation is specified as the date upon which the stopping up (which is also referred to as an extinguishment), diversion or creation of the path comes fully into effect.

6.3.9.8The main purpose of the legislation is to remove the necessity for authorities to

make two separate orders by enabling the initial order to also effect modification of the Definitive Map.

6.3.9.9This legislation is not retrospective and only applies to new orders. Therefore it

does not apply to any current backlog of orders, but should ensure these do not increase. This will hopefully assist authorities in updating their Definitive Maps and Statement and reduce timescales for the production of up to date maps. At present, Halton uses the stopping up/diversion order provisions under s.116 of the Highways Act 1980 to progress the updating of the definitive map for rights of way which have previously been extinguished or diverted but where, unfortunately, no order can be found to confirm this event. Therefore, for the foreseeable future Halton will have to continue with the time consuming two order process i.e a Section 116 Order together with a Legal Event Modification Order.

6.3.9.10Halton has a number of separate definitive maps for its area which were inherited

from other authorities as a result of local government re-organisations. These maps will have to be merged into one map covering the whole area when the Council consolidates its Definitive Map and Statement.

6.3.10 Applications for Definitive Map Modification Orders (DMMO) 6.3.10.1The authority has a duty to amend the Definitive Map when it discovers that a

change is required. This can result, for example, when an unrecorded path is found to exist and requires a Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) to be processed to add the path to the Map. The process does not actually create or extinguish any public rights, it only seeks to ensure that the legal records accurately reflect the existing situation.

6.3.10.2The DMMO making process is lengthy and complex, involving much historical

research and the gathering of user evidence. These orders are commonly referred to as evidential DMMO’s and they are often contentious and in many instances require a Public Inquiry.

6.3.10.3Any person has a legal right to apply for a DMMO and the Authority should

determine such applications within twelve months of receipt. If it does not, the applicant has a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. However, the Department of the Environment in their Circular 2/93 recognised the backlog of work faced by

52


authorities and advised that the Secretary of State will take into consideration any published ’Statement of Priorities’ when considering an application for a direction to determine DMMO applications. Halton has published such a statement, which places the making of legal event modification orders covering the period 1953-2003, and the consolidation of the definitive maps and statements as being the highest priorities. As a result, applications for evidential DMMO’s are dealt with as a lesser priority and sequentially. However, should an urgent evidential DMMO issue arise, the Council reserves the right to give it priority over earlier applications and other work. To date there has only been one formal application received and this was returned as it was incomplete.

6.3.11 Lost ways 6.3.11.1To compound the Definitive Map problem, Sections 53-56 of the Countryside and

Rights of Way Act 2000 introduced the concept of ‘closing’ the Definitive Map. In effect this means that any historic public rights of way which, existed prior to 1949, and is not recorded on the Definitive Map by 2026, will be extinguished and lost forever. This is a particular concern to Halton, as Liverpool City Council was unable to produce a Definitive Map, prior to boundary changes being implemented, which brought an area around Hale under Halton’s responsibility.

6.3.11.2The ‘Discovering Lost Ways’ project was initiated by the former Countryside

Agency to rediscover unrecorded historic rights of way and to ensure that they are recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement before the cut-off date of 1st January 2026. In July 2004, a contract was awarded to Land Aspects to undertake archival research and to develop the project. Cheshire County Council and Wiltshire County Council were chosen to act as pilots in the lead phase and Land Aspects’ Archive Research Unit (ARU) commenced research in Cheshire’s County Record Office early in 2005.

6.3.11.3Since that time, the ARU has been working through documents in the archives to

build up a system of electronic maps to overlay local authorities’ existing Definitive Maps and Lists of Streets, to enable gaps to be identified and claims made. As part of Halton’s area was included within the boundaries of Cheshire before 1974, this was able to be included in this first wave of the project. The project was expected to provide case files which could result in the need for Definitive Map Modification Orders to record currently unrecorded paths or paths recorded at too low a status.

6.3.11.4However, it is now 6 years (more than a quarter of the way into the 25 year period before the cut-off date) since the Government set up the £15 million initiative, during which time the programme was rolled out to cover other areas, and not a single path has been formally recorded by the project. This is particularly disappointing as an estimated £4.5m has so far been spent and there were only 5 applications sent to the former Cheshire County Council and 20 case files sent to Shropshire County Council.

6.3.11.5Although historic research was completed for Cheshire and a start made for Wirral & Warrington the ARU never got beyond liaising with ourselves over establishing a baseline for research for the Halton area.

6.3.11.6In 2007, Natural England undertook a review of the project to assess its effectiveness. In February 2008, a report on the review was presented to Ministers, which concluded that researching the lost ways was extremely resource

53


intensive and that even if it was to adopt a policy of pursuing ‘high quality’ routes, it would still require exhaustive and costly research. Natural England saw the way forward in terms of:

� progressing from its current role of researching and claiming individual lost ways to providing advice and guidance to those that wish to do so at their own initiative;

� facilitating a fundamental review of the legislation and current processes that underpin the provision of access;

� working with stakeholders on the review; � building and encouraging further progress with the Rights of Way

Improvement Plans (ROWIPs) prepared by local highway authorities; and � seeking to invest the money saved on the current Discovering Lost Ways

project approach to deliver this work. 6.3.11.7Significantly, Natural England’s review has highlighted that the term ‘Discovering

Lost Ways’ is in fact largely a misnomer, as many historic routes are not in fact ‘lost’. They are currently used and in existence, but are simply not recorded on the Definitive Map. Around 50% of routes identified in Cheshire and around 70% in Shropshire appear from map analysis to be un-gated, fenced green lanes and surfaced tracks. Site visits verify that many of these are in fact in use, and a significant number of these tracks have recorded routes leading off them. In addition, around 10-15% of the routes identified to date are upgrades in status from an existing right of way. That is the public’s rights along it are under-recorded – for example, a bridleway being simply shown on the Map as a footpath. Truly lost, unused routes are therefore in the minority.

6.3.11.8Jonathan Shaw, the Minister for Marine, Landscape and Rural Affairs, has subsequently agreed to Natural England’s recommendations. He has also agreed that implementation of sections 53 to 56 of the CROW ACT (the cut-off date provisions) will not be pursued, at least until the stakeholder group proposed by Natural England has looked again at the legislation and has reported on its conclusions. Clearly this ‘fundamental review of the legislation’ presents us with a tremendous opportunity to bring some much-needed improvements to Rights of Way law and Halton would be happy to play its part in this review.

6.3.12 Definitive Statements 6.3.12.1The Definitive Statements attached to the Definitive Map should record details

relating to the alignment, width etc of individual paths. Unfortunately the Statement inherited from the former Cheshire County Council that covers the south of the Borough contains little information or detail of use. In order to address this situation Halton will produce an updated statement for the paths affected, by researching existing information and undertaking surveys as necessary.

6.3.12.2In Halton, the Public Rights of Way are being recorded on a database known as

the Countryside Access Management System (CAMs). This system is being used to record all the changes that have occurred to the network over the last approximately 50 years and to produce a new updated Definitive Map and Statement.

54


Policy R11 (L1) Dealing with Public Path Orders – Public Path Order (PPO) applications will normally be supported by the Authority where there is seen to be benefits to both landowner and user. PPO’s will normally be processed in the order in which they are received, except in the following circumstances where orders may be considered sooner: � Where processing of an order would allow the Council to pursue a significant

access opportunity such as identified through the Rights of Way Improvement Plan;

� Where an order has been made by the Council in the capacity as Planning Authority to facilitate approved development;

� Where the processing of an order could save significant costs incurred in other Rights of Way functions; and

� Where public safety can be improved. PPO’s will be prioritised as above to enable orders to be made that have a significant impact on the path network.

Policy R12 (L2) Dedications and Creation Agreements – Halton Borough Council has powers to accept the dedication of a new right of way under Section 25 of the Highways Act 1980. Agreements will be considered: � Where a dedication is offered in lieu of a Modification Order and satisfies the

evidence for that order, enabling the early addition of the route to the Definitive Map; and

� Where the requirement to make a dedication forms part of an obligation under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Section 106.

Maintenance liability will normally only be accepted where: � The addition of a path is of strategic public benefit; � No initial additional expenditure by the Authority is necessary to bring a path into

a fit state of use; and � Limitations on the use of the route are not onerous to the public. The Council will also consider dedication or creation agreements that secure a line/corridor through which it intends to develop a future route, previously identified through the Greenways Study, Bridleways Studies, ROWIP etc. When pursuing such agreements physical works may or may not be required by the landowner and any ensuing maintenance liabilities will be accepted by the Council.

55


Policy R13 (L3) Width of New Routes – Halton Borough Council has a duty to assert the rights of the public (Highways Act 1980, Section 130) when making orders or consulting on new routes. As a result, the Authority requires a minimum width of 2m for footpaths and 4m for bridleways, which are created by a Public Path Order (PPO) or dedication, except where a path has been previously fenced on both sides, when there is the presumption that the full available width should be recorded as the width. Where possible a ‘gold standard’ width of 5m for bridleways will be sought. For Greenway routes intended for all users and those routes that are considered to be of strategic importance, the Council will seek a width of 10m to cater for the different classes of user and to allow for the provision of trees, hedges and benches to enable walkers to rest. However, the Council recognises that sometimes it will be necessary to accept a lesser width or localised narrowing in order to create a route. It will therefore, endeavour to achieve the best and most appropriate width that fits the route’s proposed purpose and its surroundings.

6.4 Properly Maintained 6.4.1 Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 places a duty on highway authorities to

maintain all highways known to be maintainable at public expense. The exact level and nature of this maintenance duty is not specified. The matter has, however, been considered by the courts in the case of (R v High Halden) (1859) and it was held that ‘the authority was under a duty to put a highway in such repair as to be reasonably passable for the ordinary traffic of the neighbourhood at all seasons of the year’ (Riddall and Trevelyan, Rights of Way Law and Practice, 2001)

6.4.2 Footpaths and Bridleways recorded on the Definitive Map are highways

maintainable at public expense unless otherwise stated and therefore the Council has a duty to maintain them.

6.4.3 The Rights of Way Act 1990 outlines the maintenance responsibilities of

farmers/land owners and local authorities. It provides guidance for farmers/land owners in particular with regards to ploughing and cropping. The Council has a duty to ensure this Act is complied with and has the power to take enforcement action or even prosecute, if necessary. Halton is fortunate, in that generally the farmers/land owners within the Borough do comply with the Act and as a result we receive very few complaints of this nature.

6.4.4 Halton is also fortunate in that it works very closely with Groundwork Merseyside

(formerly Groundwork Mersey Valley) who due to their good relations with the farmers/landowners are usually able to resolve issues quickly and without the need for enforcement action by the Council.

6.4.5 Under the law, it is the landowners or occupiers responsibility to erect and maintain

stiles and gates on public rights of way. Halton Borough Council, as highway authority, has a duty to provide a minimum of 25% grant towards this work. The current policy employed by Halton requires all work to be carried out by its approved contractors. This achieves a significantly higher standard of work and

56


greater degree of uniformity across the Borough, within a reasonable timescale and cost. In order to meet its obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA), the Council generally looks to replace stiles with gates where appropriate, but only after confirming that it is still necessary to have a stile or gate

6.4.6 Not withstanding the above, the majority of the maintenance responsibility falls on

the authority and with the limited budget available it is not always possible to maintain all the paths to a standard the public expect, e.g. all paths signposted, urban paths surfaced and rural paths either surfaced or cut regularly.

6.4.7 As well as recording the legal issues relating to the rights of way network, the CAMs

system also has the ability to assist with other management issues and it is intended to utilise these once the legal aspect of the work has been completed. These other elements of the system can be used for maintenance purposes, recording reported problems, landowner records etc.

Policy R15 (M2) Authorisation and Management of Structures on Local Rights of Way – Halton Borough Council will seek to keep the number of newly authorised structures erected on the local Rights of Way network to a minimum, to minimise the impact on legitimate users. In order to achieve this, only gates will normally be authorised to avoid unnecessary problems caused by stiles. In most cases the least restrictive option available will be favoured, although careful consideration will be given to the needs of the farmers and horse owners for structures to be stock proof and any historic value prior, to replacement. It should be noted that where a structure is no longer needed for stock control purposes and does not meet the criteria for authorisation, the Authority will seek the removal of that structure, leaving a clearly ‘way marked’ gap.

Policy R14 (M1) – Maintenance of the Network – Halton Borough Council has a duty to assert and protect the rights of the public to enjoy the path network (Highways Act 1980 S130). The Authority will normally prioritise its actions as follows, whilst minimising their impact on the natural and built environment:-

� Where public safety can be improved; � According to the level of public use; � Where the Council feels there would be a significant benefit to those

with limited mobility; � Where the Council’s actions could result in a significant positive impact

on the local rights of way network; � Where actions by landowners and managers are in direct conflict with

the Highways Act 1980; � Where the Council is bringing a path into a ‘fit’ condition with the

intention of adding it to the Definitive Map; and � Where there is evidence that either the Definitive Map or Statement is

incorrect.

57


Policy R16 (M3) Authorising new Bridges and Associated Structures on Local Rights of Way – Where a landowner creates a new ditch, pond or channel that crosses an existing right of way, a suitable bridge or structure must be provided, which can accommodate all legitimate users safely and without restriction.

Policy R17 (M4) Enforcing the Removal of Agricultural Obstructions – Halton Borough Council will endeavour to resolve any agricultural obstructions by negotiation with the landowner/farmer. However, where this fails, the Council will take action to address the identified problem, using its powers under Sections 134 and 137A of the Highways Act 1980.

6.4.8 Performance Management 6.4.8.1The condition of Halton’s public rights of way network is evaluated each year using

the nationally recognised indicator, which is based on the ease of use of the public rights of way network, previously known as BVPI 178. This indicator is defined as the percentage of total lengths of footpaths and other rights of way, which are easy to use by members of the public. The methodology adopted by the Council was developed by the CSS Countryside Working Group and approved by the Audit Commission.

6.4.8.2In order to assess the condition of the rights of way network, a random sample of

approx 33% of the network was inspected annually between 2002/03 and 2006/07. This equated to approx 25km of the network of which 12.5km was inspected in May and a further 12.5km in November. The survey was undertaken in spring and autumn to allow for the differences in the type of problems caused by varying weather conditions and the farming year.

6.4.8.3Halton’s Performance indicator figures are shown in Table 6:

Table 6: Halton’s Performance Indicator Figures

ACTUAL 2002/2003

ACTUAL 2003/2004

ACTUAL 2004/2005

ACTUAL 2005/2006

ACTUAL 2006/2007

ACTUAL 2007/2008

ACTUAL 2008/2009

BVPI 178

85%

95%

95%

96%

94%

94%*

88%*

* - Full surveys of the network undertaken.

6.4.8.4The fact that, a random selection of paths was surveyed, between 2002/3 and 2006/7, meant that the results were variable each year, and predictions of future performance were difficult to make. The selection of paths by length, also meant that one path could be a significant proportion of the sample, and if that path failed even on a minor issue this could seriously affect the overall outcome of the survey.

6.4.8.5In order to address this issue a full network survey was carried out during the months of May and November 2007 and it is intended that full surveys of the network will still be undertaken subject to the availability of funding as this will assist

58


in setting realistic future targets. It will also mean that eventually performance will not be able to progress unless certain long term issues are resolved. It is hoped that the information will assist in obtaining the required support to progress certain long term issues with some paths.

6.4.8.6The new National Indicator set, which replaces the previous set of BVPI indicators, does not have an equivalent indicator for BVPI 178. However, it is believed that the annual inspection of the network is a good way of identifying work that is required, and it is therefore proposed to retain the PRoW indicator, as a local indicator within our LTP.

6.5 Well Publicised 6.5.1 The Council is in the process of producing a series of leaflets entitled ‘Halton’s

Villages’ promoting walks of varying lengths and for a range of abilities, which use the existing rights of way network and other means of access. To date six leaflets have been produced in the series –

No1 - Walks around Moore; No2 - Walks around Preston Brook; No3 - Walks around Daresbury; No4 - Walks around Hale; No5 - Walks around Farnworth; and No6 - Walks around West Bank.

6.5.2 It is the intention to produce at least one of these leaflets every year until access on

both sides of the river has been promoted. 6.5.3 The Council is also currently developing a comprehensive Rights of Way web page

covering all aspects of rights of way procedures and locally relevant information. Eventually the web page will provide a comprehensive library of rights of way information covering: rights and responsibilities; the Definitive Map; Diversions; the Halton Villages Leaflets; and documents such as the Council’s Milestone Statement etc. This is considered to be an important development in promoting, developing and protecting rights of way in the Borough.

6.5.4 The Rights of Way web page will be available shortly at www.Halton.gov.uk.

6.5.5 There are a number of areas of land and paths in the Borough, to which the public have access, which are managed by different public and private bodies and as such are difficult to promote. The differing standards of signposting and promotion adopted by these organisations, can also lead to a lack of awareness of the existence of the wider network. These issues require further attention to maximise the benefits offered by the rights of way network and therefore the Council will endeavour to work with landowners to resolve these matters.

6.6 The Wider Network 6.6.1 Halton has a relatively large number of public open spaces and parks for which it is

responsible, ten of which also have local nature reserve status (seeTable 7). These sites add value to the facilities offered by the rights of way network by providing an unmapped network of amenity paths. The Council also has 31 playground sites

59


within its ownership. However, as with the public rights of way network the nature and distribution of the open space varies from locality to locality. Table 7: Routes within Public Open Spaces & Parks

SITE

LOCATION

ACCESS AVAILABLE

Widnes

On

Foot

Cycle

Horse

Wheel Chair

1 Arley Woods Arley Drive

√

√

√

2 Clinton Wood LNR

Lakeside Close

√

√

3 Crow Wood Park Bancroft Road

√

√

√

4 Hale Lighthouse Within Way

√

√

√

5 Hale Village Church End

√

6 Hough Green Park

Royal Avenue

√

√

√

7 Pickerings Pasture LNR

Mersey View Road

√

√

√

8 Spike Island Upper Mersey Road

√

√

√

9 Sunnybank Barrows Green Lane

√

√

√

√

10 Upton Rocks Park

Falkirk Avenue

√

√

√

11 Victoria Park Fairfield Road

√

√

Runcorn

12 Daresbury Firs LNR

Delph Lane

√

13 Murdishaw Valley LNR

Murdishaw Avenue

√

√

14 Oxmoor LNR Warrington Road

√

15 Rock Park Pavillion

Union Street

√

√

√

16 Runcorn Hill Park/Heath Park

Highlands Road √

√

17 Town Hall Heath Road √ √ √

60


18 Town Park Stockham Lane √

√

√

√

19 Wigg Island Community Park

Astmoor Lane √

√

√

√

6.6.2 In addition to the Council owned or managed sites there are a small number of

privately owned sites such as those owned by the Woodland Trust. Some of these sites have public access by means of rights of way, which run through them and some provide permissive access routes only.

6.6.3 Sandymoor Bridleways 6.6.3.1South of the River Mersey in the Moore, Sandymoor and Murdishaw areas there is

also a network of approximately 14.3km of non-statutory bridleway routes within areas of open space. Some of these routes were transferred to Halton under Community Related Assets (CRA) from the Commission for New Towns (CNT) and latterly English Partnerships (now part of the Homes and Communities Agency). These routes were a superb asset providing much needed bridleway facilities and an excellent base from which to develop boroughwide and cross boundary networks. Although Council owned, the routes have never been formalised, and due to a lack of funding, their condition has deteriorated significantly.

6.6.3.2The maintenance issues identified by respondents in the Bridleways Study all

related to these non statutory routes.

6.6.3.3It is therefore proposed that those bridleways that cross Council land be dedicated and recorded on the Definitive Map. Whilst some of the other routes will require further investigation before they can be addressed, this would be an important step in developing a well connective bridleway network.

Fig 3: Sandymoor Bridleways

61


/

KEY:

BRIDLEWAY

6.6.4 CRA Bridleways in General 6.6.4.1Other bridleway routes were handed over to the Council, as part of CRA I and II.

These routes would also benefit from an improved maintenance regime although some may actually be the responsibility of another landowner and not the Council. As such, these routes also need to be identified, formalised either by dedication agreements or a legal order process and then added to the Definitive Map and Statement.

6.6.5 Permissive Routes 6.6.5.1These routes are developed at the discretion of the landowner who has permitted

public use of the route as either a footpath or a bridleway.

6.6.6 Permissive Bridleways 6.6.6.1Halton potentially has a small number of permissive bridleways which contribute to

a very limited network for horse riders. These are currently being investigated and will be recorded on a system similar to that used for recording the public rights of way network. This will allow the information to be made readily available to the public and other interested parties. An example of permissive bridleways in Halton are those provided by the Woodland Trust which are shown in Figure 4. Fig 4: Woodland Trust Permissive Bridleways

62


KEY:

PERMISSIVE BRIDLEWAY

6.6.7 Greenways and Quiet Lanes

6.6.7.1Greenways are largely car free off-road routes for shared use by people of all abilities on foot, bike or horse back for commuting, play or leisure. They connect people to facilities; public transport interchanges; open spaces in and around towns and cities; and the countryside.

6.6.7.2Minor roads, country lanes and unclassified roads play a significant role in connecting routes in the more rural areas of the Borough. Quiet Lanes are minor rural roads, which experience low levels of traffic travelling at low speeds. They are recognised to be safe, attractive routes for healthy commuting, recreation and sport, providing the opportunity for shared use by cyclists, equestrians, motorised users and walkers. Fig 5 Proposed Greenways Network

63


KEY:

PROPOSED OFF-ROAD GREENWAY

ROUTES

PROPOSED ON-ROAD GREENWAY

ROUTES

6.6.8 Environmental Stewardship Schemes

6.6.8.1These are access opportunities created by DEFRA to conserve and improve the countryside whilst supporting both the rural community and economy. In Halton, there is only one area of access provided through this scheme which is located at Norton Priory Museum and Walled Garden in Runcorn.

6.6.9 ‘Off Road’ Cycleways 6.6.9.1Halton is fortunate in that it has an excellent cycleway network in Runcorn in the

form of the Runcorn Cycleway. This is a legacy of the New Town and is approximately 20km long. The Council has continued to develop the network providing links and ‘off road’ routes in both Runcorn and Widnes through: the Greenways initiative; the Widnes Waterfront Development; and other development opportunities. The whole formalised network now provides approximately 35km of cycleway provision.

Fig 6: Current formalised and recorded cycleway routes

64


KEY:

FORMALISED CYCLEWAYS

6.6.10 The Mersey Forest 6.6.10.1 The Mersey Forest is an environmental regeneration initiative creating woodlands

and involving people across Merseyside and North Cheshire. The Mersey Forest Partnership includes seven local authorities (Cheshire West and Chester, Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, Sefton, St Helens and Warrington) as well as the Forestry Commission, Natural England and businesses including United Utilities. Since the Mersey Forest began in 1994, more than 175 hectares of new woodland has been created in Halton.

6.6.10.2The guiding principles of the Mersey Forest in Halton are:

1. Provide a woodland buffer around the urban edge and create a wooded edge to the Mersey Estuary;

2. Expand planting into the urban area using all appropriate and available land, including derelict land;

3. Provide a new woodland structure for surrounding agricultural areas; and 4. Protect and manage the existing resource of urban trees and woodlands

in a sustainable manner. 6.6.10.3 The Mersey Forest Plan makes specific reference to targeting for priority implementation, including:

• The Trans-Pennine Trail;

• A link between St Helens and the TPT at Widnes;

• Weaver Way.

In addition, the Mersey Forest Plan has contributed towards the delivery of the Timberland Trail, which is described in more detail in paragraph 6.6.15.

6.6.11 Long Distance Routes/Trails

65


6.6.11.1The following paragraphs describe those routes and trails, which offer the opportunity to travel longer distances and which complement the shorter distance facilities available elsewhere in Halton.

6.6.12 National Cycle Network

6.6.12.1One third of the national cycle network runs on traffic-free paths, with the rest

utilising quiet minor roads and traffic calmed streets. These routes provide notable leisure opportunities, as well as links into towns for school and work.

6.6.12.2Two routes pass through Halton; NCN Route 5; and the main route of the Trans Pennine Trail (TPT) which has been designated Route 62.

� NCN5

The NCN5 is a strategic walking and cycling route that provides a connection between Runcorn Town centre in the south of the Borough with Vale Royal and the Weaver Valley. Approximately 8km of the route passes through the borough, utilising the western section of the Runcorn Cycleway, and it is an important link to Runcorn Station.

� Trans Pennine Trail

The Trans Pennine Trail (TPT) is the country’s first purpose built multi-user network. The multi-user trail, braided10 in parts, follows former railway lines, canal towpaths and other waterside routes linking the urban areas of Hull, Doncaster, Barnsley, Greater Manchester and Merseyside. It runs coast to coast between the ports of Liverpool and Hull, linking with the seaside resorts of Hornsea and Southport. The section from Hull to Liverpool forms part of the E8 European Long Distance Path. The TPT passes through the Borough on the north side of the river and runs from the Warrington boundary along the Sankey Canal through Spike Island, on through West Bank and along the Mersey front to Pickering Pasture and then through Hale to connect into Liverpool.

Walkers and cyclists can use the whole 350 miles with horse riders also able to access many sections. Easy gradients and surfaced paths makes the trail suitable for some people using wheelchairs and pushchairs.

The Trans Pennine Trail was built and developed over a number of years by a unique partnership of 26 local councils and other bodies across the north of England. These, together with a central co-ordinating office at Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, South Yorkshire manage and maintain the route.

6.6.13 The Bridgewater Way 6.6.13.1The Bridgewater Way is a new route being developed in the north-west of England

that follows the Bridgewater Canal Towpath through Salford, Trafford, Manchester, Warrington, Halton and Cheshire. The Towpath is 39miles (63km) long including a

10

Braided - Where the route separates because it cannot accommodate all or some of the users and they each have

another route which eventually re-connects

66


3 mile spur into Manchester City Centre and offers an excellent long distance walking and cycling route that not only provides opportunities for leisure and utilitarian journeys locally but it also facilitates connections between Warrington, Altrincham, Salford, Worsley and Leigh. The route also forms part of Sustrans Regional Cycleway network and will be known as R82.

6.6.13.2The Bridgewater way is promoted by the Bridgewater Canal Trust, a partnership

which comprises 8 local authorities and The Manchester Ship Canal Company (part of the Peel Holdings Group).

6.6.14 The Mersey Way 6.6.14.1The Mersey Way closely follows the north bank of the River Mersey from Rixton,

east of Warrington to Garston, Liverpool, linking Paddington Meadows Pasture and Speke & Garston Coastal Nature Reserves. The route in part follows the Woolston New Cut as well as the St Helens Canal between Warrington and Widnes, where it is concurrent with the Trans-Pennine Trail.

6.6.15 The Mersey Valley Timberland Trail

Passing through Lymm, the route connects with the towpath of the Bridgewater Canal and passes Lymm Dam, Grappenhall Wood, Appleton Dingle, Daresbury Firs, Windmill Hill and Halton Village. It is partly urban, mostly rural, taking in low-lying hills, woodland, parkland, farmland and sections of the Bridgewater Canal. It broadly follows the sandstone edge of the Cheshire Plain or drops to the Mersey Valley below it, giving views from both levels. There are links with the Trans Pennine Trail and the Delamere Way.

6.6.16 This wider network of access is generally not integrated with the rights of way

network as it is managed by a range of public and private bodies. The access it provides is of high actual, or potential, public value, as it gives access to green areas within the urban environment, and attractive landscape and wildlife areas and provides ‘off road’ routes between communities.

6.6.17 The formal and informal network of paths and open areas are not well connected,

and this needs to be addressed by more effective partnership working. In addition, in order to link the wider network of access with the public rights of way network, there needs to be a mapping system, which can record all access information, including location of public rights of way, open access land and the wider network of access. Better communication between those responsible for these facilities is an essential pre-requisite to developing, delivering and promoting the whole network and ensuring that duplication of effort is avoided. It is therefore considered important that the Council continues to work with its partners to maximise the opportunities offered by the achievement of a well connected and comprehensive rights of way network

6.7 The Transport Network 6.7.1 Highways

67


6.7.1.2After local government reorganisation in 1998, Halton Borough Council became the highway authority responsible for 50km of principal roads, 442km of non-principal roads, 200km of independent footpaths and 22km of busway.

6.7.1.3Within Halton there are good quality dual carriageways, links with the region’s Motorways and with Warrington, Liverpool and Manchester. In Runcorn, the Expressway network is of high quality and is grade separated at most junctions.

6.7.1.4The Borough lies at a hub of the national and regional transport system facilitated by the following routes:-

o The M62, which runs to the north of the Borough o The M56 to the south of the Borough; o The Silver Jubilee Bridge crossing of the River Mersey, which

provides an important strategic and local route; and o Strategic links to both Liverpool and Manchester Airports.

6.7.1.5Congestion in the Borough is largely restricted to the approaches to the Silver

Jubilee Bridge, although due to regeneration, congestion on other parts of the network is increasingly becoming a concern. The Bridge provides the only link within the Borough between Widnes and Runcorn and also serves as the strategic route from the M56 to Merseyside.

6.7.2 The Mersey Gateway Project 6.7.2.1The Mersey Gateway Project would provide a landmark new bridge over the River

Mersey, between the towns of Runcorn and Widnes. The project includes modifications to the existing Silver Jubilee Bridge (SJB), which would improve facilities for public transport, walking and cycling across the river. The overall length of the new bridge will be 2.3km and it is due to be open in 2014.

6.7.2.2The Mersey Gateway is needed to bring about much needed relief for the existing

Silver Jubilee Bridge, which carries over 80,000 vehicles every weekday, which is ten times the number it initially carried.

6.7.2.3The Mersey Gateway will ease the significant congestion currently experienced by

users of the existing Silver Jubilee Bridge and provide a new major strategic transport route linking the Liverpool City-Region, north Cheshire and the north west to the rest of the Country.

6.7.2.4The main objectives identified for the project are to:-

� Relieve the congested Silver Jubilee Bridge and better provide for local transport needs;

� Apply minimum toll charges to both the new bridge and the SJB to allow the project to be funded;

� Improve accessibility to maximise local development and regional economic growth opportunities;

� Improve local air quality and enhance the general urban environment; � Improve public transport links across the river; � Encourage the increased use of cycling and walking; and � Restore effective network resilience for transport across the River

Mersey.

68


Although the key changes to the road system in Halton will be delivered through the Mersey Gateway Project, to take full advantage of the opportunity presented by these changes will require co-ordinated intervention in the form of better connecting bus services and improved facilities for cycling and walking.

The Mersey Gateway Sustainable Transport Strategy (MGSTS) and the Mersey

Gateway Regeneration Strategy (MGRS) are complementary initiatives agreed by the Council to support the delivery of the Mersey Gateway Project objectives and together set out a rigorous and clear approach to maximising the benefits across the borough.

The MGSTS aims to deliver the following key vision for sustainable travel options within Halton:-

‘To identify and promote a network of high quality, safe, affordable, accessible and environmentally friendly travel measures for local residents, businesses and visitors to Halton, which supports the key objectives of Halton’s Local Transport Plan and the Mersey Gateway Project.’

The vision will be achieved by an integrated package of measures and initiatives designed to meet the following objectives:-

* Further improve accessibility for residents living in the most deprived wards in Halton Borough to a wide range of key facilities including – employment, learning / training, health, leisure and retail facilities;

* Reduce the future reliance on carbon-intensive modes of travel through encouraging greater use of public transport, walking and cycling options;

* Support the continued regeneration of the Borough, through ensuring new high quality sustainable transport opportunities are delivered as part of the Project and associated MGRS;

* Improve the modal share of journeys into the 3 main commercial centres of the Borough, (Runcorn Town Centre, Widnes Town Centre and Halton Lea), by sustainable forms of transport; thereby supporting the regeneration of the centres; and

* Further develop new strategic high quality sustainable transport links / corridors through the Borough utilising the opportunities provided by the Project and thereby improving complementary key Mersey Belt and Liverpool City Region linkages

Improvement Theme 5, in the MGSTS, focuses specifically on the development of step change improvements to facilities and routes for pedestrians and cyclists across Halton. Integral to this is the development of improved links to key centres in neighbouring authorities. This theme includes the proposed Sustainable Transport Corridor between Widnes West Bank and Runcorn Old Town on the Silver Jubilee Bridge and the linking of NCN62 and NCN5.

6.7.3 The Bus Network 6.7.3.1Local bus services continue to provide the ‘backbone’ of the local public transport

69


network within Halton, and cater for the vast majority of local public transport trips. Figures recently released by the Department for Transport (DfT) indicate that the

vast majority of residents live within 400 metres walk distance of a bus stop, and access to a range of key facilities by bus is excellent, which is a reflection of the comprehensive nature of the local bus network within the Borough. However, despite this extensive local bus network, currently, only 6.7% of journey to work trips are made by local bus, compared to a national average of 7.6%.(Census Data 2001).

6.7.3.2The vast majority of local bus services are provided by the two main bus operators

Arriva North West and Halton Borough Transport Ltd, which operate 60% and 34% of registered mileage, respectively. Furthermore, the great majority of local bus services are operated commercially, with Halton Borough Council subsidising some services, (typically early morning, evenings and Sundays), when passenger numbers are lower and therefore not able to be operated on a commercial basis.

6.7.3.3The Halton Bus Strategy 2006/7 – 2010/11 identifies a Core Bus Route Network

within Halton. This network is shown in Figure 7. Currently the three main bus corridors with the highest bus frequencies are:-

• Runcorn Busway Loop Circular – (Halton Lea – Castlefields – Windmill Hill – Runcorn East – Murdishaw – Brookvale and Palacefields) every 6 minutes each direction (Monday to Saturday daytime);

• Hough Green – Chesnut Lodge – Widnes town centre – bus every 5 minutes in each direction (Monday to Saturday daytime); and

• Halton Lea – Runcorn High Street Bus Station via Halton Lodge and Grangeway.

6.7.3.4Both main bus operators have invested heavily over recent years in new low floor

fully accessible vehicles, (95% of local bus services are now totally low floor). Halton Borough Council has matched this investment through Local Transport Plan capital funding to improve bus stops and interchanges (new shelters, accessible kerbs, better ‘at stop’ conventional printed information and electronic real time information). All these improvements are being delivered through a voluntary quality bus partnership.

6.7.3.5The Halton Bus Strategy 2006/7 – 2010/11 sets out a comprehensive plan for the

further improvement of local bus services, which include:-

• The introduction of a new multi operator travel card ’Halton Hopper’;

• Introduction of a new rail / bus ticket called ‘Halton PlusBus’;

• Refurbishment and improvement of bus stations and interchanges;

• Improvements to services along key corridors using DfT ‘Kickstart’ funding; and

• Further improvements to community transport services. Fig: 7 Core Bus Route Network – Widnes and Runcorn

70


71


6.7.4 The Rail Network 6.7.4.1The Borough of Halton is dissected by 7 rail routes, two of which are currently

assigned to rail freight traffic only. These consist of the following:-

• The Liverpool Branch of the West Coast Main Line, north from Weaver Junction, which serves Runcorn Station;

• The main spur of the West Coast Main Line, (between Weaver Junction and Warrington Bank Quay Station), linking London and the West Midlands to Scotland. There are no local rail stations located on this section of the West Coast Main Line;

• The main Liverpool Lime Street – Widnes – Warrington Central – Manchester Piccadilly corridor, (known as the Cheshire Lines Committee route), with stations at Hough Green and Widnes in Halton;

• The Manchester and North Wales coast line linking Manchester – Warrington Bank Quay – Chester – Llandudno – Holyhead, with a local station at Runcorn East;

• The section of the Garston to Timperley route, which links Ditton Junction in Halton to Fiddlers Ferry Power Station;

• Runcorn Docks branch which caters for rail freight movements to the western Runcorn Docks system to the Liverpool branch of the West Coast Main Line south of Runcorn Station; and

• The Halton Curve linking Halton Junction, (on the Liverpool Branch of the West Coast Main Line), to Frodsham Junction on the main Manchester – Chester – north Wales line. Proposals are being advanced by Merseytravel working in partnership with Halton BC and Network Rail to improve this route to provide passenger services between Chester – Runcorn and Liverpool South Parkway.

6.7.4.2Although this network provides a comprehensive series of linkages for residents

and businesses, the various lines do not connect and therefore interchange opportunities are poor. Significantly, following the closure of Ditton Station in the mid 1990’s, there is currently no direct rail service linking Widnes and Runcorn. The only direct local rail line linking stations within the Borough is the Cheshire Lines Committee route linking Hough Green and Widnes stations.

6.7.4.3Furthermore, existing public transport, walking and cycling linkages between the

various rail stations are underdeveloped and poorly differentiated. Figures released by the Office of the Rail Regulator (ORR) show that passenger rail travel to and from stations within Halton is greatly suppressed, when compared to similar areas across the North West of England. This is mainly due to the following:-

• Limited ‘park and ride’ facilities at stations (with the exception of Runcorn Station, which has recently undergone major improvement works to passenger facilities as part of the West Coast Main Line Modernisation scheme);

• Poor passenger facilities at stations (typically consisting of old and underused buildings – Widnes and Hough Green, and limited booking office opening hours – Widnes and Runcorn East);

• Limited accessibility within the design of stations, with features such as stepped only footbridges and steep ramps, which do not conform to national accessibility standards, specified by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC); and

72


• Poorly sited stations on the edge of the urban area, especially Widnes and Runcorn East, that are sited remote from the nearest commercial centres.

6.7.5 Rivers and Canals

6.7.5.1The River Mersey bisects the Borough of Halton with the town of Widnes situated

on the north side of the river and the town of Runcorn located to the south. The only pedestrian access across the River is provided by means of a narrow walkway on the eastern side of the Silver Jubilee Bridge, which is inadequate.

6.7.5.2Located alongside the River Mersey, the Manchester Ship Canal is a unique inland

waterway, which is capable of handling vessels of up to 15,000 tonnes. Runcorn Docks can accommodate vessels up to 6,500 tonnes and specialises in the import and export of bulk minerals for the chemical, glass and pottery industries. The port, with its excellent road connections, offers strong locational advantages for these industries. Runcorn lay-by, adjoining Runcorn Docks is the seaward end of feedstock pipelines, serving the North West’s chemical industry. Large volumes of hazardous chemicals are imported and exported in this way, without impact on the local highway network.

6.7.5.3The River Weaver Canal can only accommodate smaller sea vessels of up to 1,000

tonnes and therefore with ships becoming larger this canal has less potential. 6.7.6 Cycle Routes 6.7.6.1Throughout the period of the first Local Transport Plan (2001/2-2005/6) (LTP1),

substantial investment has been made to develop a network of cycle routes within the Borough with funding provided from the LTP and many other partner organisations. During the LTP1 period, around one third of the Runcorn Cycleway has been improved; cycle lanes have been installed as part of quality corridor improvements; and significant lengths of Greenway have been constructed through the Borough. There is, however, still a great deal of work that needs to be undertaken to establish a fully functional cycle route network throughout the whole of the Borough and this work is being continued during LTP2.

6.7.6.2Halton now has 10 strategically placed automatic cycle counters, which are used to

monitor cycling trips in the Borough. The resulting data provides a sound basis on which to set our performance targets and to monitor progress. However, it is recognised that our monitoring of cycling needs to be extended as sample sizes are still relatively small. It is therefore our intention to increase the number of counters deployed to enable a more informed picture of cycling in the Borough to be obtained.

6.7.6.3Halton has approximately 42km of both ‘on road’ and ‘off road’ cycle routes (approx

7.3km on carriageway, 800m converted footway and 35km off-road (traffic free). These routes are complemented by 232 cycle parking spaces within the Borough located at 25 sites.

73


Table 8: Sites with cycle parking spaces

WIDNES No of Spaces

RUNCORN No of Spaces

Widnes Market Entrance (by car park) 14 ASDA 16 Morrison’s 10 Norton Priory 10 Victoria Square 12 Runcorn Station 6 Kingsway Learning Centre 4 Halton Lea (Trident Entrance) 5 Halton Stadium (secure covered storage)

10 Church Street 18

Victoria Park 8 Brindley Art Centre 10 Widnes Health Centre 8 Phoenix Park Visitors Centre 8 Albert Road (jct Marzhan Way) 8 Albert Road (jct Cooper St) 14 Widnes Road 24 JJB Car Park 10 ASDA Entrance (trolley bays) 6 Liverpool Rd (jct Hale Road) Chestnut Lodge

4

Liverpool Road (jct Hale Road) Co-Op 6 Widnes Station 7 Hough Green Station 5 Gerrard Street (side of Midwood House)

5

Kingsway Leisure Centre 4

6.7.7 Transport Network Summary 6.7.7.1It can therefore be seen from the above that Halton provides a challenging and

complex background, against which this ROWIP has to integrate the needs of walkers, cyclists and horse riders.

6.8 Open Access Land and Registered Common Land 6.8.1 The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 gave people new rights to walk on

areas of open country and registered common land. The introduction of the rights, allows people to walk freely across mapped areas of mountains, moor, heath and down without the need to stick to paths.

6.8.2 The Act was launched across England in a national roll-out programme over 2004-

2005 and all mapped areas of England are now open for access. Access land is land that meets the requirements of the definition under Part I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The definition includes land defined as ‘Open Country’, which is land that is mainly made up of mountain, moor heath and down – and land registered as Common under the Commons Registration Act 1965. Most activities on foot such as walking, sightseeing, bird watching, picnicking, climbing and running are allowed on access land. Landowners may choose to voluntarily dedicate new access land or lift restrictions to allow other types of users.

6.8.3 The Conclusive map of Registered Common Land and Open Country (see Fig 8),

which covers Halton shows its only area of Open Country; Runcorn Hill (yellow); and 5 areas of registered common land (green). The 5 areas of Registered Common Land are: Castle Hill, Halton Common, The Green, land at Summer Lane and Overhill Common. It should be noted that the position of Overhill Common has been wrongly drafted on the map. The Council did raise this issue at the time and it will hopefully be rectified when the maps are reviewed.

74


Fig 8: Open Country and Registered Common Land in Halton

KEY:

OPEN COUNTRY

REGISTERED COMMON LAND

6.8.4 All the sites are connected to the highway network and Runcorn Hill is crossed by a

public right of way. However, Overhill Common is badly overgrown and has had large mounds deposited on it by the landowner and as a result is now inaccessible to the public. Whilst the site offers limited access opportunities, these issues require resolving to maximise the recreational value of the land concerned.

6.8.5 The CROW Act 2000, section 16, enables landowners to dedicate areas of land as

open country and for these to be added to the maps. Landowners who may wish to consider dedicating land include the local authority, public utilities, government agencies and charitable organisations.

6.8.6 In addition to the above sites, there are 6 recognised Village Greens in Halton, four

on the northern side of the river and two on the south. These are:

� Castle Hill Halton; � Runcorn Heath; � Parsonage Green, Hale; � War Memorial Green, Hale; � Wellington Green, Hale; and � Lovellfields Halebank.

6.8.6.1The majority of these are of limited value as a recreational source due to their size.

75


Fig 9: Village Greens in Halton

KEY:

VILLAGE GREENS

6.9 OTHER ISSUES TO CONSIDER AS PART OF THE ROWIP RESEARCH

PROCESS THAT IMPACT ON THE NETWORK

6.9.1 Regional Parks

6.9.1.1 The concept of Regional Parks was introduced in the Strategic Plan for the North West in 197411. Regional Parks in this document were viewed as a means of fulfilling a perceived gap in the hierarchy of recreational facilities between national parks and Country Parks, with the primary purpose of promoting informal outdoor recreation.

6.9.1.2 Regional Parks were not formally progressed until the concept was re-introduced by

the NWDA in the Regional Economic Strategy12. In this document, the NWDA proposed the concept of Regional Park Resources (RPRs) and defined them as having the broad role and purpose as follows:

o Act as a tool for natural regeneration and creative conservation; o Provide a sustainable re-use of derelict and contaminated land; o Help refocus demand for recreational facilities; o Improve the quality of urban life and image of the North West; and o Complement and support existing initiatives such as Community Forests.

6.9.1.3Policy UR12 of RPG1313 sought to establish the spatial framework and a criteria

based approach for taking the initiative forward in the North West. It also established that the Assembly (now 4NW) and NWDA would agree broad locations

11

Strategic Plan for the North West, 1974 (paragraphs 9.21 – 9.27) 12

England’ a North West: A Strategy towards 2020, NWDA, 2002 13

Regional Planning Guidance for the North West, March 2002

76


(linked as appropriate to the review of Regional Planning Guidance (RPG)) for the creation of new/or further Regional Park resources.

6.9.1.4In response to the Regional Economic Strategy and policy framework of RPG13, and in advance of the work to agree broad locations, 9 separate proposals for Regional Park projects emerged across the North West as follows:

� Mersey Waterfront; � East Lancashire Regional Park; � Ribble Estuary Regional Park; � North West Coastal Trail; � Weaver Valley Regional Park; � Croal-Irwell; � Red Rose; � Morcombe Bay; and � Cumbria and Furness Coastal Beacons.

6.9.1.5Those projects most relevant to this ROWIP are now described in detail:

6.9.1.5.1The Mersey Waterfront Regional Park The park spans more than 70 miles (120km) of the City Region’s coastline. It takes in the River Mersey, its estuary and parts of the River Dee and Ribble. The River Mersey is the City Region’s greatest natural asset and by bringing together the coastal areas of Halton, Liverpool, Sefton and Wirral (and by using the inland support of Knowsley and St Helens), Mersey Waterfront will improve the unique features of the area. The aim is to create a waterfront for everyone and a place that people recognise. The project includes amongst other areas the open coastal areas at Speke, the Sefton coast and the Wirral coast. It has secured funding and has commenced implementation. 6.9.1.5.2The North West Coastal Trail The North West Regional Assembly and the North West Coastal Forum are spearheading the North West Coastal Trail project. The Trail will be a long distance, multi-user trail following the north west coast between Chester and Carlisle. It will link with and enhance existing local footpaths, cycle paths and bridleways, as well as other regional and national trails. It will encourage both residents and visitors to the region to explore, appreciate and enjoy some of the North West’s greatest assets; our coastal landscapes, heritage and settlements, and will provide a new regional recreation and tourism resource. Progress on this project to date includes the completion of visionary and detailed feasibility work. 6.9.1.5.3The Weaver Valley Regional Park The development of the Weaver Way will create 119km of walking, cycling and equestrian routes. The Weaver Way initiative will run the full length of the 60km

77


long Weaver Valley and will link 6 towns, 11 villages and connect to 8 regional trails and the National Cycleway. Stretching from Frodsham in the north to Audlem in the south and through Middlewich to Sandbach, the proposed routes mainly follow the river Weaver Navigation, Trent and Mersey Canal and Shropshire Union Canal. It will provide unrivalled access to the residents and visitors to the Valley’s facilities, destinations and Countryside. This project has also completed visionary and detailed feasibility work. 6.9.1.5.4The Upper Mersey Valley Forest Park Another developing park is The Upper Mersey Valley Forest Park which is a Mersey Forest initiative that stretches all the way from Warrington to the iconic Runcorn – Widnes Bridge (Silver Jubilee Bridge (SJB)), and beyond to Pickerings Pasture, at Hale Bank. The Trans Pennine Trail and The Mersey Valley Timberland Trail both pass through the park. There is great potential to increase and improve access through the parks for all users including horse riders. 6.9.1.5.5The South St Helens Forest Park The Forest Park is another initiative being developed in partnership with The Mersey Forest, which is based on outdoor leisure opportunities and is seen as a future economic driver for the rural economy in the area. The Forest Park will provide extensive off-road walking, cycling and equestrian routes and will have a catchment which will take in North Halton. The former mineral line provides an important (potential) link into the forest park from Halton. 6.9.1.5.6Mid Mersey Growth Point As part of the Growth Point agenda, there will be a requirement for the production of Green Infrastructure Plans, which will include, (amongst other things), the provision of new and enhanced green spaces for recreation, leisure and healthy physical activity, and green routes linking homes, services and local employment areas. Public Rights of Way and other access routes have an important role in Green Infrastructure. Key Green Infrastructure elements identified in St Helens are the Sankey Valley, South St Helens Forest Park Area and the former mineral railway providing cross borough links between Halton and St Helens.

6.9.2.1Cross Boundary Issues

6.9.2.2Cross boundary routes provide access to residents and visitors to and from neighbouring authorities and provide linkages that create a wider network of access beyond the Borough boundary.

6.9.2.3The development and improvement of some of these paths as multi-user routes for walkers, horse riders and cyclists will open networks not currently available to Halton’s residents for recreation, leisure and commuting. They also have the potential to provide vital strategic routes that can help facilitate national and regional routes such as the North West Coastal Trail, as well as providing important links between the Regional Parks situated north and south of the River Mersey.

78


6.9.3 The Mersey Gateway Project and The Silver Jubilee Bridge (SJB) 6.9.3.1The Mersey Gateway Project will deliver a major strategic new transport route

linking Liverpool City-Region, north Cheshire and the North West to the rest of the country. It also has the potential to provide a vital strategic multi-user route for walkers, cyclists and horse riders utilising the ‘down graded’ Silver Jubilee Bridge. This would provide an essential crossing over the River Mersey for all non-motorised traffic. The Silver Jubilee Bridge therefore, has the potential to be the gateway for all developing north south national and regional trails as well as being the all important piece of the jigsaw linking the three regional parks.

6.9.3.2Users have requested a circular walking/cycling route between the two bridges with

viewing platforms on both the SJB and the proposed new bridge. However, the design of the new bridge does not make provision for pedestrian access, other than for emergency purposes, and there are no plans to provide viewing platforms on either bridge. The de-linking of the SJB will, however, offer the opportunity to create a new cross-river cycle link to join up the existing long distance cycle routes, namely the Trans Pennine Trail National Cycle Network route 62 (NCN 62) in Widnes and the NCN route 5 in Runcorn. Opportunities will also be created to enhance pedestrian routes between Runcorn and Widnes and on both banks of the Mersey. In particular, walking routes to West Bank, 3MG (Mersey Multi Modal Gateway site - the new name for the Ditton Strategic Rail Freight Park) and between Runcorn Old Town and Runcorn Station could be significantly improved; and the opportunity will be taken to examine the potential provision of bridleway and equestrian facilities as part of the enhanced cross river facilities.

6.9.4 Coastal Access

6.9.4.1DEFRA has recently consulted on proposals to improve and open up the lengths of the English coastline for public access. This aims to give Natural England new powers to align a suitable strip of access land around the English coast that people will be able to enjoy with confidence and certainty, by concentrating on missing, defective or insecure foot access to create a clear corridor of varying width around the coast. If successful the proposals would form the basis for a 10 year implementation programme involving Local Authorities, farmers, landowners and other key local interests.

6.9.4.2Such proposals share aims and objectives with the ROWIP, which recognises the

importance, and need to further improve and develop coastal and waterside access for users.

6.9.5 Alley Gating

6.9.5.1Alley gating involves the erection of steel, locking gates to the end of alleyways and passages, to address crime and disorder issues. Recent changes in the legislation have given Authorities the powers, via Gating Orders, to gate such routes and these can include public rights of way. Alley gating can be a controversial issue, although they are strongly supported by many residents, due to their potential to prevent crime and nuisance.

6.9.5.2It is a legal requirement that before making and confirming a Gating Order, the

Highway Authority must be satisfied that the premises adjacent to the highway are

79


affected by crime or anti-social behaviour, and that this is facilitated by the existence of the highway. A satisfactory alternative route must be available, or a new route provided. Alternatives to gating should also have been considered.

6.9.5.3The benefits of alley gates to local residents, in reducing crime or anti-social

behaviour, is well proven. It is important, however, that these benefits are carefully weighed against the inconvenience caused to users, particularly as many urban routes provide direct access to local amenities and safe, direct routes for schoolchildren and those with mobility impairments. This will ensure that any action taken benefits the community as a whole.

6.9.5.4It is Council policy, that any proposal to gate a public highway, (including a public

right of way), must be supported by a Gating Order, taking into account the above considerations, and that Orders should be reviewed regularly, to ensure that they remain the most effective way of reducing crime and anti-social behaviour.

7.0 ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE NETWORK 7.1 Why Assess the Adequacy of the Network? 7.1.1 The CROW Act legislation enables Highway Authorities to work towards an access

network, which reflects its historic foundations, but meets modern needs and aspirations. Statutory guidance issued by DEFRA on preparing Rights of Way Improvement Plans indicates that an authority’s Rights of Way Improvement Plan should not contain in-depth site specific details of network assessments and improvements. Instead, it is expected that the specific details of site assessments and plans for improvements will be contained within a business plan such as the Council’s Milestone Statement.

7.1.2 In Halton, users and potential users currently have the opportunity to use a variety

of different types of routes to and within the countryside. These include; pavements alongside roads; parks and other open spaces; towpaths; permissive access areas and paths; ‘off road’ cycle tracks; Greenways; and a range of public footpaths and a few bridleways.

7.1.3 Whilst this wide range of opportunity exists, the backbone of ‘off-road’ access is the

public rights of way network of footpaths and bridleways. 7.1.4 It is therefore necessary to identify any deficiencies in the network through

researching existing records and public consultation. This exercise is known as a ‘Network Assessment’ and it is used to identify what is required to meet modern needs and aspirations i.e. what types of use are anticipated and in what locations.

7.1.5 The information gathered through the assessment can then be used for decision

making at both strategic and local site-specific levels. The results of Halton’s assessment will be used to guide decisions on the distribution of funding for maintenance and improvements. For example, an area identified as having a high level of provision may receive a smaller proportion of funds for extending or improving the network.

7.1.6 The network assessment can also identify differences in the adequacy for provision

for different activities, perhaps identifying adequate provision for walkers but

80


significant deficiencies for cyclists and horse riders. Likewise, it can identify whether the population of a particular village or area has adequate opportunities to fulfil its demands for walking, cycling and other activities. The assessment also allows specific areas with low provision to be identified and as such enable the targeting of appropriate funding.

7.1.7 If it is found through an assessment that the provision of PRoW in certain areas is

inadequate, this may mean that there is a need to provide more access. In some cases the inadequacy may be addressed by a change in status of a particular path to allow a higher level of use, e.g. upgrading a footpath to a bridleway. In other instances there may be a need to consider new routes, some of which could be provided through permissive routes or dedication by public, private or voluntary bodies.

7.1.8 Rights of Way Improvement Plans are intended to be the prime means by which

local authorities identify the changes to be made in order to meet the Government’s aims of improved access to the countryside.

7.1.9 The Rights of Way Improvement Plan statutory guidance indicates that local

highway authorities should: a) study the definitive map and statement of rights of way;

b) collate and consider data on applications for modifications to the map and statement; c) collate and consider data on requests for improvements to the network; d) collate and consider data on the condition of the network; e) undertake a survey to assess the nature and scale of the present and likely future needs of the public (both for local people and visitors to the area) in relation to the rights of way network; and f) identify any other relevant information, including other plans and strategies for the area.

7.1.10 Scrutiny of the Definitive Map and Statement, via a desk top study, has allowed an assessment to be made of;

� The extent to which routes and networks are available to different user

groups; � Areas which are deficient in rights of way for all or particular groups; � Obvious inconsistencies or anomalies in relation to individual rights of way;

and � Other opportunities to improve the network, including the restoration of

severed rights of way due to road building. 7.1.11 The highway authority must look at the definitive map in conjunction with the wider

highway network. The Definitive Map and Statement together are the legal record of public rights of way. If a way is shown on the map then it is conclusive evidence that the public had those rights at the relevant date of the map. However, just because a way might not be shown on the map, is not proof that the public have no

81


rights over it. The Definitive Map cannot be considered a complete record and should be considered to be only a minimum record of rights that are known to exist. The network assessment will help to highlight those rights of way that might be used in conjunction with unclassified roads and other lightly trafficked minor highways. It will also assist in identifying those rights of way which are effectively unusable or put users at risk because they can only be reached along heavily trafficked roads without an adequate verge or footway.

7.1.12 In making an assessment under section 60(I)(a) and 60(3)(a), local highway

authorities must consider the needs and circumstances of people with a range of expectations, interests and levels of ability. The assessment should take into account the needs of both local people and visitors to the area. The Rights of Way Improvement Plan Statutory Guidance highlights a number of individual assessments which enable the adequacy of the local network of rights of way to be gauged. These form the basis for the assessments of user’s needs.

7.2 Conclusions 7.2.1 A number of general conclusions have been drawn from the network assessment

about the overall strengths and weaknesses of the network and potential opportunities:

1. In some areas the Definitive Map and Statement does not accurately depict

the nature and location of public use on the ground. There are discrepancies between the definitive map and the routes that are actually used on the ground.

Whilst the majority of routes included on the Definitive Map are accurately recorded, the map and statement contains a small number of errors and anomalies. The Council’s Milestone Statement identified that there were issues that required addressing before the Map and Statement could be up dated. The Definitive Map is currently being reviewed with a view to publishing an up to date consolidated Map and Statement covering the areas managed by Halton, by March 2010;

2. There is no bridleway network as such available to horse riders in Halton.

The few ‘off-road’ routes that do exist, are short and inadequate, there is no direct access onto them and riders often have to travel along or across busy and dangerous roads to complete their journeys, particularly if more substantial distances are required to be travelled. Even allowing for a small network of lightly trafficked minor highways, mainly in the Moore and Daresbury areas, it is generally difficult for equestrians to find an attractive convenient and safe network of routes.

The limited network of routes available to horse riders is fragmented to such an extent that it is easier to describe the areas that benefit from some routes, these areas include:

� Sandymoor � Daresbury � Moore � Upton Rocks

82


� Farnworth – although these routes are now very urbanised and may or may not be of value to a developing network.

The development of a number of cross boundary routes would assist in extending the network available to horse riders. There is currently no provision for equestrians to cross the River Mersey;

3. The footpath network is pretty evenly split between the north and the south of the Borough. Most of the footpaths in the more rural southern half are used primarily for recreational purposes, whilst the footpath network in the north, covering the more urban areas tends to be different, both in type and also use patterns. In the main, paths link one street or road to another, passing between urban buildings and as such their use is mostly for pedestrians. Despite walkers entitlement to use all classes of local rights of way, the network can be rather fragmented and there is still scope to improve pedestrian facilities;

4. The cycling network is not as well developed as the footpath network. However,

there is, the beginnings of a good network physically on the ground. The Runcorn cycleway forms the backbone of the network in the south of the Borough, but could be further improved by the creation of more linkages for both local and cross boundary journeys. In the north, the network is very fragmented and not as established as that south of the river. The lack of connectivity poses similar problems as described for horse riders. Cyclists are allowed to use bridleways therefore the development of the bridleways network has the potential to increase access for all users. However, cyclists are able to travel a greater distance in a shorter period of time than a horse rider or a walker and so cross boundary routes can be particularly relevant to this user group;

5. Opportunities to increase access to the countryside are very limited in the north

of the Borough due to the urbanised nature of the area. However, cross boundary partnership working with neighbouring authorities would provide opportunities to extend the network across the Borough boundary into a wider network for all users. Examples of this would be more connections into Knowsley via Pex Hill at Cronton and the Old Mineral Line to St Helens and into Lancashire. Likewise in the south of the Borough, at Clifton, there is the opportunity to open up the network further with a connection for all users over the Weaver Navigation onto the salt marshes to connect into the Weaver Valley regional park;

6. With proper provision for all users on the Silver Jubilee Bridge, Halton has the

potential to provide the only suitable sustainable river crossing and be the Gateway for all north/south long distance routes. This would bring both long term tourism and economic benefits;

7. The network desk top assessment identified that there are very few circular

routes available to users. Users comments identified a potential circular walking and cycling route encompassing both the SJB and the Mersey Gateway bridges with viewing platforms, which could potentially provide economic and tourist benefits to the Borough.

.

83


8. Some routes are severed by main roads and railway lines. The network needs to be made safer for vulnerable users by improving safety for journeys along and across busy roads;

9. A number of routes have been seriously affected by development and

encroachment;

10. More links are required to connect with strategic routes/initiatives, such as the Trans Pennine Trail, Bridgewater Canal Way and the Mersey Way, Weaver Valley Regional Park, (The Weaver Way), and Mersey Waterfront Park etc, to increase and improve access;

11. There is no known network available to carriage drivers and motorised off-

roaders. There would appear to be no realistic opportunities to provide a network of routes for recreational motorists. However, carriage drivers may benefit from the development of bridleways, greenways and quiets roads. At present, there is no detailed information available relating to these users;

12. Regeneration – there appears to be some scope to further develop access in

conjunction with housing developments and the reclamation/regeneration of former industrial sites;

13. Gaps in the network may encourage people to trespass or use busy sections of

road to link off-road routes;

14. Alley gating can pose difficulties in achieving a truly connected sustainable network;

15. The ‘Ease of Use’ performance indicator provides the most reliable indication of

the physical condition of the network. The annual survey consistently achieves a figure in excess of 90%. Yet despite the notably high performance many users still consider the maintenance and enforcement of the current public rights of way network to be a priority. This is possibly a reflection of increasingly high public expectations or a perceived condition by non-users; and

16. The Halton Village Walks series of leaflets have been well received and have

established themselves within a relatively short time. However, there is still a requirement to further develop promotion of the network.

8.0 SPECIFIC POLICIES RESULTING FROM SA /SEA ASSESSMENT 8.1 In undertaking the SA/SEA assessment of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan, it

became clear that the plan would benefit from two additional policies that dealt with the issues associated with sustainability and community participation. These are discussed in the following paragraphs and in Appendix B.

8.2 Sustainability - Halton Borough Council recognises its responsibilities to the

environment in ensuring that sustainable processes are employed in the delivery of new infrastructure and the maintenance of existing infrastructure, associated with public rights of way and other access routes. The Council also considers it important to manage the waste resulting from such works and indeed litter, in a

84


sustainable way by reducing waste, re-using materials wherever possible, and recycling, as appropriate.

Policy R18 (M5) Sustainable Practice – Halton Borough Council will aim to ensure that sustainable processes are employed for the procurement of goods and services associated with the management and maintenance of the PRoW network and other access routes. The Council will also aim to ensure that the waste generated as a result of improvements to or the maintenance of the PRoW network and other access routes and indeed any litter, is managed sustainably, following the principles of the waste hierarchy to reduce, re-use and recycle, as appropriate.

8.3 Community Participation - Halton Borough Council recognises the importance of

ensuring that the facilities provided through the rights of way network and other access routes meet the needs and expectations of all existing and potential users and are ‘owned’ by the communities they serve. It is therefore central to the success and future of these routes to involve communities in their development and where practical and possible; their management and maintenance.

Policy R19 (M6) Community Participation – Halton Borough Council will aim to develop communication with local communities about the PRoW network and other access routes and provide opportunities, wherever practical and possible, to be involved in their management and maintenance.

9.0 PLANNING FOR ACTION 9.1 Statement of Action 9.1.1 The Statutory Guidance on Rights of Way Improvement Plans, produced by DEFRA

in 2002 requires local Highway Authorities to produce a statement of action arising from the information gathering and evaluation process. The Statement of Action should indicate the main findings and allocate delivery partners, estimate costs and set target completion dates to key actions. Given the emphasis elsewhere in the statutory guidance on the importance of setting the ROWIP in the context of relevant local plans and other strategic documents, the statement of action described here is based on a combination of:

� The assessment of needs and demands; � The opportunities provided by the network; and � Links to wider public benefits.

9.1.2 The following list of required improvements has been compiled using the issues

identified by the assessment of user needs and demands:

� Create more off road routes for all users; � Improved/better maintenance of routes; � Provide more information about access i.e suitability for prams/push

chairs/wheelchairs/visually impaired etc;

85


� Improve signing and way marking (including distance and destinations);

� Create additional linkages and circular routes to provide a connected network;

� Provide improved/safer road crossings; � Provide better lighting of routes; � Increase/Improve publicity and access to it; � Remove physical obstructions/obstacles from paths; � Improve access for all; � Upgrade paths to provide more multi-user routes; � Remove stiles and replace with kissing gates; � More surfaced routes; � Improve path surfaces; � Educate motorists with regards to other users in particular cyclists and

horse riders; and � Provide an updated record of PRoW’s and other access routes.

9.1.3 The big issues resulting from the network assessment, (see Section 7), and the

assessment of user needs and demands, (see Section 8.1.2), have been carefully considered and distilled into 10 Strategic Aims to provide a strong focus for the ROWIP. These Strategic Aims, which are detailed below, form the basis of the ROWIPs Action Plan shown in Section 9.

1. To improve standards of maintenance across the network; 2. To maintain an accurate and up to date Definitive Map and Statement; 3. To promote the health benefits of the network and make it easier for

people to incorporate exercise into their daily lives and lead healthier lifestyles;

4. To improve accessibility by improving and developing routes that cater for the needs of people with disabilities;

5. To increase the use of the network for sustainable transport and utility trips;

6. To improve the safety and attractiveness of routes affected by other parts of the transport network;

7. To support the rural economy, local businesses countryside, and tourist sites through the promotion of Halton’s PRoW network and other access routes, to residents and visitors;

8. To seek opportunities to enhance the network through the planning process, and through the various plans and strategies developed by the Council;

9. To improve connectivity of the Network and create opportunities for walkers, cyclists and equestrians; and

10. To seek opportunities to enhance and extend the public rights of way network and other access routes through cross boundary working.

10.0 ACTION PLAN 10.1 The Action Plan sets out a range of Strategic Aims designed to address the issues

identified by the assessment and as a means of securing an improved rights of way network. Background information has been provided linking the proposed aims to the assessment of user’s needs and as well as details of how the proposed action links to the other relevant policies, strategies and plans.

86


10.2 Beneath each of the identified Strategic aims, the Action Plan lists a number of more specific actions that are being proposed in order to achieve the Strategic Aim. For each action the Action Plan indicates:

Ref: A unique reference number that identifies the proposed Action Action: What we are proposing to do in order to achieve the Strategic Aim

Resources: Whether the proposed Action can be carried out by existing staff and budget or whether additional resources will be required.

10.2.1The following symbols are used to denote the resources required:

Staff Time

☺ Existing HBC Staff

☺☺Partnership with others

♀ Additional Staff resource required

Funding

£ Within existing budgets

££ Small increase in funding required

£££ Moderate increase in funding required

££££ Major funding required

Timescales: The timescales will need to be flexible to make use of opportunities,

as they arise, to maximise public benefit. Partners: A list of key partners and stakeholders Links: Links to other actions within the Action Plan Links to Local Transport Plan: This denotes those actions that support the

Council’s Primary Transport Strategies (PTS)-

� PTS 3 – Cycling � PTS 7 – Highway Maintenance � PTS 10 – Provision for people with disabilities � PTS 11 – Public Rights of Way and Greenways � PTS 12 – Quality Transport Corridors � PTS 17 – Travel Plans � PTS 18 – Walking

Benefits: This provides an assessment of those groups identified as benefitting

from the proposed actions.

87


88


Table 9: Action Plan

Strategic Aim 1: Improve standards of maintenance across the Network

Evidence of Need: � Users would like to see better maintenance of routes; � Poor path condition and infrastructure deters users; � Poor condition of routes e.g dog fouling and litter are a deterrent to users; � Current users stated that they wanted better maintenance of routes, more/better signing/way marking, better lighting and more physical improvements such as more/better

surfaced routes; and � Well way marked routes increases confidence of users and assists land managers.

Resources

Targets & Timescales

Ref

Action

Staff

Funding

Yr 1 & 2

Yr 3 & 4

Yr 5+

Benefits

Partners

Links to

other ROWIP actions

Links to

LTP Policies

M1 Continue to conduct an annual condition survey of the whole public rights of way network

☺ ££

Ongoing

All Users, Landowners

HBC, Groundwork Merseyside

M2 PTS 7, 10, 11, 18

M2 Continue to maintain a fully signed and way marked network through the annual works programme using data obtained from the annual survey and user reports

☺ ££

Ongoing


HBC

M1, H5 PTS 7, 10, 11, 18

M3 Where appropriate increase seasonal vegetation clearance and maintenance levels on rights of way and other access routes e.g. The Mersey Way increased to 3 cuts per year and 12 safety inspections (1 per month)

☺ ££

√


HBC

M8,H5 PTS 7, 11, 18

M4 Conduct a Bi-annual condition survey of all cycle tracks

☺ £ √ All Users HBC M5, M6 PTS 3, 7,

10, 11, 12, 17, 18

M5 Using the information gathered in the survey to review the inspection and maintenance programme - develop a vegetation management plan and cleansing regime

☺

££

√

All Users

HBC

M4 PTS 3, 7, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18

M6 Identify signing and stencilling requirements and draw up an implementation programme

☺ £

√

All Users

HBC, Users

M4 PTS 3, 7, 18

M7 Continue to upgrade and improve path surfaces and facilities to ensure that they are in keeping with their environment and suitable for their expected use

☺ £

√

All Users

HBC, Other Organisations, Developers

M2, M5 PTS 3, 7, 10, 11, 12, 17 ,18

M8 Develop a management strategy for the control of ragwort on the rights of way network, other access routes and road side verges. Publicise the procedure for reporting ragwort ‘hot spots’

☺ ££

√

Environment, All Users, Landowners

HBC

M3, M5 PTS 7

89


Strategic Aim 2: To maintain an accurate and up-to-date Definitive Map and Statement

Evidence of Need: � There is a statutory duty to update and maintain the Definitive Maps and Statements; � There is a need for a more accurate and up to date Definitive Map and Statement that, is more accessible. This will remove uncertainty over the correct alignment and status

of paths, and increase general awareness of the access network. In some cases this can have the same effect as creating new paths, as people are made aware of paths that they never knew existed;

� There is potential for the Lost Ways Project to add/upgrade certain identified routes to improve the connectivity of the network; � To discover the true extent of public access there is a need to map existing routes with no legal status that link the Public Rights of Way and other access route networks and

seek to formalise and add them to the definitive map and statement where possible; � Users are keen to protect routes without legal status; � In the past claims for potential Public Rights of Way have not been pursued to completion due to the current process being difficult for members of the public; and. � The network assessment has identified gaps in the access network.

Resources


Ref

Action

Staff

Funding Yr 1 & 2

Yr 3 & 4

Yr 5+

Benefits

Partners

Links to

other ROWIP actions

Links to

LTP Policies

L1 Continue to review the Definitive Map and Statement and publish a new up-to-date Map and Statement that covers the area managed by Halton, by 2010

☺ ££

√


HBC, Users, Landowners, LAF, Parish Councils

L2, L3, L5, L6, L8

PTS 11,18

L2 Distribute copies of the new Definitive Map to all Council Direct Links, Local Libraries and Parish Councils

☺ £ √


HBC L1 PTS 10, 11, 17, 18

L3 Make a digital version of the new Definitive Map available on the Council’s website

☺ £ √

All Users, Landowners, Developers

HBC L1,T10 PTS 10, 11, 17, 18

L4 Develop a recording system (similar to that used for Public Rights of Way) for cycle tracks, permissive routes and other access routes using CAM’s and make the information available to the public

☺ £

√

All Users

HBC L5 PTS 3, 7, 10, 11,12,17, 18

L5 Seek to formalise and record all those routes identified as having no legal status or status unknown during the desk top assessment

☺ ££

√

Walkers, Cyclists and Equestrians

HBC, Landowners, Users, Parish Councils, LAF

L1, L4 PTS 7, 10, 11, 17, 18

L6 Identify all cross boundary routes and work to ensure consistency of status and alignment.

☺☺ ££

√ Landowners, All Users

HBC, Neighbouring Authorities

L1,L8 PTS 3, 7, 10, 11, 17, 18

L7 Develop and maintain such digital registers as are required by legislation, incorporating such additional information as may be deemed appropriate.

☺ £

√

HBC

PTS 7, 11

L8 Continue to catalogue existing Definitive Map anomalies, determine preferred actions and seek implementation.

☺ £££ √ Landowners, All Users

HBC, Users, Landowners

L1, L6 PTS 11, 18

90


Strategic Aim 3: To promote the health benefits of the network and make it easier for people to incorporate exercise into their daily lives and lead healthier lifestyles

Evidence of Need: � There are clear health benefits associated with outdoor activity; � There is a lack of awareness of the potential health benefits of using the public rights of way and other access routes; � The Public Rights of Way and other access routes can assist partners trying to improve the health of Halton residents by providing opportunities for exercise and recreation;

and � The number of people in Halton with long term illness is higher than the national average.

Resources


Ref

Action

Staff

Funding Yr 1 & 2

Yr 3 & 4

Yr 5+

Benefits

Partners

Links to

other ROWIP actions

Links to

LTP Policies

H1 Establish links with other Council officers, plans and strategies involving health issues.

☺ £

√ HBC PTS 3, 10, 11, 17, 18

H2 Establish links with the Primary Care Trust and other Health Organisations.

☺☺ £

√ HBC, PCT, Disabled User Groups, The Mersey Forest

H3, H4, H6 PTS 3, 10, 11, 17, 18

H3 Work in partnership to promote the health and well being associated with using the PRoW network and other access routes.

☺☺ ££

Ongoing

All Users

HBC, PCT, The Mersey Forest

H2,H7,H8 PTS 3, 10, 11, 17, 18

H4 Use the PRoW network and other access routes to support existing health initiatives such as ‘Walking the Way to Health’.

☺☺ ££

Ongoing

Walkers

HBC, PCT H2 PTS 3, 10, 11, 17, 18

H5 Establish a ‘Green Gym’ programme to assist with the

maintenance and improvements of the rights of way network and other access routes.

☺☺ ££

√

All Users

BTCV, Groundwork Merseyside, HBC

M2,M3 PTS 3, 7,18

H6 Seek to establish links with Doctors Surgeries, Dentists, Health Centres etc to distribute information on the access network.

☺ £

√

All Users

HBC, Others H2 PTS 3, 10, 11

H7 Identify and develop circular and linear routes that can be used to encourage walking, cycling and horse riding for health.

☺ £

√

Walkers, Cyclists

HBC, Groundwork Merseyside, Users, Disabled Groups

H3 PTS 3, 11, 18

H8 Promote these routes accordingly e.g short starter routes. ☺ ££ Ongoing Walkers, Cyclists

HBC, PCT H3 PTS 3, 10, 11, 18

91


Strategic Aim 4: To improve accessibility by improving and developing routes that cater for the needs of people with disabilities.

Evidence of Need: � Too many physical barriers on the access network, deters use; � There is a need to make the access network more accessible by removing unnecessary barriers and improving key routes; � Fewer barriers on routes will increase use; � People with limited mobility require a range of routes of varying length and terrain; � There is a lack of promotion material specifically catering for mobility impaired users and equestrians; and � Need to publicise barrier free routes.

Resources


Ref

Action

Staff

Funding Yr 1 & 2

Yr 3 & 4

Yr 5+

Benefits

Partners

Links to

other ROWIP actions

Links to

LTP Policies

A1

Undertake an accessibility audit of the whole PRoW and minor highways network.

☺ £££

√ All Users HBC, Disabled Access Groups, Groundwork Merseyside

A2 PTS 10

A2 Using the information provided by the accessibility audit identify where new routes can be developed or improvements can be made to make the network more accessible to people with restricted mobility, utilising all appropriate modes of travel, and develop an appropriate programme of works/projects.

☺ ££££

√

HBC A1 PTS 7, 10, 11

A3 Establish links with Disabled Access Groups and other groups/organisations that represent people with disabilities.

☺ £

√ HBC, Disabled Access Groups, Groundwork Merseyside

A1, A4, A5 PTS 10

A4 Work in partnership with mobility impaired people to assist in developing a more accessible network.

☺☺ £

√ HBC, Disabled Access Groups, Groundwork Merseyside

A1, A3, A5,A7 PTS 10

A5 Work in partnership with visually impaired people to develop improvements to the network that will make it more accessible to them. Seek to provide opportunities for users to enjoy sensory experiences where possible.

☺☺ Not

Known

√

HBC, Disabled User Groups

A1, A3, A4, A7

PTS 10

A6 Ensure that all new and improved routes comply with the DDA and the British Telecom ‘Countryside for all’ Design Standards where reasonable and practical to do so.

☺ £

Ongoing

HBC, Developers

A7 PTS 3, 7, 10, 12, 18

A7 Promote new and existing routes that are barrier free.

☺ ££ √ All Users HBC A4, A5, A6,

A8, A9 PTS 10

A8 Continue to implement the principles of the least restrictive option when authorising new structures.

☺ £

Ongoing

All Users HBC, Landowners

A2, A7, PTS 10

A9 Continue to encourage landowners to allow the Council to install gates in place of existing stiles that require repair or replacement.

☺☺ £ Ongoing

Walkers, Disabled Users

HBC, Landowners

A7, A8 PTS 10

92


Strategic Aim 5: To increase the use of the Network for sustainable transport and utility trips

Evidence of Need: � Public Rights of Way and other access routes can make a positive contribution to addressing accessibility to jobs, education, health, shopping and other quality of life issues

for socially excluded people in Halton; � The Transport and Access networks could be better integrated; � Improving infrastructure in urban areas is likely to increase levels of walking and cycling; � Whilst promotional materials are well received, non-users are unaware of the existence and potential benefits that the local access network can have for the community; � Potential users lack confidence using rights of way and other access routes; � Subtle messaging, language and pictures are key to empowering people to have confidence in using the network. Information needs to be appropriate and inclusive to

people’s needs to allow them to make their own decisions about their ability to use a route; � Marketing and promotion needs to be improved; and � Publicise barrier free routes.

Resources


Ref

Action

Staff

Funding Yr 1 & 2

Yr 3 & 4

Yr 5+

Benefits

Partners

Links to

other ROWIP actions

Links to

LTP Policies

ST1 Continue to identify and improve off-road routes linking communities with schools, employment centres and local services.

☺ £

√

Walkers, Cyclists

HBC, User Groups, Schools, Colleges, Employers

ST3, ST12, SA1

PTS 3, 10, 11, 12, 17 ,18

ST2 Improve enforcement and management of the urban public footpaths and other access routes to combat litter, fly-tipping and dog fouling.

☺ ££

√

All Users HBC, User Groups

PTS 7

ST3 Continue to seek improvements for non-motorised travel in proposals for new developments. Seek to secure funding from developer contributions.

☺☺ £

√

All Users HBC, User Groups, Developers

ST1 PTS 3, 10, 11, 12, 17 ,18

ST4 Develop walking and cycling routes from public transport

interchanges.

☺☺ £

√ Walkers, Cyclists

HBC, Transport Providers

ST5, ST7, ST10, ST11, T11

PTS 3, 12, 18

ST5 Promote the use of public transport on leaflets and website.

☺ ££ √

All Users HBC ST5,ST9 PTS 3, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18

ST6 Publish rights of way guidance for developers.

☺ £ √ All Users HBC PTS 7,

10, 11

ST7 Identify existing links between the rights of way network, other access routes and local bus and rail services.

☺ ££


HBC, User Groups

ST4, ST8 PTS 3, 11, 12, 17, 18

ST8 Ensure that rights of way, cycleway and other access route connections are considered when planning new bus routes

☺ £

Walkers, Cyclists

HBC, Developers,

ST7, ST9 PTS 3, 10, 11,

93


and stops.

√

User Groups 12, 17, 18

ST9 Promote selected routes through time tables, bus route information maps, bus interchanges and train stations.

☺☺ £

√ All Users HBC, Bus and Train Operators

ST5, ST7, ST8

PTS 3, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18

ST10 Ensure that, wherever possible promoted routes can be accessed using public transport.

☺ £

√ All Users HBC ST4 PTS 12

ST11 Provide relevant public transport information on promotion leaflets for walking and cycling.

☺ £


HBC ST4 PTS 3, 10, 11, 12, 18

ST12 Where appropriate work to integrate the PRoW and other access routes with work and school travel plans.

☺☺ £


HBC, Schools, Colleges and Businesses

ST1 PTS 17

ST13 Continue to seek to upgrade footpaths where appropriate to provide greater opportunities.

☺ £££

Ongoing

All Users HBC, User Groups, Neighbouring Authorities, Landowners The Mersey Forest

ST14, SA1, CO1, CO2, CO3, CO4

PTS 3, 10, 11, 12, 17 ,18

ST14 Seek to develop a multi-user route across the River Mersey.

☺☺ £££ √

Walkers, Cyclists, Horse Riders

HBC, User Groups, Sustrans, BHS, The Mersey Forest

ST13, T7, T8, T9

PTS 3, 10, 11, 17 ,18

ST15 Continue to ensure that the needs of disabled users, walkers, cyclists and horse riders, where appropriate, are taken into consideration in the design of new highway schemes.

☺ £ Ongoing All Users HBC ST1, ST8, ST13, SA1, SA2, P2, T8

PTS 3, 10, 11, 12, 18

94


Strategic Aim 6: To improve the safety and attractiveness of routes affected by other parts of the transport network

Evidence of Need: � Path users find crossing busy roads difficult which deters use; � Driver attitude and awareness of equestrians and cyclists could be improved; and � The illegal use of motor vehicles on the access network causes safety issues for users and concern to landowners. Attempts to restrict access to resolve problems can impact

on other users and quite often, the problem simply moves elsewhere.

Resources


Ref

Action

Staff

Funding Yr 1 & 2

Yr 3 & 4

Yr 5+

Benefits

Partners

Links to

other ROWIP actions

Links to

LTP Policies

SA1 Undertake a safety audit to identify safety issues on the Network and in particular where the PRoW network and other access routes are crossed by the road network, and seek opportunities to make and fund improvements.

☺ ££

√

All Users HBC SA2, SA3, ST1, ST13

PTS 3, 10,11, 12, 17, 18

SA2 Identify where ‘missing links’ in the network, which require users to travel along busy roads and develop solutions including verge improvements, creation agreements/orders.

☺ £

√

All Users HBC SA1, SA3, CO6, CO7

PTS 3, 10,11, 12, 17, 18

SA3 Identify locations where the network is crossed by the rail network and, working with the appropriate authorities, develop measures to improve safety, as required.

☺ £

√

All Users HBC Network Rail Train Operating Companies

SA1, SA2, SA4, SA5

PTS 3, 10, 11, 12, 17 18

SA4 Identify roadside verges that are suitable for use by non-motorised traffic and footway improvements that can provide safe links between routes. Compile a register of identified verges.

☺ £

√

All Users HBC SA1, SA2, SA3, SA5

PTS 3, 10, 11, 12, 18

SA5 Seek to create ‘Behind the Hedge’ routes to provide missing links where appropriate, and safe to do so.

☺☺ £££

√

All Users HBC, Users, Landowners

SA1, SA2, SA3, SA4

PTS 3, 10, 11, 12 18

SA6 Improve driver awareness of equestrians and cyclists and cyclists awareness of horses and walkers.

☺☺ ££ Ongoing Equestrians, Cyclists

HBC, Road Safety Partnership

PTS 3, 11

SA7 Work in partnership to promote road safety for equestrians.

☺☺ ££ Ongoing Equestrians HBC, BHS,

Road Safety Partnership

T14 PTS 11, 12

SA8 Continue to provide education and training that promotes cycle safety and seek to extend this to include equestrians.

☺☺ ££ Ongoing

Cyclists, Equestrians

HBC, Sustrans, BHS, Users, Road Safety Partnership

PTS 3, 11

95


Strategic Aim 7: To support the rural economy, local businesses, countryside, and tourist sites through the promotion of Halton’s PRoW network and other access routes, to residents and visitors.

Evidence of Need: � A good accessible network will benefit tourism, local businesses and the rural economy; � Improvements to Public Rights of Way and other access routes that link to tourist attractions will greatly enhance the visitor experience; � Development and improvement to the bridleway network, together with suitable network promotion and increased information can boost Equine tourism , which can make a

considerable contribution to the local economy; � Coastal tourism will benefit from a better connected access network; � Marketing and promotion needs to be improved; � There is a lack of promotion material specifically catering for mobility impaired users and equestrians; and � In the past promoted events have been popular but limited to walking and cycling groups this should be extended.

Resources


Ref

Action

Staff

Funding Yr 1 & 2

Yr 3 & 4

Yr 5+

Benefits

Partners

Links to

other ROWIP actions

Links to

LTP Policies

T1 Identify and list sites requiring improved links to the surrounding network of PRoW and other access routes. Investigate, prioritise and implement options for securing improved access to poorly served sites.

☺ £

√

Site Managers, Landowners, All Users

HBC, Users, Site Managers

T2,T3,T4 PTS 3, 10, 11, 12, 18

T2 Identify and develop circular and linear recreational routes to and from Countryside and Tourist Sites.

☺ £

√

All Users, Providers

HBC, Users, Site Managers

T1,T4 PTS 3, 10, 11, 18

T3 Identify and develop access opportunities to Open Access and Registered Common Land.

☺ ££

√

Walkers HBC, Users, Landowners

T1 PTS 10, 18

T4 Seek to develop links with tourism and accommodation providers to distribute information on the access network and other routes, to assist in the promotion of rivers, canals and other tourist attractions in the Borough for recreational purposes.

☺ £

√

All Users, Providers

HBC, Providers T1,T2 PTS 3, 10, 11, 18

T5 Provide information on the accessibility of routes as determined by accessibility audits using suitable formats and medias.

☺ ££

√

Users HBC PTS 3, 10, 11, 18

T6 Identify, develop and promote links from the Trans Pennine Trail into the surrounding urban centres and tourist destinations.

☺ ££

√

Users HBC, Sustrans, Users

PTS 3, 10, 11, 18

T7 Develop strategic routes for all users including horse riders, where possible, to support the development of long distance routes such as the North West Coastal Trail and to facilitate connections between other initiatives such as the Weaver Valley Park, The Mersey Waterfront, Upper Mersey Forest park.

☺☺

££££

√

All Users HBC, MLAF, Neighbouring Authorities, Users, 4NW, The Mersey Forest, Other Organisations

ST14, T9, P6 PTS 3, 10, 11, 18

96


T8 Seek to provide a multi-user River Crossing, including provision for equestrians, to facilitate proposed regional and national trails.

☺☺ ££

√

All Users HBC, MLAF, BHS, Sustrans, Users, The Mersey Forest

ST14 PTS 3, 10,11, 12, 17, 18

T9 Continue to support partners in the development of new routes and trails.

☺☺ £

√

All Users HBC, Other Authorities, The Mersey Forest, Other Organisations

ST14, T7 PTS 3, 10,11, 12, 17, 18

T10 Continue to develop the PRoW website and seek to include interactive web routes for all users with links to local services and tourist attractions.

☺ £

√

All Users HBC L3 PTS 3, 10, 11, 18

T11 Provide public transport information at key sites and along promoted routes.

☺ £

√

Users HBC, Transport Providers

ST4 PTS 3, 11, 12, 18

T12 Establish links and work with Parish Councils to erect map display boards at suitable locations throughout the Borough.

☺ ££

√

Users HBC, Parish Councils

PTS 11

T13 Seek to continue to develop the series of ‘Halton Village Walks’ leaflets.

☺ ££

√

Walkers HBC, Groundwork Merseyside

PTS 10, 11, 18

T14 Research and develop other promotional leaflets for walkers, horse riders and cyclists.

☺ ££

√

All Users HBC, Groundwork Merseyside, Users

SA7 PTS 3, 10, 11, 18

T15 Seek to Identify and develop routes to link tourist accommodation e.g. hotels, B+B’s to the network and other attractions.

☺ £

√

Providers, Visitors, Users

HBC, Providers PTS 3, 10, 11, 18

T16 Produce a leaflet distribution strategy ☺ £ √ All Users HBC PTS 3, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18

97


Strategic Aim 8: To seek opportunities to enhance the network through the planning process and through the various plans and strategies developed by the Council.

Evidence of Need: � In the past a number of developments have had a detrimental effect on the access network; � Many developments have the potential to contribute to the access network through dedication, permissive and concessionary means; � The development of access opportunities through consultation on newly proposed tourist attractions will provide further opportunity for users and potentially secure new routes,

ensuring that public rights of way and other access routes can further contribute to the local economy; � Plans for all developments i.e housing, industrial, new tourist attractions/accommodation etc should include provisions for walking, cycling and horse riding, where appropriate; � Rights of Way Improvement Plans have the potential to link with a number of plans and strategies through shared aims and objectives; and � There are opportunities to promote the network with partners who have similar aims and objectives to the Rights of Way Improvement Plan.

Resources


Ref

Action

Staff

Funding Yr 1 & 2

Yr 3 & 4

Yr 5+

Benefits

Partners

Links to

other ROWIP actions

Links to

LTP Policies

P1 Seek to prevent developments that have a detrimental impact on the existing network.

☺ £

Ongoing

All Users HBC P3, P5 PTS 3, 10, 11, 18

P2 Continue to ensure that all new developments link to the network by appropriate dedicated footpaths, bridleways and cycleways.

☺ £

Ongoing

All Users HBC, Developers, Users

PTS 3, 10, 11, 12, 18

P3 Seek to improve the recognition & protection of public rights of way and other access routes in the planning process and the use of planning gain to enhance facilities.

☺ £

√

All Users HBC, Developers

P1 PTS 3, 10, 11, 18

P4 Establish firm linkages with existing plans and strategies to integrate public rights of way, other access routes and the ROWIP to enable shared aims and objectives to be delivered.

☺ £

√

All Users HBC PTS 3, 7, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18

P5 Produce a Guide to Development and Public Rights of Way for the planners and developers.

☺ £

√ All Users HBC P1 PTS 3, 10, 11, 18

P6 Improve current links with partners and seek to establish new relationships to facilitate the identification and development of cross boundary routes and national and regional trails.

☺☺ £

√

All Users HBC, Neighbouring Authorities, LAFs, The Mersey Forest, 4NW

T7 PTS 3, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18

98


Strategic Aim 9: To improve connectivity of the Network and create opportunities for walkers, cyclists and equestrians.

Evidence of Need: � The access network is fragmented particularly for equestrians and cyclists; � There is a lack of provision for equestrians which means that many have to travel along the highway for recreation or to access a limited number of routes; � Improvements are needed to improve connectivity of routes; � Horse riders and cyclists want a range of circular routes of varying lengths; � Horse riders would like longer cross boundary routes and links to National Trails; � All users want more off-road routes; � There is a need to establish clearer relationships with cycling and equestrian groups to assist in route provision and development; and � There is a need to map definitive routes, cycle routes, permissive agreements and other access opportunities to identify wider connectivity and areas lacking access.

Resources


Ref

Action

Staff

Funding Yr 1 & 2

Yr 3 & 4

Yr 5+

Benefits

Partners

Links to

other ROWIP actions

Links to

LTP Policies

CO1 Upgrade footpaths to bridleways, where appropriate, to assist in the development of a more cohesive network of routes available to equestrians and cyclists.

☺ £££

√

All Users HBC, Users, BHS, Neighbouring Authorities

ST13 PTS 3, 10, 11

CO2 Upgrade cycle tracks to bridleways, where appropriate, to assist develop a connected network of routes available to equestrians.

☺ £££

√

All Users HBC, Users, Landowners, Neighbouring Authorities

ST13 PTS 10, 11

CO3 Upgrade footpaths to shared use cycle tracks, where appropriate, to develop a connected network of routes for cyclists.

☺ £££

√

Cyclists HBC, Users, Sustrans

ST13 PTS 3, 10, 11, 18

CO4 Seek Creation Agreements/Orders to make missing links, where sufficient need has been established.

☺☺ ££

√

All Users HBC, Users, Landowners

ST13 PTS 3, 10, 11, 18

CO5 Ensure that all gates fitted on routes with equestrian rights have latches that can be operated from horse back.

☺ £

√ Equestrians HBC, Landowners

PTS 10, 11

CO6 Continue to identify and develop off road walking, cycling and horse riding routes.

☺ £

√ All Users HBC, Users, SA2 PTS 3, 10, 11, 18

C07 Seek to identify and develop linkages to improve connectivity of the existing network and new routes.

☺ £

√ All Users HBC, Users SA2 PTS 3, 10, 11, 18

CO8

Seek to identify, develop and promote the use of ‘Quiet Lanes’ to benefit all non-motorised users.

☺ £

√

All Users HBC PTS 3, 10, 11, 17, 18

99


Strategic Aim 10: To seek opportunities to enhance and extend the Public Rights of Way network and other access routes through cross boundary working

Evidence of Need: � Horse Riders want to be able to access the Salt Marshes at Frodsham, the Aston Ring and other neighbouring bridleway routes/networks; � Horse riders requested the creation and development of routes in the north of the Borough; � There are opportunities to extend and improve the network available to Halton residents for walkers, horse riders and cyclists; and � There is the opportunity to facilitate the development of national and regional trails through the Borough.

Resources


Ref

Action

Staff

Funding Yr 1 & 2

Yr 3 & 4

Yr 5+

Benefits

Partners

Links to

other ROWIP actions

LTP

Walking and

Cycling

CB1 Re-establish links with St Helens Bridleway Group and St Helens Council to facilitate the development of the Old Mineral Line, as a multi-user route for walkers, horse riders and cyclists.

☺ ££

√

All Users St. Helens BC, Groundwork Merseyside, Users, Landowners, The Mersey Forest

CB2,CB4,CB5CB6

PTS 3, 10, 11, 17, 18

CB2 Research the status of the route along the north side of the Manchester Ship canal with a view to upgrading to a bridleway to improve access for walkers, horse riders and cyclists, through the Upper Mersey Valley Regional Park

☺☺ ££

√

All Users Warrington BC, HBC, The Mersey Forest, Groundwork Merseyside,

CB5 PTS 3, 10, 11, 18

CB3 Seek to move the Mersey Way at Hale further away from the shore to ensure longevity of the route and upgrade sections of bridleway to provide a multi-user route for all users that connects to the Mersey Waterfront Park.

☺☺ ££££

√

All Users HBC, Landowners, Users

CB5 PTS 3, 10, 11, 18

CB4 Establish links with the new Cheshire West & Chester Unitary Council with a view to replacing the old bridge across the Weaver Navigation to provide a multi –user connection into the Weaver Valley Regional Park and the Weaver Way for horse riders, walkers and cyclists.

☺ ££££

√

All Users HBC, Cheshire West & Chester BC, British Waterways, Users, Landowners

CB5 PTS 3, 10, 11 ,18

CB5 Identify, create and develop cross boundary links into neighbouring networks.

☺☺ £££

√ All Users Neighbouring

Authorities CB1,CB2,CB3CB4,CB6,CB7

PTS 3, 10, 11 ,18

CB6 Establish links with partners to enable the development of the North West Coastal Trail in Halton.

☺☺ ££££

√ All Users Neighbouring Authorities, 4NW, The Mersey Forest

CB5 PTS 3, 10, 11 ,18

CB7 Seek to develop, with partners, a multi-user crossing over the River Mersey.

☺☺ ££££

√ All Users HBC, MLAF,

Neighbouring Authorities, BHS, Users, Sustrans 4NW, The Mersey Forest

CB5 PTS 3, 10, 11, 18

Error! Unknown document property name. SA Report – August 2009

of 115

11.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING 11.1 Implementation

11.1.1 Whilst there is a statutory requirement to produce a Rights of Way Improvement

Plan, there is no requirement on local authorities to implement the plan. Specific funding has not been allocated to deliver improvements, so local authorities have to bid for funding to deliver the proposed improvements.

11.1.2 Rights of Way Improvement Plans are meant to be aspirational and ambitious in

identifying potential improvements to the network. Therefore we have cast our net wide when considering ways to improve the network whilst recognising that it would not be possible to implement them all immediately.

11.1.3 The Council will need to work in partnership with a range of organisations in order

to deliver many of the proposed actions. Additional funding will be required and will be sought from both internal and external sources.

11.2 Monitoring 11.2.1 It is intended that an annual report be produced containing details of progress that has been made towards the objectives in the ROWIP.

11.2.2 It is anticipated that as the ROWIP will eventually be incorporated within the Local Transport Plan (LTP) that reporting on delivery will be in accordance with Government guidance at the time.

11.2.3 It is intended that the Council’s existing Public Rights of Way Milestone Statement will be the delivery mechanism for the ROWIP improvements. Details of proposed site specific schemes will be included within the Milestone Statement Progress Report which outlines a programme of works. 11.3 Identifying ‘Quick Wins’ 11.3.1 It is clear that many of the Actions identified will require much time and the allocation of substantial resources to deliver.

11.3.2 There are however, some actions that can be delivered within a shorter timescale, as their implementation does not rely on identifying additional external funding. In broad terms the improvements which Halton Borough Council and their partners can best make progress on delivering are those within the control of the Council.

11.3.3 The Council will therefore endeavour to identify ‘Quick Wins’ to ensure the improvement and development of the network progresses whilst more detailed/complex schemes are developed.


of 115

12.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Access Land - A specific area of land where a new right of access on foot applies (often referred to as a right to roam). These areas were designated under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

BHS – British Horse Society

BOAT (Byway Open to All Traffic) – is a special category of right of way recorded on definitive maps. It is a carriageway and thus a right of way for vehicular traffic, but one used mainly for the purposes for which footpaths and bridleways are used, i.e. by walkers and horse-riders.

BTCV (British Trust for Conservation Volunteers – The biggest practical conservation charity in Britain.

BVPI 178 (Best Value Performance Indicator) - A national performance indicator used to measure the condition of public rights of way.

CAMs (Countryside Access Management System) – A database and integrated mapping system used to manage data relating to public rights of way.

CROW Act (Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000)- Act of parliament, which included new duties for highway authorities in England and Wales to publish rights of way improvement plans (ROWIPs), introduced a right of access on foot to access land, and established Local Access Forums. Cycle Track (cycleway) - A right of way with a pedal cycle, and on foot unless segregated. Definitive Map - Is the Legal Register of Public Rights of Way. The showing of a path on the definitive map was and is conclusive evidence that it was a public right of way at the date the map was prepared (relevant date). However, although the map provides conclusive evidence of the existence of rights, the reverse is not true. If a footpath is shown on the definitive map, it is conclusive evidence that the lower rights exist, however, this does not preclude that higher rights may exist, or that a way not shown on the map could be a public right of way. The higher rights or status of the claimed right of way would have to be proved.

Statement - A written gazetteer and description of paths shown on the Definitive Map.

The Definitive Map and Statement are conclusive evidence in law of the particulars they contain.


of 115

The Relevant Date - This is the date decided upon by the surveying authority, after which it would not accept any further evidence to add to, or amend ways shown in the draft Map. The relevant date has to be no more than 6 months before the publication of the press notices inviting public inspection of the draft Map. This relevant date still holds for the current definitive Map with regard to the ways originally shown thereon.

The Map is therefore known to be correct as of that date. If a Map has been amended by modification orders it will thus be subject to more than one ‘relevant date’.

Definitive Map Modification Orders (DMMO) - This is the legal process by which the definitive map and statement are altered or amended following an ‘event’. This could be a ‘legal event’ eg a PPO to divert a path or an ‘evidential event’ eg the discovery of evidence that a path is a right of way.

DDA – Disability Discrimination Act 1995 DEFRA – Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs DfT – Department for Transport

Discovering Lost Ways – A Countryside Agency project to research unrecorded rights of way before the definitive map is closed to historic claims in 2026.

Greenway – A Greenway is a network of largely off-road routes connecting people to facilities and open spaces in and around towns, cities and the countryside. They are for use by people of all abilities on foot, bike or horseback, for commuting, play or leisure.

Highway - A strip of land over which the public has a right to pass and re-pass according to its status. All categories of public rights of way and public roads are highways.

Natural England – The government agency concerned with nature conservation, recreation and management of natural resources.

Open Country – Land defined and mapped as mountain, moor, heath and down under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

Local Access Forum (LAF) – A statutory body established under the CROW Act 2000 to provide strategic advice on the improvement of access to the countryside. PCT - Primary Care Trust

Public Right of Way - A way over which the public, have the right to pass and re pass. A right to pass from A – B by a defined route.


of 115

Public Footpath - Is a highway over which the public, have the right of way on foot only.

Public Bridleway - Is a highway over which the right of way is on foot, on horseback or leading a horse, possibly with a right to drive animals. Section 30 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1968 provides a right to ride a bicycle on bridleways, but cyclists must give way to pedestrians or persons on horseback.

Public Path Orders - This is the legal process, which alters or amends the rights of the public in relation to a specific public right of way. They make physical changes on the ground and do not change the Definitive Map and Statement. They may be grouped into 3 categories: - Diversions

- Creations - Extinguishments

Permissive Path - A route which may be used by the public with the permission of the landowner.

Quiet Lanes – Are minor rural roads that are appropriate for use by walkers, cyclists, horse riders and motorised users. These roads should have low levels of traffic travelling at low speeds.

Registered Common Land – An area of land shown on the Commons Register. These sites are subject to the new right of access on foot under CROW.

Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP – A plan produced by each highway authority in England and Wales setting out how the Council will deliver improved management of the PRoW network and other access routes.

Roads Used as Public Path (RUPP) – RUPPs carry footpath and bridleway rights. They may or may not have vehicular rights.

PCT - Primary Care Trust

13.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Rights of Way Improvement Plans – Statutory Guidance to Local Highway Authorities in England ( 2002) The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW Act 2000) Milestone Statement – Halton Borough Council 2003

Progress Report 2006/07

Final Local Transport Plan 2006/07 to 2010/11 - Halton Borough Council A Community Strategy for a Sustainable Halton 2006-2011


of 115

‘It’s All Happening in Halton’ – The Corporate Plan 2006-2011 Halton Unitary Development Plan (2005) Provision of Open Space Supplementary Planning Document (Draft 2007) Economic and Tourism Development Strategy 2004-2007 – ‘Halton Gateway to Prosperity’ Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable development (PPS1) (January 2005) Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3) (November 2006) Planning Policy Guidance Note 4: Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms (PPG4) (November 1992) Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport (PPG13) (April 2001) Planning Policy Guidance Note 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (PPG17) (July 2002) The UK Day Visits Survey 1996 (HMSO) Rights of Way Use and Demand Study (Entec 2001) 2001 Census – Key Statistics (HMSO 2003) The State of the Borough in Halton – An Economic, Social and Environmental Audit of Halton (January 2008) – Halton Borough Council Disability Discrimination Act 1995 By All Reasonable Means – Countryside Agency The State of the Countryside 1999 – Countryside Agency Discovering Lost Ways – Outcome of review and recommendations for the way forward (March 2008) – Natural England The List of Streets and unrecorded Rights of Way (28th November 2006) – DEFRA North West Regional Assembly Briefing paper 6 – Regional Parks Pilot Rights of Way Improvement Plan – Nottinghamshire County Council Rights of Way Improvement Plan – Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Draft ‘Exemplar’ Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2004 – City of York Council


of 115

Rights of Way Improvement Plan (October 07) – Rutland County Council Rights of Way Improvement Plan for Merseyside 2008 – 2018 The National Cycling Strategy (July 1996) Delivering Choosing Health – The Health White Paper (November 2004) Mersey Gateway Sustainable Transport Strategy ‘Gateway to Sustainability‘(February 2009) – Halton Borough Council www.ramblers.org.uk www.nwra.go.uk www.liverpool.gov.uk www.cla.org.uk www.timesonline.co.uk 14.0 APPENDICES APPENDIX A - RIGHTS OF WAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN (ROWIP) POLICIES Policy R1

Halton Borough Council will seek to support the aspirations and work of partner authorities and organisations in identifying opportunities and securing improvements and additions to the rights of way network and other access routes through their own policies and the planning system. The Authority will look to partners for support in pursuing the aims and objectives of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan, including cross boundary working.

. Policy R2 (U1) Walking


of 115

Halton Borough Council will protect and seek to enhance the network available to walkers and cater for their needs. Priority will be given to making the existing network more accessible to those with limited mobility, where appropriate. .

.

Policy R3 (U2) Cycling

Halton Borough Council will protect and seek to enhance the network available to cyclists. Opportunities to expand the available traffic-free and ‘on–road’ networks will be pursued, where appropriate.

Policy R4 (U3) Horse Riders and Carriage Drivers

Halton Borough Council will protect and seek to enhance the network available to horse riders and carriage drivers. Opportunities to expand and improve the available traffic free and ‘on road’ networks will be given a priority. .

Policy R5 (U4) Motor Vehicles

In pursuing the aims of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan, Halton Borough Council will have due regard to the rights of motorised vehicular users, where appropriate.

Policy R6 (U5) Access for All

In developing and improving the local rights of way network and other access routes, Halton Borough Council will have due regard to the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Council will seek to make the local rights of way network and other access routes as accessible as possible to people through the provision of clear information and by adopting an approach of the least restrictive option in route management, as outlined in Policy R15 (M2) Authorisation and Management of Structures on Local Rights of Way.

Policy R7 (U6) Encouraging Greater Use of the Network


of 115

Halton Borough Council will seek to raise awareness of the availability and benefits of the rights of way and access network. The Authority will support the aims of other bodies promoting greater use of the network and encourage partner authorities to be pro-active in their efforts to meet the needs of existing and potential users.

Policy R8 (U7) Minimising Conflict

In pursuing the aims of its Rights of Way Improvement Plan, Halton Borough Council will seek to ensure that the rights of farmers/landowners are respected and encourage responsible use of the network. Where appropriate, the Authority will initiate measures to minimise conflict between users.

Policy R9 (Imp1) Improving Network Connections

Halton Borough Council recognises that one of the biggest problems faced by users is the lack of connectivity of the internal and cross boundary networks, especially bridleways. Where problems are identified, opportunities will be sought to improve connectivity, where appropriate, with priority given to multi-user connections.

Policy R10 (Imp2) Improving Network Safety

Halton Borough Council will seek improvements to the safety of vulnerable users where they have cause to cross a highway in order to access the local rights of way network and other access routes. Where safety is identified as being a concern, the Authority will consider a wide range of options such as revised verge management, improved visibility, signing etc. Priority will be given to improving those routes which cater for a combination of horse riders, cyclists and walkers.


of 115

Policy R11 (L1) Dealing with Public Path Orders

Public Path Order (PPO) applications will normally be supported by the Authority where there is seen to be benefits to both landowner and user. PPO’s will normally be processed in the order in which they are received, except in the following circumstances where orders may be considered sooner: � Where processing of an order would allow the Council to pursue a significant

access opportunity such as identified through the Rights of Way Improvement Plan;

� Where an order has been made by the Council in the capacity as Planning Authority to facilitate approved development;

� Where the processing of an order could save significant costs incurred in other Rights of Way functions; and

� Where public safety can be improved. PPO’s will be prioritised as above to enable orders to be made that have a significant impact on the path network.

Policy R12 (L2) Dedications and Creation Agreements

Halton Borough Council has powers to accept the dedication of a new right of way under Section 25 of the Highways Act 1980. Agreements will be considered: � Where a dedication is offered in lieu of a Modification Order and satisfies the

evidence for that order, enabling the early addition of the route to the Definitive Map; and

� Where the requirement to make a dedication forms part of an obligation under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Section 106.

Maintenance liability will normally only be accepted where: � The addition of a path is of strategic public benefit; � No initial additional expenditure by the Authority is necessary to bring a path into

a fit state of use; and � Limitations on the use of the route are not onerous to the public. The Council will also consider dedication or creation agreements that secure a line/corridor through which it intends to develop a future route, previously identified through the Greenways Study, Bridleways Studies, ROWIP etc. When pursuing such agreements physical works may or may not be required by the landowner and any ensuing maintenance liabilities will be accepted by the Council.


of 115

Policy R13 (L3) Width of New Routes

Halton Borough Council has a duty to assert the rights of the public (Highways Act 1980, Section 130) when making orders or consulting on new routes. As a result, the Authority requires a minimum width of 2m for footpaths and 4m for bridleways, which are created by a Public Path Order (PPO) or dedication, except where a path has been previously fenced on both sides, when there is the presumption that the full available width should be recorded as the width. Where possible a ‘gold standard’ width of 5m for bridleways will be sought. For Greenway routes intended for all users and those routes that are considered to be of strategic importance, the Council will seek a width of 10m to cater for the different classes of user and to allow for the provision of trees, hedges and benches to enable walkers to rest. However, the Council recognises that sometimes it will be necessary to accept a lesser width or localised narrowing in order to create a route. It will therefore, endeavour to achieve the best and most appropriate width that fits the route’s proposed purpose and its surroundings.

Policy R14 (M1) – Maintenance of the Network

Halton Borough Council has a duty to assert and protect the rights of the public to enjoy the path network (Highways Act 1980 S130). The Authority will normally prioritise its actions as follows, whilst minimising their impact on the natural and built environment:-

� Where public safety can be improved; � According to the level of public use; � Where the Council feels there would be a significant benefit to those

with limited mobility; � Where the Council’s actions could result in a significant positive impact

on the local rights of way network; � Where actions by landowners and managers are in direct conflict with

the Highways Act 1980; � Where the Council is bringing a path into a ‘fit’ condition with the

intention of adding it to the Definitive Map; and � Where there is evidence that either the Definitive Map or Statement is

incorrect.


of 115

Policy R15 (M2) Authorisation and Management of Structures on Local Rights of

Way

Halton Borough Council will seek to keep the number of newly authorised structures erected on the local Rights of Way network to a minimum, to minimise the impact on legitimate users. In order to achieve this, only gates will normally be authorised to avoid unnecessary problems caused by stiles. In most cases the least restrictive option available will be favoured, although careful consideration will be given to the needs of the farmers and horse owners for structures to be stock proof and any historic value, prior to replacement. It should be noted that where a structure is no longer needed for stock control purposes and does not meet the criteria for authorisation, the Authority will seek the removal of that structure, leaving a clearly ‘way marked’ gap

Policy R16 (M3) Authorising new Bridges and Associated Structures on Local Rights of Way

Where a landowner creates a new ditch, pond or channel that crosses an existing right of way, a suitable bridge or structure must be provided, which can accommodate all legitimate users safely and without restriction.

Policy R17 (M4) Enforcing the Removal of Agricultural Obstructions

Halton Borough Council will endeavour to resolve any agricultural obstructions by negotiation with the landowner/farmer. However, where this fails, the Council will take action to address the identified problem, using its powers under Sections 134 and 137A of the Highways Act 1980.

Policy R18 (M5) Sustainable Practice

Halton Borough Council will aim to ensure that sustainable processes are employed for the procurement of goods and services associated with the management and maintenance of the PRoW network and other access routes. The Council will also aim to ensure that the waste generated as a result of improvements to or the maintenance of the PRoW network and other access routes and indeed any litter, is managed sustainably, following the principles of the waste hierarchy to reduce, re-use and recycle, as appropriate.


of 115

Policy R19 (M6) Community Participation

Halton Borough Council will aim to develop communication with local communities about the PRoW network and other access routes and provide opportunities, wherever practical and possible, to be involved in their management and maintenance.

Appendix B Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment Process and Main Outcomes

The SA/SEA process seeks to ensure that the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing a plan are considered. The SA/SEA process has shown that implementation of the Halton ROWIP and associated policies will have significant positive effects on social inclusion, accessibility, health, tourism, landscape, and air quality. The process has also acted as a checking mechanism to ensure the effects of proposed ROWIP policies are considered in a robust manner. The SA/SEA process has assisted in developing a framework for monitoring. Indicators have been developed which will be used to monitor the implementation of the Halton ROWIP, to check that the policies are effective in delivering their predicted benefits.

As a result of the SA/SEA process a number of recommendations have been developed by Mott MacDonald to strengthen the policies contained in the Halton ROWIP.

ROWIP Policy R14: Halton Borough Council has a duty to assert and protect the rights of the public to enjoy the path network (Highways Act 1980 S130). The Authority will normally prioritise its actions as follows -

• Where public safety can be improved;

• According to the level of public use;

• Where the Council feels there would be a significant benefit to those with limited mobility;

• Where the Council’s actions could result in a significant positive impact on the local rights of way network;

• Where actions by landowners and managers are in direct conflict with the Highways Act 1980;

• Where the Council is bringing a path into a ‘fit’ condition with the intention of adding it to the Definitive Map; and

• Where there is evidence that either the Definitive Map or Statement is incorrect.


of 115

Policy R14 Recommendation: Protecting the rights of public to enjoy the path network should not be to the detriment of the natural or built environment. It is unlikely that this would be the case, but should be made clear in the policy or supporting text.

Halton Borough Council Response: The wording to the policy has been amended as follows:

‘Halton Borough Council has a duty to assert and protect the rights of the public to enjoy the path network (Highways Act 1980 S130). The Authority will normally prioritise its actions as follows, whilst minimising their impact on the natural and built environment –

• Where public safety can be improved;

• According to the level of public use;

• Where the Council feels there would be a significant benefit to those with limited mobility;

• Where the Council’s actions could result in a significant positive impact on the local rights of way network;

• Where actions by landowners and managers are in direct conflict with the Highways Act 1980;

• Where the Council is bringing a path into a ‘fit’ condition with the intention of adding it to the Definitive Map; and

• Where there is evidence that either the Definitive Map or Statement is incorrect.’

ROWIP Policy R15: Halton Borough Council will seek to keep the number of newly authorised structures erected on the local Rights of Way network to a minimum, to minimise the impact on legitimate users. In order to achieve this only gates will normally be authorised to avoid unnecessary problems caused by stiles.

In most cases the least restrictive option available will be favoured, although careful consideration will be given to the needs of the farmers and horse owners for structures to be stock proof.

It should be noted that where a structure is no longer needed for stock control purposes and does not meet the criteria for authorisation, the authority will seek the removal of that structure, leaving a clearly ‘way marked’ gap. Policy R15 Recommendation: Structures should be considered for their historic value prior to removal. Halton Borough Council Response: It should be noted that if a structure is no longer required, it becomes an unlawful obstruction and as such, the Council would use the powers under the Highways Act 1980 to protect the public’s right of free passage over a public highway, regardless of its historic value. However, the Council recognises the importance of historic structures and has amended the wording of the policy as follows:

‘Halton Borough Council will seek to keep the number of newly authorised structures erected on the local Rights of Way network to a minimum, to minimise the impact on


of 115

legitimate users. In order to achieve this only gates will normally be authorised to avoid unnecessary problems caused by stiles.

In most cases the least restrictive option available will be favoured, although careful consideration will be given to the needs of the farmers and horse owners for structures to be stock proof and any historic value, prior to replacement.

It should be noted that where a structure is no longer needed for stock control purposes and does not meet the criteria for authorisation, the authority will seek the removal of that structure, leaving a clearly ‘way marked’ gap.’

Recommended Additional Policies Mott MacDonald also recommended that three additional policies are added to the Halton ROWIP to further increase the sustainability performance of the Plan. Recommended Additional Policy 1: A policy on sustainable procurement could be added to ensure that procurement associated with the management and maintenance of the PROW network and other access routes are sustainable. This could include sustainable materials selections, use of locally sourced materials and suppliers, and using recycled paper for tourism leaflets.

Recommended Additional Policy 2: A policy on sustainable waste management could be added to ensure that any waste generated as a result of improvements or maintenance of the network is managed sustainably. This could include reduction, recycling and re-use of waste materials, and composting of green waste associated with maintenance activities. Waste management of litter across the network should also be considered. Recommended Additional Policy 3: A policy on community participation could be added to allow opportunities for the community to get involved with management of the network. This could include opportunities for voluntary work, youth participation, and direct employment. Halton Borough Council Response: The above recommended additional policies have now been incorporated into the ROWIP as Policy R18 (M5) Sustainable Practice and Policy R19 (M6) Community Participation. The new policies are as follows: Policy R18 (M5) Sustainable Practice – Halton Borough Council will aim to ensure that sustainable processes are employed for the procurement of goods and services associated with the management and maintenance of the PROW network and other access routes. The Council will also aim to ensure that the waste generated as a result of improvements to or maintenance of the PROW network and other access routes and indeed, any litter, is managed sustainably, following the principles of the waste hierarchy to reduce, re-use and recycle, as appropriate. Policy R 19 (M6) Community Participation – Halton Borough Council will aim to develop communication with local communities about the PROW network and other


of 115

access routes and provide opportunities, wherever practical and possible, to be involved in their management and maintenance. Recommended Additional Supporting Text for Policies Following the SA Report consultation responses, Mott MacDonald recommends that additional text is added to the existing supporting text for the policies in the ROWIP. Recommended Additional Supporting Text to Policy R9 ‘Improving Network Connections: The ROWIP should stress the importance of cross boundary network links e.g. the Silver Jubilee Bridge between Runcorn and Widnes, to improve the network. Links with neighbouring Borough and long distance trails will have tourism and economic development benefits from the influx of visitors. Halton Borough Council Response: The issue of cross boundary working is already covered in the existing Policy R1 and Policy R9 has been amended to clarify the importance of improving cross boundary connectivity. Recommended Additional Supporting Text to Policy R10 ‘Improving Network Safety’: Fire risk should be incorporated into the supporting text. Some of Halton’s Green Flag Parks have been susceptible to nuisance fire/arson incidents. Halton Borough Council Response: The comment was based on reported incidents of nuisance fire/arson relating to the infrastructure of the Green Flag Parks, which are not part of the PROW network. HBC therefore consider that this recommendation is not relevant to the ROWIP and would be better addressed through other appropriate plans.

HALTON BOROUGH COUNCIL...Halton Borough Council Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2009/19 HALTON...

Documents

Transcript of HALTON BOROUGH COUNCIL...Halton Borough Council Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2009/19 HALTON...