Contact: Alex Lewis, ext 6044 e-mail: [email protected]

1 Summary

1.1 The following decision is sought:

That approval be given to a change in the current policy for dealing with claims to amend the definitive map of public rights of way made under s.53(5) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to allow the County Council greater flexibility in the order in which it investigates such claims.

The report recommends that claims should still be dealt with in chronological order, with two exceptions. First, if claimed paths are in danger of being lost (usually through development) they can be dealt with in priority to all other claims (as they are now). Secondly, that, if it is in the public interest to do so, a claim can be put into an expedited list, which will be progressed at a rate greater than that of the standard list.

2 Reason

2.1 There is a backlog of claims to amend the definitive map, and it can be some years before a claim can be dealt with. The current claims policy is proving to be insufficiently flexible in those cases where, if successful, a claim would meet a proven need, policy or strategy, which requires to be addressed sooner rather than later. Adhering to a rigid and inflexible policy can impede or complicate the implementation of other strategies or policies driven or supported by the County Council, in particular Countryside Access Plans, but also other transport and recreation initiatives.

2.2 The current backlog has recently increased and the problem already identified will get worse as more claims are submitted to meet the cut off date for the closure of the definitive map, either by individuals or through the government's Lost Ways project.

2.3 The work of the rights of way section, like that of the Countryside Service, is closely linked to Aim 2, Stewardship of the Environment. The identification and management of a good and accessible right of way network helps to shape our surroundings, thereby making Hampshire a better place to live, and contributes to sustainable travel and transport policies.

3 Other Options Considered and Rejected - Keeping the existing policy will exacerbate the problem as the claims backlog increases. Adopting a priority based on a points system, where points are awarded according to public need has been rejected as too complex and subjective. It would also fail to guarantee that all claims would progress up the list.

4 Conflicts of Interest declared by the decision maker or other Executive Member consulted

None.

5 Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee

Not applicable.

6 Reasons for the matter being dealt with if urgent - not applicable.

Approved by: Date:

.................................. ............................

Councillor Mrs. M. Snaith