Archived decisions

Briefing Note for Members of the Culture and Communities Select Committee

9 October 2008

Planning / Development Control - Rights of Way and Countryside Access

Contact: Andrew Smith, Assistant Head of the Countryside Service

I have been asked to provide members of the Committee with a brief paper to explain how district council planning applications are linked with rights of way improvements and how developers' contributions can be secured to improve the local access network. If members would like to receive a more comprehensive report for consideration this can be provided for the next meeting of the Committee.

Public Rights of Way are a material consideration in respect of planning applications for development. The County Council is therefore recognised by planning authorities as a statutory consultee and should receive details of applications from these authorities, where the development proposals may have an effect on any public right of way.

The Countryside Service has an officer within the Access Development Team, Barry Lockyer, whose main role is to deal with planning and development control matters. This is a county-wide position that involves liaison with the eleven district councils and the New Forest National Park Authority. Previously planning matters were managed by each Area Rights of Way Officer, however, this did lead to some inconsistencies in effectiveness and also it was difficult for these officers to devote the necessary time due to the pressures of maintaining the existing network and responding to reports. The new arrangements work well. We have been able to develop a consistent and reliable approach and have an officer who is very familiar with the planning process and is able to build good relations with the district planning officers.

A more coordinated approach is now also in place internally with colleagues from other departments, particularly Highways, PBRS and Legal Practice, to protect the existing network and to identify opportunities to improve, enhance and upgrade rights of way and access provision in general. The Countryside Service's Planning Officer also advises and supports colleagues within the Service on local planning matters and consults Rights of Way Officers, Site Managers and Rangers on applications which may impact on their area of work or site, or which may present an opportunity for improvement.

Our improved links with the district councils mean that we are seeing more of these applications and fewer are `slipping through the net'. During the previous financial year, 07/08, the Service received, and responded to, over 500 consultations and in the first 6 months of this year has already received 380 consultations. On a day-to-day basis, we respond to individual applications and seek to protect and improve the network. We ensure that paths will not become obstructed by proposed new dwellings. This has been a problem in the past, especially in those instances where developers have not even been aware of the existence of a right of way on, or alongside, the site. In these cases we will advise whether the route can be safely accommodated within the site or whether it is necessary to divert the path under the Town and Country Planning 1990. We will then work with the Planning Authority and the applicant to secure the best option for a new route, as well as seeking improvements to try to make the route more accessible than the existing route one.

In responding to consultations we also give due regard to the findings contained within our own Countryside Access Plans (CAPs). A map layer within our GIS system shows locations identified within the CAPs which would benefit from upgraded or new paths to provide useful links to existing routes. By reference to this information we are able to negotiate improvements and additions to the network which, because they have been derived as a result of extensive consultation, we know will be of most benefit to local people and path users in general.

Part of the Planning Officer's role is to offer advice to applicants before a formal application is submitted. This helps to ensure that the application which is submitted takes account of public access at the outset rather than leaving us to make the best of a proposal which is already well developed.

Increasingly, the Countryside Service will seek the imposition of conditions. A particular example of this occurs where the proposed access to a new dwelling or development is along a non-vehicular right of way (footpath/bridleway or restricted byway). This is a problem that is occurring on a regular basis, brought about by an increasing number of applications which seek to develop the large gardens of existing houses. In these cases the only access may be along a track to the rear of the premises which only carries pedestrian rights of access. Our response will make it clear that accessing the site in a vehicle may actually constitute an offence and request that the applicant be required to provide proof of ownership of the path or an authorised private right of access. Support and co-operation from the district councils in response to this request has been varied and is something we are seeking to improve in order to avoid problems in the longer-term.

Examples of advice and comments given in recent responses are shown in the Appendix 1.

Other similar issues which seem to occur on a regular basis include the increasing designation of cycle paths and the apparent lack of consideration of the needs of horse riders. We also make representations about the loss of the rural feel and character of paths particularly where paths are diverted onto estate roads rather than landscaped areas within the development.

On occasions there will be paths running through a site which are currently used by the public but which are not formally recorded and protected as rights of way. If the routes are `claimed' as public paths we shall investigate the evidence as a matter of priority so that all concerned know whether to consider the route as public right of way when managing the application process.

When a proposed development will have an serious adverse impact on rights of way running through or near the site we will usually object to the proposal, giving our reasons and offering suggestions that would help to overcome the problem. On most occasions our concerns are taken into consideration and the applicants resubmit with an amended proposal which addresses the points made. Some examples of these scenarios are listed in Appendix 2.

The main opportunity to secure financial contributions is through working with developers involved with Major Development Areas and other large scale developments. In addition we work to gain additions or improvements to the network included within these developments. For example at the Hampshire Rose Bowl, West End, we have secured new definitive and permissive footpaths through woodland and landscaped fields, with additional maintenance provided by the developers. At Dunsbury Hill Farm, Havant and Treloar College, Alton we are working to secure funding and/or enhancements to the network although these are at pre-application stage only at present.

Improved access and new funding for managing routes and has been secured as part of the East Anton MDA and we are involved in similar discussions regarding the West of Waterlooville MDA. We are also working with colleagues in Environment to develop a more coordinated approach to seeking developers' contributions which fully recognises the additional pressure development brings on the County's infrastructure including rights of way and other forms of countryside access.

Appendix 1

Examples of Countryside Response and Advice

· The applicant(s) should be made aware that all vehicles will be accessing the site via a public footpath, bridleway or restricted byway. Vehicles should give way to public users at all times.

· Any damage caused by construction traffic to the surface of the public right of way will be required to be restored to the satisfaction of the Rights of Way Officer, to not less than its minimum width, on the completion of the build.

· The applicant should be made aware and understand that Hampshire County Council as Highway Authority is not obliged to provide a surface suitable for the passage of vehicles. It only has a duty to maintain a right of way to a standard commensurate with its expected normal public use, in this case, walkers, horse-riders and cyclists.

· All boundary features should be retained.

· There must be no surface alterations to the right of way, nor any works carried out which affect the surface of the right of way, without first seeking the permission of the Rights of Way Officer.

· Nothing connected with the development or its future use should have an adverse effect on the right of way, which must remain available for public use at all times

Appendix 2

Examples of positive outcomes following our objections

Highclere Village Hall - Application to divert path and reduce width of path. Objected and secured continued and improved protection of the path.

New watercress beds, Alresford - Path to be enclosed on both sides. Objected and negotiated improved arrangements which protected integrity of the path whilst also addressing the applicant's health and safety concerns.

New barn, Sherfield English - Access route across field may have resulted in footpath becoming churned up by agricultural vehicles. Objected and negotiated new location for the barn well away from the footpath.

Equestrian development, Baughurst - Path to be enclosed. Objected and secured resurfacing of the footpath which was also to remain unenclosed.

Replacement dwelling, Silchester - Site to be enclosed by 1.8 meter high fence. Fence would have been unsightly immediately alongside the footpath and at one point would have obstructed the path. Objected and application resubmitted without the fencing.

Housing development in Fareham - Diversion of footpath onto estate roads. Objected and secured a more rural setting for the diversion plus surfacing.