To receive a report by Stuart Crook, Highways Asset & Policy Manager.

The Forum received a report from Mr S Crook, regarding the budget savings proposed to the public rights of way (PLA-035). Members were asked to consider the likely impact of the proposed budget savings on the improvement of public access, open-air recreation and the enjoyment of the area and provide advice to the appointing authority (as per section 94(4) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000).

Mr Crook advised that the Council had set a budget which used £2.4m of reserves but required in-year savings of £1m. As a result, the budget for the rights of way service had been reduced to around £35k (revenue) and any capital works would need to be bid for from the Integrated Transport Capital Funding block.

It was proposed that:

a)    the maintenance budget be reduced; with a focus on only high priority works.

b)    only replacement gates be provided, installation to be done by landowners; and publications to be produced electronically (removing printed leaflets)

The Forum discussed only providing replacement gates and Mr Crook advised that Landowners may not accept a kissing gate as a replacement for their stiles due to the additional costs for installation.  It was suggested whether people could donate to the price of the gate in memory of a loved one similarly what was done with public seating.

It was agreed that a Sub-Committee was not necessary to take this forward but could be a topic for discussion at a future meeting as there was a lot more involved to it that just allocating a gate to a person.

AGENDA

Public funding of gates to be discussed at the next meeting

The Forum expressed concern about only producing publications in an electronic format i.e. no print copy.  It was confirmed that a printed leaflet was produced for wheelchair users and  it was queried if businesses could be approached to help with its funding. It was also suggested that NHS and/or Health Authorities could be approached for funding as being outside in the countryside was a benefit for mental health and physical wellbeing.  Health benefits were always high on the agenda for the Council and it was agreed that this would be better raised with the Adult and Health Scrutiny Committee.  Mr Crook advised that the PCT were a potential funding stream and that parishes were also being approached as they were in receipt of Section 106 monies from new developments to spend where they felt fit.

ACTION

Mr S Crook agreed to circulate to the Forum the Rights of Way Improvement Plan and the Statutory Guidance for Local Access Forums.

The Forum was concerned that Council could approve a reduction on this service’s budget by up to 66%. Although it was recognised that adjustments needed to be done to help with the budget shortfall, it was not felt that this amount was reasonable.

ACTION

The Chairman would be raising this concern with Council.

Questions had been received from member Mr J Law, who could not attend the meeting.

Mr Law had made requests for the Forum to be informed of the top 3 high and low cost projects with appropriate cost benefit, that would not be able to be funded due to the reduced maintenance budget. The response was that it was not possible to answer this yet because bids were required to go through the process. A response may be able to be received at the next meeting in October. 

Cllr Cross stated that the Forum should focus more on what the priorities were to inform officers.   Parishes had been asked to look around their areas and to help identify the number of users of their right of way paths as not all pathways had a high usage and were therefore not a priority.

ACTION

Mr Linford advised that 150 bridle way improvements had been identified and he would circulate details to members.

The Forum noted that not all the footpaths were round Rutland Water and that more should be done to promote the local pathways etc and attract visitors, particularly walkers, to the area and so help local businesses.