Over to you folk:
Derbyshire County Council have issued a draft Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) ? this is titled ?Are we on the Right Track?. Both the draft Plan and a consultation leaflet are available to view or download from the County Council's website at:
Derbyshire County Council ROWIP
Individuals and groups such as ours with an interest in rights of way and access are being invited to comment during the consultation period which runs until 11 March 07.
IT IS VITAL THAT WE RESPOND TO THIS DRAFT DOCUMENT NOW - PUTTING THE CASE FOR VEHICULAR USERS.
MEMBERS ARE ASKED TO WRITE OR EMAIL THEIR COMMENTS TO DCC AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BELOW ? BEFORE 11th MARCH.
It is not enough to fill in the DCC?s questionnaire on the web site, as this is not worded in a way which favours our response.
The notes below (in italics) are intended to help you to comment on the plan from a vehicular user?s point of view. Please put one or two of the salient facts in your own words, and in your own hand writing, but please do NOT copy the notes word for word.
Ref: ?Are we on the Right Track? ? DCC Rights of Way Improvement Plan
(ROWIP)
We agree broadly with the stated Aims on p.4 & p.5 but the ROWIP should reflect existing statutory responsibilities and duties and ensure that it is even-handed and inclusive of improvements for all types of user, including mechanically propelled vehicles.
The County?s data on p.14 of the plan shows the considerable disparity in the present provision of Byways Open to All Traffic
(BOATs) ? both in total and in comparison with elsewhere in the Country. There is no mention of improving routes for vehicular use.
Opportunities for the kind of improvement in ?linked? or ?circular?
routes mentioned for other Users should apply equally to vehicular users. The creation of routes for equestrians (p.15 & p.50) is linked with unsurfaced non classified highways (UCRs, which already have multi user status) and DEFRA Guidelines for ROWIP s2.2.21 are clear that this must not advantage one user above another.
The omission of any provision or indication of support for legitimate vehicle users is very concerning considering the strong representation made by vehicle users in response to the earlier consultation ? (see appendix on p.86 & 87)
We support the principle of genuine programmes of partnership where all parties are striving to create or maintain improved and sustainable access routes. These must build on the existing duty of the Authority to ?protect and assert public rights? and thereby demonstrate a genuine programme of maintenance sufficient to enable the route to carry the traffic it has to legitimately bear. It is not only recreational walking that has expanded; there has been an increase in demand for all forms of access, including vehicular use.
The money spent in Derbyshire on the provision and maintenance for walking, cycling and riding are considerable, but there appears to be little if any money being spent on BOATS, the only fully ?multi-user?
right of way. The need for maintenance and creation of BOATS must be recognised as a management responsibility.
We support endeavours to maintain a sustainable network of legitimate access for all Users. But ?sustainability? must be based on a fair objective assessment for all users, and any access management protocol should be applicable to routes of any status, not just to vehicular routes.
We agree with the promotion of appropriate Codes of Conduct, but not purely as a means to discriminate against the vehicle user. All users should be required to behave responsibly - any kind of discrimination for, or against, any sector of the Public is not acceptable and is harmful to the concept of partnership.
Where different users are entitled to use a route in common, signs should clearly indicate the usage to be expected so as to avoid conflict. The idea of a ?Memorandum of Understanding? between the Users has much to commend it.
A better information service using signs, leaflets and the dissemination of information on Rights of Way and DMMOs on the internet would be useful ? the current web-based DMMO register is difficult to use and interpret.
Comments on the draft ROWIP should be sent (before 11th March) to:
Email: [email protected]
Claire O'Reilly/Gill Millward
Countryside Access Improvement Officer
Environmental Services Department
Derbyshire County Council
Shand House
Dale Road South
Matlock DE4 3RY
Phone: 01629 580000 x 3365
Fax: 01629 585143
http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/council...ultation. asp
Derbyshire County Council have issued a draft Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) ? this is titled ?Are we on the Right Track?. Both the draft Plan and a consultation leaflet are available to view or download from the County Council's website at:
Derbyshire County Council ROWIP
Individuals and groups such as ours with an interest in rights of way and access are being invited to comment during the consultation period which runs until 11 March 07.
IT IS VITAL THAT WE RESPOND TO THIS DRAFT DOCUMENT NOW - PUTTING THE CASE FOR VEHICULAR USERS.
MEMBERS ARE ASKED TO WRITE OR EMAIL THEIR COMMENTS TO DCC AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BELOW ? BEFORE 11th MARCH.
It is not enough to fill in the DCC?s questionnaire on the web site, as this is not worded in a way which favours our response.
The notes below (in italics) are intended to help you to comment on the plan from a vehicular user?s point of view. Please put one or two of the salient facts in your own words, and in your own hand writing, but please do NOT copy the notes word for word.
Ref: ?Are we on the Right Track? ? DCC Rights of Way Improvement Plan
(ROWIP)
We agree broadly with the stated Aims on p.4 & p.5 but the ROWIP should reflect existing statutory responsibilities and duties and ensure that it is even-handed and inclusive of improvements for all types of user, including mechanically propelled vehicles.
The County?s data on p.14 of the plan shows the considerable disparity in the present provision of Byways Open to All Traffic
(BOATs) ? both in total and in comparison with elsewhere in the Country. There is no mention of improving routes for vehicular use.
Opportunities for the kind of improvement in ?linked? or ?circular?
routes mentioned for other Users should apply equally to vehicular users. The creation of routes for equestrians (p.15 & p.50) is linked with unsurfaced non classified highways (UCRs, which already have multi user status) and DEFRA Guidelines for ROWIP s2.2.21 are clear that this must not advantage one user above another.
The omission of any provision or indication of support for legitimate vehicle users is very concerning considering the strong representation made by vehicle users in response to the earlier consultation ? (see appendix on p.86 & 87)
We support the principle of genuine programmes of partnership where all parties are striving to create or maintain improved and sustainable access routes. These must build on the existing duty of the Authority to ?protect and assert public rights? and thereby demonstrate a genuine programme of maintenance sufficient to enable the route to carry the traffic it has to legitimately bear. It is not only recreational walking that has expanded; there has been an increase in demand for all forms of access, including vehicular use.
The money spent in Derbyshire on the provision and maintenance for walking, cycling and riding are considerable, but there appears to be little if any money being spent on BOATS, the only fully ?multi-user?
right of way. The need for maintenance and creation of BOATS must be recognised as a management responsibility.
We support endeavours to maintain a sustainable network of legitimate access for all Users. But ?sustainability? must be based on a fair objective assessment for all users, and any access management protocol should be applicable to routes of any status, not just to vehicular routes.
We agree with the promotion of appropriate Codes of Conduct, but not purely as a means to discriminate against the vehicle user. All users should be required to behave responsibly - any kind of discrimination for, or against, any sector of the Public is not acceptable and is harmful to the concept of partnership.
Where different users are entitled to use a route in common, signs should clearly indicate the usage to be expected so as to avoid conflict. The idea of a ?Memorandum of Understanding? between the Users has much to commend it.
A better information service using signs, leaflets and the dissemination of information on Rights of Way and DMMOs on the internet would be useful ? the current web-based DMMO register is difficult to use and interpret.
Comments on the draft ROWIP should be sent (before 11th March) to:
Email: [email protected]
Claire O'Reilly/Gill Millward
Countryside Access Improvement Officer
Environmental Services Department
Derbyshire County Council
Shand House
Dale Road South
Matlock DE4 3RY
Phone: 01629 580000 x 3365
Fax: 01629 585143
http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/council...ultation. asp
