1. Rights of Way Improvement Plans: LAFs in Wales National Conference 7 th May 2009 Carys Drew, Access Policy Officer, CCW

2. 23 ROWIPs covering the whole of Wales Information Experiences Lessons

3. Introduction & Review Purpose Commissioned Resources for Change Ltd., with Asken Ltd. and Frank Coleman to conduct a national Review of ROWIPs (January 2008 – February 2009) To enable CCW to support the implementation of ROWIPs, and To feed learning into other aspects of CCW work - particularly strategic planning for access management.

4. 1.ROWIP process 2.Content of the ROWIPs 3.Implementation Introduction & Review Purpose

5. 1. Process : Strengths A logical process A detailed process Guidance distributed to all Authorities to clarify requirements and recommendations. Sufficient flexibility to allow for local variation. Enabled a high degree of consultation and co-operation. Focused attention on a strategic approach to ROW work, often for the first time.

6. 2. Process : weaknesses A very new approach to ROW management and planning, which few officers were well equipped for. Process sometimes perceived as too detailed in its requirements - too difficult to follow and/or too time-consuming and costly. In other instances, non-prescriptive nature of the Guidance seemed to lead to difficulties of interpretation. Several Authorities struggled to quantify resources needed for action implementation. Some officers found the WAG Guidance too difficult to use/too prescriptive.

7. A variety of different personnel resourcing approaches were taken to ROWIP preparation. Consultants were used by seven Authorities. Over half of the Authorities failed to reach the November 2007 deadline. The time taken to prepare a ROWIP from start to finish varied from 2 – 6 years. 1. Process: Management

8. Local Access Forum –Involvement in all ROWIPs, formative and review CCW –National and regional support throughout process, including support to developing Guidance, materials, exemplars, events. Other Stakeholders –Responses to consultation by Local Authorities 2. Process: Involving others

9. LAFs were involved in the ROWIP preparation process in three main ways: Review of key stages only e.g. Assessment report, draft ROWIP Review at many stages throughout the preparation process Formative input regularly throughout the preparation process 2. Process: LAF involvement

10. There were several routes through which LAFs were involved: LAFs considered the ROWIP in meeting specifically convened for that purpose Had a special sub-group to deal with ROWIP-related matters Had the ROWIP as a standing agenda item during most of the preparation period. The co-operative way of working was valued by Authorities and LAF members. 2. Process: LAF involvement

11. 1.ROWIP process 2.Content of the ROWIPs 3.Implementation

12. 2. Content ROWIP should include two main elements: An Assessment of local rights of way A Statement of Action for the management and improvement of local rights of way

13. 2. Content: Summary Assessments Local networks of ROW in Wales are broadly meeting the following needs: Providing a network well suited for walking use To varying degrees, providing at least some off-road routes for cyclists, horse riders and to a more limited extent, carriage drivers and motorised users Providing a resource which gives local people and visitors access to the countryside, meeting varied recreational needs. Offering a resource for some purposeful travel, e.g. Safe Routes to School.

14. Overall inadequacies or needs for improvement identified included: Insufficient number of routes (39) Lack of information available off-site (35) Accessibility issues posed by barriers (25) Lack of connectivity for users (23) Lack of circular routes (22) 2. Content: Summary Assessments

15. 2. Content: Actions by access type TypeNumber% L/PRoW87882 CRoW Access Land 434 Permissive Access 585 Coastal Access262 Other Access676 Total1072100

16. At a national scale, the majority of actions relate to: Management (27%) Off-site promotion/publicity (17%) Maintenance (16%) Definitive Map work (12%). Ratio when actions are split between ‘Improvements’ or ‘Statutory Duties’ is 4.5 : 1. 2. Content: Actions by type of work

18. 1.ROWIP process 2.Content of the ROWIPs 3.Implementation

19. 3. Implementation: Resources What do ROWIPs tell us about resources? Statement of action should include estimated resources (staff and financial for each action) – most but not all ROWIPs do. National collation gives idea of scale of work which may be undertaken – BUT important to be aware of the limitations. A number of difficulties were encountered in performing these analyses which mean that the results should be treated with care. More detail can be found in the full ROWIP Review Report.

20. The total amount of projected spending on ROWIPs for the whole of the 10-year programme ranges from £71.5m to £112.0m, averaging £7.1m to £11.2m per year. Costs of annual/recurring actions account for the majority of the spending (94%-95%). Capital items are much lower and within a tighter range (£4.1m to £5.3m). 3. Implementation: Resources

21. At least 65.55 additional staff to implement ROWIP actions across Wales. Most commonly to be deployed on: Field based activities (wardens, rangers and working with volunteers) (32.5) Development of various types of access projects including coastal and easy access routes (12) Definitive map work (10) 3. Implementation: Resources

22. Weaknesses  Very dependent on additional funding  Will need extra staff resources to tackle the backlog of statutory work and the additional improvements. Even if there is funding, good quality staff may be difficult to find, and will take time to recruit.  Uncertainty over continuing support from WAG e.g. no long term funding guarantee, no commitment to review ROWIP. 3. Implementation: Strengths and Weaknesses Strengths ROWIP has raised the profile of ROW within the LA, where competition for resources is an issue.  ROWIP is in place, providing a structured, strategic framework

23. Implementation: Opportunities and Threats Opportunities  ROWIP will act as a bidding document to tap into other funding sources.  Links to other political agendas e.g. health, transport, tourism, leisure Threats  Not getting the funding which is specified as required for each particular task.  Political priorities may change.

24. Conclusions Strategic and comprehensive Better information base, and a better foundation for planning practical and management improvements New partnerships have been formed and old ones reinforced. Already changes and improvements

25. Conclusions Raised awareness about ROW more widely. Not all of the Authorities met the November 2007 deadline for completion of their ROWIPs. Some lack of clarity around user ‘needs’ and ‘inadequacies’ Authorities need to find different ways to support implementation

26. Conclusions A big learning exercise Worth the effort WAG funding is valued Preparation and production process time-consuming and costly for some. Some Authorities do remain unconvinced about the benefits of ROWIPs, most are positive. Consultants can be a very good thing, but not always! The Review shows varying standards of good practice in letting contracts. Proposals for monitoring are emerging. These are mainly taking the form of annual work programmes.

27. Local authorities CCW WAG What Next?…Suggestions

28. What next? Review and Report completed ROWIP Implementation: will be used to inform –ROWIP Funding Programme, information from 2008/09 will be available for next meeting –CCW grant aid for access

29. What next? CCW consideration of Review findings, and suggestions proposed for CCW action Informing strategic planning for Access and Recreation Inform advice on access policy and future methods of access planning (post Plan rationalisation)

30. What next? Local authority implementation and monitoring of ROWIPs LAFs are considered key stakeholders in terms of implementing the ROWIPs, particularly in relation to monitoring and review.