Local Access Forum
Thursday 7 June 2012 6.30 pm
ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD
LOCAL ACCESS FORUM MEETING MINUTES
7 June 2012
ATTENDANCE LIST
| Name | Interest area |
| Peter Thorn | Chairman, Land Management |
| Harry Hancock | Vice Chairman, Walking, Open Spaces |
| Dorothy Allard | Land Management, Shottesbrooke Estate |
| Councillor Beer | Walking, Cycling, Old Windsor Parish Council |
| Margaret Bowdery | Walking, East Berks Ramblers’ |
| Sara Church | Horse Riding, British Horse Society |
| William Emmett | Substitute for James Copas and Andrew Randall |
| Hilary Essen | Walking, Health Issues, East Berks Ramblers’ |
| Christopher Westacott | Land Management |
 | |
| Andrew Fletcher | Local Access Forum Secretary |
| Tanya Leftwich | Clerk to the Forum |
| Hilary Oliver | Special Projects Officer |
OBSERVERS
| John Coombe | |
| Ann Darracott | Civic Society |
| Martin Gilchrist | Natural England |
| Rosie Norris | |
| Ray Sharp | Mid & West Berkshire LAF |
APOLOGIES
Name
Councillor Stretton
Lynn Cassells
Margaret Cubley
Helen Howard
Julie Mason
Andrew Randall
ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD
LOCAL ACCESS FORUM
7 June 2012
MINUTES
LOCAL ACCESS FORUM
7 June 2012
MINUTES
| | ACTION |
| 1 | Welcome, Apologies and Introductions, Declarations of Interest | |
| The Chairman Peter Thorn welcomed everyone to the twenty-sixth meeting of the Local Access Forum. Apologies for Absence were received from Councillor Stretton, Lynn Cassells, Margaret Cubley, Julie Mason and Andrew Randall. The Forum approved the minutes of the previous meeting held on 13 December 2011. Margaret Bowdery referred to item 6.1 and explained that none of the projects since 2005 appeared to have had developer contributions allocated to them. Clarification of this letter was requested. Margaret Bowdery went onto to state that she believed the S106 money had been distributed unfairly and that if any money was available to the LAF then details would be welcomed. Margaret Bowdery informed Members that she did not feel the S106 distribution was transparent enough. Councillor Beer informed Margaret Bowdery that the whole system with regard to S106 was being reviewed both locally and nationally so things should improve in the Royal Borough in the future. It was noted that a capital programme was produced which was approved at Cabinet and that it would be looked into whether individual projects were flagged as being funded by S106. Margaret Bowdery referred Members to page 8 of the agenda, in particular ID 637 – the footbridge over the Thames at Boulters Lock project. Concern was expressed as to why this Maidenhead development was being funded by another Local Authority. Councillor Beer expressed a concern that maps supplied to the Development Control Panels did not show road names which made it very difficult to identify public rights of way. Andrew Fletcher agreed to speak to the Geographical Mapping Team to see if the issue could be resolved. RESOLVED: It was agreed unanimously that; i) A letter be sent to the Council from the Chair to question the decision made with regard to S106 funding. It was highlighted that projects should be being undertaken within the Royal Borough rather than outside it (e.g. the footbridge over the Thames at Boulters Lock which covered the Maidenhead Riverside ward / South Bucks (lead authority)). ii) It was also agreed that the Chair would question why PH2, PH3 & PH4 all referred to maintenance projects when the LAF had always been told that S106 money could not be spent on maintenance / repair works. | Andrew Fletcher Peter Thorn & Andrew Fletcher Peter Thorn & Andrew Fletcher |
| 2 | Members’ Update | |
| Christopher Westacott informed Members that he believed the Royal Borough had an agenda against landowners with regard to the unreasonable and unjust way they were claiming a footpath across his farmland. It was noted that Christopher Westacott had to go back thirty years as a claim had been backdated ten years. Christopher Westacott informed the forum that the Royal Borough was supporting the footpath claim and that he had requested a public inquiry as they wanted to open an ancient burial path that he did not believe to have historically existed. The public inquiry is currently adjourned until 22nd August 2012. Christopher Westacott explained that he wanted a more fair and just system used, in other words an independent investigator so that a public inquiry was no longer deemed necessary. Peter Thorn explained that the Forum had been set up to look at strategic issues in principle and he would therefore use Christopher Westacott’s situation as an example rather than discuss specific details. William Emmett explained that he was concerned that Christopher Westacott should not have to put up a sign to state that the specific area of his land in question was not a footpath when there was adequate signage to show people where they could walk. Andrew Fletcher explained that the Council complies with the legal framework relating to public rights of way and added that the current law required landowners to take reasonable steps, where use is known, to demonstrate to users that they did not intend to dedicate a public right of way. However he referred to agenda item 5 in which a package of proposals had been put forward by DEFRA to improve the policy and legal framework for public rights of way. Hillary Oliver agreed that she did not believe it should be the landowner’s duty to sign non-footpath areas. Margaret Bowdery, on behalf of the Civic Society and Ramblers Association, thanked LAF and its officers for attending the path opening on the 12th May 2012. Margaret Boundary went onto explain that waymarking the Maidenhead Boundary Walk was underway and she thanked the LAF for helping to secure £2,600 funding from developer contributions. | |
| 3 | Dog Walking issues | |
| Andrew Fletcher informed the Forum that the purpose of his report was to inform and consult the LAF about the current problems being experienced with dogs and dog walkers, and the approaches used to tackle the issues. It was explained that the Forum’s opinion was being sought in particular about the efficiency of the approaches and any other suggestions as to how the Council could tackle these problems. It was noted that two problems were occurring regularly on public rights of way with respect to dog waste: a) Dog waste being left on paths and public spaces without being cleaned up. b) Waste being picked up and bagged but the bags then being discarded along the path either in the undergrowth or simply hung into adjacent fences. Andrew Fletcher explained that ‘There’s no such thing as the Dog Poo Fairy’ posters will be installed at selected sites by the Public Rights of Way team. These posters were produced as part of the Keep Britain Tidy campaign. Andrew Fletcher informed the Forum that whilst historically there had been generally good relations between dog owners and horse riders within the Royal Borough, this was an area of conflict and the Council planned to place some information on the public rights of way website to address the issue. Sara Church suggested that information be provided to horse riders in the area and also be displayed in local shops. With regard to dogs scaring and causing distress to sheep and cattle, especially when the dog was not under close control, the following suggestions were made: a) William Emmett suggested that the Council look into whether signage was available to place at styles to highlight the dangers of dogs being let off leads around farm animals. b) Hillary Essen suggested that the Council look into whether signs could be put up in parish councils, vet surgeries and dog grooming parlours with regard to the dangers of dogs being let off leads around farm animals. c) Margaret Bowdery suggested that the Council look into the possibility of putting a small article in the ATRB with regard to clearing up dog mess. Councillor Beer informed LAF that Old Windsor were looking at a new scheme which would provide bins with adverts on them and that once this information was available he would provide it to Andrew Fletcher so that the Forum could be updated. RESOLVED: The forum RECOMMENDED that; i) The Council to look into whether signage was available to place at styles to highlight the dangers of dogs being let off leads around farm animals. ii) The Council to look into whether signs could be put up in parish councils, vet surgeries and dog grooming parlours with regard to the dangers of dogs being let off leads around farm animals. iii) The Council to look into the possibility of putting a small article in the ATRB with regard to clearing up dog mess. iv) Andrew Fletcher agreed to promote ‘dogs and horses’ leaflet and put information on the RBWM website. | Andrew Fletcher Councillor Beer Andrew Fletcher |
| 4 | Bray Footpath 24 (part) diversion application consultation | |
| Andrew Fletcher explained that the purpose of his report was to consult the forum on an application received from the landowner for the diversion of part of Bray Footpath 24 which would be considered at the ROW Panel on the 12th June 2012. It was noted that the LAF’s response to the consultation would be reported verbally at the meeting. Photographs which illustrated the diversion proposal were displayed at the meeting. Margaret Bowdery informed the forum that she had known the footpath for many years and whilst she had opposed previous applications she, on behalf of the Ramblers Association, was happy to support this one. It was noted that the width and surface of the proposed diversion was believed to be very good and that the diversion would also ensure no conflict with horses. William Emmett stated that he found it strange that the Ramblers were supporting this application when they had not supported previous applications in the past. Andrew Fletcher informed the Forum that the width of the proposed diversion matched the current footpath. Councillor Beer expressed his concern that if tarmac was used to surface the footpath it would urbanise the area which he felt would be inappropriate. RESOLVED: The forum RECOMMENDED that; i) The ROW team be asked to reconsider the width of the path as it was believed to be too wide along with the material to be used for the final surfacing of the path as concerns had been raised over the future use of the path by vehicles. ii) That both the majority view (as above) and Margaret Bowderys view (to leave it as proposed) be reported at the next ROW Panel. | Andrew Fletcher |
| 5 | DEFRA Consultation: Improvements to the policy and legal framework for public rights of way | |
| Andrew Fletcher informed the Forum that the purpose of his report was to consult them on proposals published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to change how public rights of ways were recorded, diverted and extinguished. It was noted that the deadline for responses was the 6th August 2012. It was agreed that a working party be formed to meet at the end of June / early July to respond to the proposals. Andrew Fletcher asked anyone interested to contact him after the meeting. It was requested that any summaries that had already been produced be distributed to the working group. Andrew Fletcher agreed to circulate the DEFRA briefing note that Martin Gilchrist had given him. Margaret Bowdery and William Emmett agreed to investigate whether they had any information available that could be shared with the working group. RESOLVED: It was agreed unanimously that a working party be formed to meet at the end of June / early July to respond to the proposals. | All/ Andrew Fletcher Andrew Fletcher |
| 6 | Natural England consultation on the future management of National Trails from April 2013 | |
| Andrew Fletcher referred the Forum to his report on page 68 of the agenda. LAF were requested to read the Executive Summary included in the agenda and provide Andrew Fletcher with comments. The deadline for responses was noted as being the 5th July 2012. RESOLVED: It was agreed unanimously that; i) LAF members would read the Executive Summary and contact Andrew Fletcher with any comments. ii) Andrew Fletcher to send comments onto the Rapid Response Team and include Hilary Essen. | All Andrew Fletcher |
| 7 | Paths for communities | |
| Andrew Fletcher welcomed Martin Gilchrist from Natural England to the meeting and explained that he was the Forum’s link to Central Government. Martin Gilchrist informed the Forum that he had met a number of them at the last meeting in December. It was noted that Natural England was now made up of one team with small sub teams which looked at areas such as open access, coastal access and national trails. Martin Gilchrist explained that a new (pilot) grants scheme ‘Paths for Communities’ had been set up and would be running for the next two years to create new and permanent rights of ways. It was noted that this scheme consisted of £2million funding. The clerk agreed to send a copy of the presentation out with the minutes. Martin Gilchrist confirmed that grants could directly benefit a private sector organisation but that the project had to be community lead. It was noted that projects had to be agreed with landowners and then proposed, not vice-versa. Martin Gilchrist explained that Natural England were looking for applications between £5k and £150k and wanted to see partnerships between landowners and applicants, with the ROW team involved – linked to strategies. It was noted that applicants needed to be able to handle cashflow which was paid in arrears and also be a legally constituted group. Martin Gilchrist went onto explain that projects needed to add value to the local community and that applications could be made via the website www.naturalengland.org.uk/p4c Martin Gilchrist agreed to check how the information was being disseminated, whether it was via Parish Councils and asked the LAF to help spread the word. Peter Thorn thanked Martin Gilchrist for addressing the Forum. RESOLVED: It was agreed unanimously that; i) Andrew Fletcher write directly to Parish Councils to highlight the scheme. ii) Andrew Fletcher to contact the Windsor & Maidenhead conservation volunteers and other voluntary organisations to highlight the scheme. | Tanya Leftwich Andrew Fletcher |
| 8 | LAF Plans for the coming year | |
|
Comments to be submitted to Andrew Fletcher by the end of June. Andrew Fletcher agreed to send a final draft to LAF members once the comments had been incorporated.
Peter Thorn informed the Forum that targets needed to be set for the coming year. RESOLVED: It was agreed unanimously that the work program would include; ii) Multi user groups – better information in planning applications. iii) The use of volunteers in the Royal Borough.
| All Andrew Fletcher |
| 9 | Maidenhead Boundary Walk | |
| Andrew Fletcher informed the Forum that the production and placement of waymarking signs across the Maidenhead Boundary Walk was slowly progressing and should be completed by the end of June. RESOLVED: The forum RECOMMENDED that the RBWM website be updated with information about the Maidenhead Boundary Walk. | Andrew Fletcher |
| 10 | Easy Going Routes | |
| Andrew Fletcher informed the Forum that there were currently two Easy Going Routes:
b) Windsor Great Park (in development) It was noted that a draft leaflet had been produced and sent to the LAF and the Access Advisory Forum. Andrew Fletcher explained that he was currently awaiting formal advice from the Access Advisory Forum before making changes to the draft leaflet. It was noted that the issues with the Windsor Great Park Easy Going Route was the limited provision of toilets, the size of the leaflet and the amount of content to be included. Andrew Fletcher explained that he had encountered technical problems with the Easy Going Route web pages. The Forum were informed that they had three options to choose from which were:
b) Develop similar content internally. c) Develop simple pages without any enhanced features. RESOLVED: the forum RECOMMENDED that;
ii) The Council promote the Windsor Great Park route by placing an advert in the ATRB and by organising a press release. Andrew Fletcher agreed to provide maps of the two schemes to the forum. | Andrew Fletcher |
| 11 | LAF Monitoring Items | |
|
Andrew Fletcher informed the Forum that the missing Link between Footpath 18 Hurley and Footpath 20 Bisham (Speen Hill) had been opened on the 12th May 2012. Andrew Fletcher informed the Forum that the public rights of way team is in the process of arranging to meet to discuss the missing link between Lower Cookham Road and Thames Path National Trail.
Andrew Fletcher referred the Forum to report which could be found on pages 95 and 96 of the agenda.
Andrew Fletcher explained that whilst he was aware not every LAF member had access to the internet he was trying to encourage as many members of the forum as possible to use the online forum as a way of encouraging debate and discussion in between formal forum meetings. Peter Thorn explained that the online forum could be used by the working group. The link to the online forum was http://groupspaces.com/rbwm-laf/ | |
| 12 | Activities of the LAF Fast Response Team & Date of Next Meeting | |
| Harry Hancock informed the Forum that the report on page 98 of the agenda updated them on the advice submitted on their behalf by the members of the fast response team. It was noted that the Fast Response Team had considered the consultation regarding motorcycle barriers to be erected along Maidenhead Footpath 48 (Dead Man’s Alley) which ran between Altwood Road and the A4 Bath Road opposite Highway Road. The Fast Response Team had responded on behalf of LAF to state that the proposed barriers, which had since been changed to staggered barriers, would be deemed acceptable. The date of the next meeting of the Local Access Forum, once confirmed, was to be confirmed by the Clerk. Councillor Beer, on behalf of the Forum, thanked Andrew Fletcher for all his work. The meeting which started at 6.30pm, ended at 8.35pm. | Tanya Leftwich |