To discuss the future of public rights of way post-Covid.

Nick Philp introduced the item with a presentation, explaining that the Covid19 pandemic had led to a large increase in footfall around the countryside and put pressure on the infrastructure. A number of photos were included in the presentation slides highlighting some of the issues. This included people going off footpaths and onto land being used to produce crops, resulting in the crops being trampled and destroyed. Another example showed footprints and horse hoofprints in a field that was not open to the public. Nick Philp stated that the landowner had put up signs saying the land was private property, but these were torn down and thrown in the hedge within 48 hours.

Dogs worrying livestock was a problem nationally. Most of the time this was due to the naivety of dog walkers but would often lead to situations where livestock ended up being injured. Nick Philp said he had had a situation recently where a professional dog walker had let a dog off a lead in a field of ewes and newborn lambs. Farmers were encouraged to put up warning signs of animals in fields as they were protective of young offspring. The presentation showed three examples where walkers had been trampled to death by cattle, after they had crossed directly through the field rather than going round the edge.

Nick Philp stated his belief there needed to be a more resilient footpath network made of hardstanding, due to the increase in popularity of walking. He said there was often bureaucracy that prevented easy diversion of footpaths. Sharon Wootten, Public Rights of Way Officer, said the Council were tightly bound by legislation and it would be for a landowner to provide a persuasive argument for an alternative footpath if one was no longer considered suitable. A scheme would be more likely to succeed if a landowner approached the Rights of Way team and worked with them to find a solution.

Geoffrey Copas said a solution could be to have a number of permitted footpaths, which could be opened and closed depending on demand and whether the path was accessible. This was preferable to suggesting an alternative path, because if there was even one objection then it would need to be referred to an appeal. Geoffrey Copas said he had been in a situation previously where he had had to go to an appeal as there had been two objections; one person had refused to withdraw their objection and the other said they would withdraw if there were no other objections. He said objections were often raised by the Ramblers’ Association, although they were more amenable than they had been in the past. Sharon Wootten suggested the Council’s Rights of Way Panel and Local Access Forum were good ways to discuss proposed alterations to footpaths and said she was happy to assist anyone who needed help, or, in the case of the Local Access Forum, wanted to become members.

Alan Keene asked if greater favour could be given to planning applications to landowners who involved themselves in rights of way and improving footpath networks. Cllr Coppinger said there were different sets of legislation governing planning and rights of way and could not see how the two could be connected. Alan Keene said it could be seen as frustrating if opportunities to improve the rights of way network due to planning law. Cllr Cannon said he would discuss this with Planning.