BADFA's response to
Crime prevention on rights of way consultation

Sent to DEFRA:  rights.ofway@defra.gsi.gov.uk

20 September 2002

CRIME PREVENTION ON RIGHTS OF WAY CONSULTATIVE RESPONSE

The Bushey And District Footpaths Association (BADFA) is, despite its

name, a charity involved in all types of right of way from footpaths to byways and including Greenways. We have nearly 200 members.

We are engaged in recording, maintaining & enhancing and publicising these paths. We are also engaged in diversions where there is benefit for the path users (whether or not there is landholder benefit). We also run a walks programme.

We have advised local Boroughs on security matters involving paths, we have had meetings with police and other bodies.

In this submission we have used bold for our main points.

We have to say that we have been disappointed in the approach taken generally when there is a perceived or real problem involving public paths. The take-away-the-facility (‘block it up’) response is all too common and our real disappointment is the lack of will to look at more positive alternatives.

We find the approach to these little sustainable transport highways, in both urban and rural settings to be one that would never be taken in regard to those other highways that are known as roads.

In your INTRODUCTION Para 6 you speak of some rights of way as being “demonstrably the source of problems in…housing estates”.
Who has demonstrated that? How have they done so? How would you regard the use of roads to facilitate crime, and of street corners to encourage loutish behaviour, would you close these too?

We believe that you should give maximum emphasis to finding and funding alternatives to closure, for example widening and lighting and sight line improvement. Just as on roads.

What follows is written on the basis that we are not comfortable with the proposals as a whole but that if they were to be implemented then we have some suggestions as to detail. We are limiting our comment to the minimum and no approval is implied of uncommented items.

We notice at 4.3 you speak of the need to demonstrate that the highways are “plausible causes of a persistent crime problem”. We think “plausible” is far too loose a word. It should be replaced, say with “demonstrable”

We will now address items on which you sought views (using your letter references):

A. Is PPG best? We are in favour of guidance notes, so long as there is an ongoing ability for the public to request revisions where appropriate and, where the need is clear, to obtain them.

B. Do Wards provide appropriate areas? We think that wards are probably the most appropriate areas, clear and comprehensible (usually) with specific councillors. We think they will often allow alternative routes or solutions within their area, where that is not so then the adjoining ward may be included.

C1. Consultation.
5.8:“There may be other…groups who have a useful contribution to make such as … rights of way user groups.” We object to the use of “may”. We would expect the statutory consultees for other rights of way matters such as the Open Spaces Society to be consulted automatically. And all other groups (or knowledgeable individuals) known to the Authority.

And what about Local access forums?

 

C2. Clarity of issues.
5.12 Quality of life. “..any special vulnerable groups such as elderly residents”. Why are elderly residents especially vulnerable? What about young ones? Or night shift workers? If it is noise, and it often is, then there are laws. If it is loitering (with oathing and drink-can throwing) there are laws and sight line improvements etc. If it revving unlicensed motorbikes there are laws if they go on the path.
On Quality of life issues generally, whilst we recognise that these issues are quite often ones that are most complained about, we think that they are often not things relevant to the legislation and that the guidelines should play down rather than encourage them as justifications.

5.14 Other relevant issues. We think there should be a need to demonstrate that each area of crime etc, eg back garden theft, not only won’t be replaced by say front door theft, but that it must be demonstrated that the right of way is an intrinsic part of the crimes, not merely a way of getting to the crime. Because by that logic you would confiscate the shoes used to walk to the crime.

C3. Wider considerations. see C2. (you put 5.14 in both C2 and C3)

C4. Further considerations.

a. 5.15 Doesn’t the law say “high levels of crime” and “criminal offences”? So what is “disorder” doing in 5.15? To the extent that it is legally relevant “disorder” should be precisely defined, otherwise delete it.

b. There is a further serious omission from the guidance. HA80 s130 requires Highway Authorities to assert and protect the rights of the public to use paths, and case law requires them to act against the interests of those who seek to interrupt the public’s enjoyment of the highway. This new legislation is not cited as a limitation of that duty. It naturally overrides it in specific circumstances, but only in those circumstances. Furthermore it is a power not a duty. So we look to the guidelines to spell all this out in the clearest possible way.

D4. Para 5.19.
a. We welcome the concept of a review, we would like it confirmed that statutory consultees and all local user groups will be involved in this.

b. The requirement to resubmit to the Secretary of State if there is ongoing need is a double edged sword. It could focus activity prior to the review on stoppings-up which could be achieved in that time scale and are irrevocable. Whereas with a longer possible time scale some new paths or some path route changes (perhaps associated with planning development) might produce a much better long term solution.

Regarding schools closures, we make no detailed response but members of our committee have been involved with several attempts by schools to stop up public ways across or beside their land. We have personal experience of primary and secondary schools as governors. We have not yet seen a reasonable case made out. We think that generally the risk to pupils is greatly exaggerated. Having said that, we recognise public concern, however mistaken, and would always consider path changes at schools favourably, but only so long as the quality of the local path network is maintained or enhanced, we have so far only had one such offer. That diversion is in place now. None of the others are.

Yours sincerely, 

Chris Beney, chairman BADFA

 Back to 'Comment'