to BADFA Home page
to Lost Ways
to News
RECORDING PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY
The position in 2001
This page contains:
Countryside Agency Briefing note
BADFA submission, comment text
Some further views
Countryside Agency Briefing note
September 2001
Rights of Way Historical
Research Project
'Discovering Lost Ways in England and Wales'
Introduction
1. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act
makes provisions that will extinguish in 25 years time, all footpaths, and
bridleways that were in existence before 1949 where they are not (by that
date) recorded on the definitive map for public rights of way. Unrecorded
higher rights that may apply to definitive footpaths, bridleways and
restricted byways will also be extinguished. In addition, it will not be
possible to add byways open to all traffic to the definitive map after that
date, although public rights will not be extinguished.
2. We want to ensure that researchers can
contribute to the task of properly recording historic rights, prior to the cut
off date, and we wish to put in place sustainable systems and processes so
that resources are used effectively.
How will we do this?
3. This project is in 2 phases. Phase
1 will cover England and Wales; Phase 2 will cover England only.
Phase 1
4. We have appointed a consortium led by
the University of Gloucestershire to carry out the first phase of the project.
They will make an assessment of different options for co-ordinating research,
providing funding to the voluntary sector, monitoring progress and providing
information and training. Options for co-ordinating research could include,
for example, creating new posts in our regional/area offices, creating new
posts in highway authority offices, or a separate contract which employs
project officers at a national/regional level.
5. The consortium will also:-
# Estimate the extent of unrecorded
rights of way;
#
Report on the issues affecting the ability of highway authorities to
meet the national target (because research on historical rights will
contribute to this);
#
Recommend ways of improving the quantity and quality of research on
unrecorded rights of way;
#
Prepare research standards to encourage high quality applications to
modify the definitive map;
#
Recommend other ways to improve the process of recording historic
rights on the definitive map. This might, for example, include ways of making
archive material more easily available to researchers.
6. They will consult with and ensure
that any proposals are likely to be acceptable to the bodies involved in the
programme of historical research, such as highway authorities, voluntary
groups, landowning groups, the planning inspectorate and archive offices. We
want to ensure that the mechanism we finally choose will be the most effective
in helping highway authorities to prioritise and process claims.
Phase 2
7. In England, the Government has
stated that it will provide the Countryside Agency with approximately £2.75
million between 2001 and 2004 to facilitate historical research by the
voluntary sector, which will contribute to the completion of the definitive
map and statement before rights are extinguished. This money will be made
available to carry out research and to provide support and training. Exactly
how we do this will depend on the findings from Phase 1.
8.
CCW will use the recommendations from Phase 1 to advise the National
Assembly for Wales about the scale of the task and the best way forward in
Wales.
9.
Following the Phase 1 research we will raise awareness of the project
among the wider public, so that they are able to contribute to the process.
The timetable
10. Work on Phase 1 has started, and will finish by March
2002. Outputs are:-
#
Report on progress towards the
national target;
#
Report on common
standards for historical research;
#
Report with management
options, assessment of human resource required to carry out the research,
recommendations for providing training, advice and information to researchers;
how we should prioritise research, improve access to archive material, and
carry out monitoring.
top of page
BADFA's response, November 2001
The detailed questionnaire
response will be e-mailed
on request.
Here is the bulk of the free-response BADFA answer from the questionnaire:
A GOOD VALUE APPROACH
As you say,
this is a plan with only fairly short term funding. We believe it requires
a less traditional approach than just more people in the record offices:
It is
essentially about getting sufficient resources efficiently applied to ensure
the discovery of the great majority of the unrecorded (lost) paths in time for
the 2026 deadline.
You have suggested
that some new officer posts may need to be set up, perhaps in the various
Countryside Agency offices, perhaps in highway authority offices, perhaps
elsewhere. These you say are for 'co-ordinating research'. Yes, but the
emphasis on 'research' could result in less complete end results and less
value for money overall. We do see an important role for co-ordinators at
Countryside Agency offices but not just co-ordinating research but also
co-ordinating another and new category of officer, whose role is to actually
collect possible unrecorded paths.
My group thinks
that an area based approach to identify possible paths is better than the
pursuit of paths that people happen to be enthusiastic about or happen to find
in archival 'sweeps'. And better than a simple listing of possible paths.
Sweeps and listing have a place but not a primary one. We have experience of
using a map based area approach with a large map covering about two parishes
on which all paths ever mentioned to us are pencilled in. From time to time we
do a 'think hard if there are any more paths' session with our
committee, and we have made it a members' AGM exercise. I personally raise the
matter whenever paths are mentioned in ordinary day to day conversation with
people. We have identified an amazing number of paths. It is important that
the map is readdressed after an interval because some people need to be asked
two or three times before their mind gets attuned to the idea. A map without
paths marked or a definitive map with the definitive lines made unobtrusive
but just visible would probably be the best format as it avoids focusing
people's minds on the already recorded paths, technically it would be very
easy to produce in many areas.
To date we have
then mostly either put user based claims in to our surveying authority or
endeavoured to simplify or short cut the whole process by getting dedication
from, or doing deals with, landowners (a deal could be appropriate, for
example, where they want a diversion nearby and will dedicate the claimed path
as part of a small package, this is cost effective and resource effective
because public inquiries are costly of researcher money and of time, both
volunteer and officer). But for a more widespread (national) exercise with
short term funding there is the need to maximise the discovery of
paths; the finding of evidential support to validate or otherwise these paths
and the recording of paths, by whatever means is the important second
priority, not the first.
We believe that
a fairly general sweep of archival records is then needed to help the map
mentioned above to develop, again focussing on the area. This will very
probably throw up more paths. We would obviously start with old maps, then
move to magistrates court records, putting all possible paths on the one large
map and testing against the public's recollections and folklore where
available.
After a period
of time, perhaps a year, perhaps a bit more, many of these can then go forward
and be researched in detail in the archives and the numbers can be narrowed
down as some become eliminated due to absence of evidence or contrary evidence
such as forgotten stopping up orders (yes, we've been there).
We have used
this process successfully and got many paths on the map both with and without
Sch14 claims.
We have only
covered a small area so far and we
are an unusually active group in this field. We see no way of getting adequate
cover nationally with people like us. Equally even if full time paid people
(eg more definitive map officers) were to come and focus mainly on archival
work, a good number of paths that are out there would not get discovered.
We believe it
would be cost effective to see some full time officers appointed, all over the
country, with the task of going around their area with a map and pestering
people to think of any unrecorded paths. These officers would first get to
know the area (and the definitive network) giving a useful spin-off in noting
path problems. They could then visit groups such as Rotary, Women's groups,
Church Groups, environmental groups, as well as certain individuals.
Preferably visiting twice: once mostly to explain what is needed and why, once
mostly to harvest recalled routes. They could install a map and feed-back
forms in libraries and district council public counters. They could encourage
press coverage of the exercise and local newsletters. They would need to do
some basic sweeps of old maps etc but not, at least initially, deep archival
research. They would work closely with path groups who sometimes could give
them considerable help and they would also work with appropriate existing path
officers. A year, or two at most,
should suffice if there was say one officer for a typical district council
area. Perhaps one further year could then be spent with liasing with archival
researchers, volunteer and officer.
District level seems appropriate as it would not be hidebound by highway
authority thinking, and not subject to the larger landowner influences of
parishes. In districts where rights of way aims feature in the Local
Plan, it may be that they would part fund these people. So attachment to
districts is suggested as the norm, though not a straightjacket.
This is rather like the 'sweep' that was suggested
by the then Countryside Commission as part of the National Target for rights
of way, but which was barely taken up by highway authorities who had enough to
do without it. Indeed our group is a Parish Path Partner and we were
positively discouraged from doing this work under that scheme.
We have spoken of an 'officer' to do this work. However that leaves open whether that person could be a volunteer or more likely in practice a group of volunteers. Locally to us we know that the Herts and North Middlesex Ramblers' Association committee has discussed their possible initiation of these map sweeps. There are a lot of Ramblers' footpath secretaries out there, and also Open Spaces Society correspondents who have the further advantage of an 'all types of path' remit. Some, but by no means all, such people would be suitable for this work. Use of volunteers could in some areas allow the officer to work only part time, making the finances more in line with current proposals.
URBAN ALLEYWAYS.
These have formed a significant part of our work as
we are an urban/rural area. We believe they are a very under-recorded class of
public path. The identifying of them would fit well with the district level
officer proposal above, but if that were not to be adopted we think it
important to address this issue.
A ONE PARISH QUANTATIVE
EXAMPLE
It may be
useful to highlight some figures for one parish, that of Bushey, in
Hertfordshire. Bushey has some 20,000
people, perhaps half the houses are pre 1949. It comprises farmland, golf
courses and horse establishments all surrounding the urban core. It has a
large public access area, which until 1998 or so was farmland and is now run
by the Woodland Trust who plan for 60% tree cover.
Bushey parish had 40 Definitive paths in 1991. My group got a further
14 paths formalised of which 10 were claims and four were brand new
dedications. These 10 represent a 25% increase on the definitive total.
In addition, and as a bonus, there are some pre 1949 paths that have been
properly formalised in respect of route, width, limitations (e.g. B2, B12) by
means of non-contested diversion orders. We have a list of some 40 paths still
to claim in Bushey, most by user evidence. A 'gut feel' look at the list
results in thinking that about half will succeed and half will fail. If so
Bushey will go from 40 to 70 definitive paths via claims or a 75% increase
since 1991 when we started to tackle the issue.
So can this be extrapolated nationally? Of course
not, but it may be indicative.
How many of these are pre 1949? About 14 in total or 35% of the 1991
definitive numbers. These figures differ from those on the questionnaire above
because you ask there to exclude all path claims based only on user evidence.
PATH USER EVIDENCE FORMS
We find the formal claim forms from our County and
others we have seen over-complicated for most paths, especially short link
paths. Our County recognises that I think. My group now normally uses our own,
tailored to each claim. The issue is, we think, one that whilst not related to
archival research, does play a vital role in delivering the record of all
rights of way. We ask that the issue is address by the Countryside Agency (if
it is not already doing so) and we would be pleased to give some modest help
to make it happen.
RECORDING PRESENTLY RECORDED
PATHS MORE FULLY
Almost finally we recognise that the current issue
is recording unrecorded paths rather than fully recording (width, limitations,
etc) presently recorded paths, but we feel the latter should not be neglected
for too long, after all it was implicit in the National Target.
And finally a comment on the title "Recording
Lost Ways". It is a good phrase, but it has a very different
emphasis from recording unrecorded ways. "Recording lost and
unrecorded ways" is not so memorable. But unless we have seriously
underestimated the numbers truly lost then in our view the majority of
unrecorded ways are not lost, but are in use but not officially recognised as
public paths. Urban and village alleyways being a very significant component
of that total. This point is presumably understood but we mention it here
because we fear it may not always be understood by the wider public whose help
we need in order to get all paths recorded.
Chris Beney, for BADFA
top of page
to Lost
Ways
Some Further Views
Based on a note prepared by BADFA chairman Chris Beney for the Ramblers' Association member of the lost ways steering group April 2001
The size of the work needed.
My knowledge includes the Districts of Three Rivers and Hertsmere and Watford and some of St Albans, but is very far from complete for those areas. For the parish of Bushey and part of the parish of Aldenham I have a very good knowledge. Bushey has about 20,000 people, perhaps half the houses are pre 1949. It is surrounded, except for some linking ribbons, with farmland, golf courses and horse establishments. It also has a large public access area, which until 1998 or so was farmland and is now run by the Woodland Trust who plan for 60% tree cover.
I am Chairman of BADFA, the Bushey and District Footpaths Association (we deal with all types of path, despite the name) which is a Parish Paths Partner. I am also Deputy Area footpath secretary for the Ramblers', for Hertsmere District. and the Open Spaces Society's correspondent for Hertsmere and Three Rivers.
BADFA, soon after our 1991 foundation, got a map and looked not at the paths that were on the map but at those that were not on the map.
Bushey parish had 40 Definitive paths in 1991. We have got a further 14 paths formalised of which 10 were claims and four were brand new dedications. These 10 represent a 25% increase on the definitive total. In addition, and as a bonus, there are some pre 1949 paths that have been properly formalised in respect of route, width, limitations (e.g. B2, B12) by means of non-contested diversion orders. We have a list of a further 45 paths to claim in Bushey. A 'gut feel' look at the list results in thinking that about half will succeed and half will fail. If so Bushey will go from 40 to 70+ or a increase of over 70%.
The traditional way.
I may be expressing my ignorance but I understand the traditional way of getting paths onto the definitive map is when an individual gets excited about an old path found on a map or partly visible on the ground or when a small group of people get cross about a non-definitive path that is closed by a new underlying landholder.
They research maps and documents and collect user evidence. The highway authority makes an order, perhaps after secretary of state prodding, and an inspector decides.
Nothing wrong with this process except that it may not be the quickest or the cheapest way and it may not give either the path user or the landholder the results they wanted and, at best, usually disappoints one of them. Relationships come under strain from the confrontation that is often involved.
A further major defect of this process is that the identification of unrecorded paths is haphazard.
The way forward.