From GPG

It is usual for Public Rights of Way Units to have a backlog of maintenance work. This can be due to a number of different reasons, resources and capacity perhaps being the most well versed reasons.

In some respects it is irrelevant what the reason is, but more importantly how an authority affectively manages this backlog of work so that the Maintenance Officer or the Public Rights of Way Unit is not unnecessarily overburdened with demand for this work.

Wherever possible it is good practice for an authority to have in place a systematic inspection programme that is linked into a proactive maintenance programme. In order to achieve this, a list of maintenance priorities needs to be identified together with defining each of the priorities. It will be important to keep this as simple as possible and not list too many priorities.

To set up such a system will involve the following process:

1. List all of the maintenance work that the Public Rights of Way Unit is aware of.
2. Identify and define the priority list - it is a good idea to colour code these priorities so that they stand out for example:
   Red - Capital works, or where the path is subject to a temporary closure notice or Urgent work that could be carried out to save having to do a temporary closure or Enforcement action.
   Yellow - Important work that does not require a temporary closure
   Green - Routine work such as vegetation clearance, Sign post installation work.
   Pink - Volunteer work.
   
3. Estimate the length of time each job will take and cost up each project to give an overview of the time and expenditure required to complete the tasks. This process alone can produce some surprising statistics and can be a useful tool to gain additional resources from the capital programme.
4. Produce a work programme each month from the maintenance list, this enables other staff within the Unit to be involved and ensures that the main list is reviewed monthly. Some authorities may find that each month is too soon particularly if the maintenance work is carried out by a third party. It is good practice to minute these meetings to show evidence that the list is in fact being reviewed and provide feedback on whether work is being carried out or not and if not what the reasons are for this.

Adopting such a system for maintenance work may be of benefit to the authority should there be any accidents resulting in third party injury claims. Where an authority can demonstrate that it has a systematic path inspection regime in place which informs a proactive maintenance programme this provides a strong defence against injury claims.

The Castle Morpeth Castles, Woods and Water project has carried out a full access audit of the project area (see map of project area). One of the outputs of this work is a table listing and costing all proposed improvements. This appraoch is based on accurate GIS based information and allows for realistic bids for funding to be made - see the table, or the Castles, Woods & Water website for the full path restoration and path access improvements report.

Prioritising Work

Kent County Council uses a system for prioritising surfacing work very successfully. A similar format could be devised for many other capital projects. Using such a system enables officers to demonstrate a coherent approach to investment and to defend or justify priority order. This can be especially helpful when a demand from the public, particularly when escalated by a councillor or senior management, is for work that the officer does not consider significant against the list of priorities.

Dorset County Council uses a statement of priorities first devised to assist with situations of 'queue jumping' under political pressure. It was first approved by the LAF and subsequently adopted as policy by the authority following recommendation from the LAF. It has been helpful in controlling investment in works as most appropriate rather than ad hoc.