Writing a ROWIP part 1
From GPG
Supplementary Guidance Note Advice to Highway Authorities — How to Write an Effective Rights of Way Improvement Plan
This article was designed to offer advice in writing a ROWIP. It provides a suggested template and presents extracts from published ROWIPs as examples of good practice.
Please note the examples are taken from published ROWIPs and may not include examples from ROWIPs that have been published since March 06. This does not mean the more recent ROWIPs do not include examples of good practice, merely that they have not been added to the site.
See also Writing a ROWIP part 2 and Writing a ROWIP part 3
Background
The Countryside & Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000 imposed a new duty on Highway Authorities to prepare a Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP). ROWIPs are intended to be the prime means by which local highway authorities identify changes to be made to their rights of way network in order to meet the Government's aim of better provision for walkers, cyclists, equestrians and people with mobility problems. Preparing a ROWIP gives an authority the opportunity to reassess their local rights of way network and its relevance to the people who use it now, and those who may wish to do so in the future.
The CROW Act aims to improve access to the countryside for everyone. It aims to make more places accessible to more people and to remove some of the barriers preventing people from enjoying access to the countryside. ROWIPs are a significant part of that process. Inner London Authorities and "excellent" authorities do not have a duty to prepare a ROWIP although many have chosen to do so, recognising the benefits to the authority and the public of taking a positive proactive look at access provision both in rural and urban areas.
Introduction
The Countryside Agency is committed to supporting authorities with the ROWIP process. In 2005 they commissioned The Access Company to survey the progress that local authorities have made with the process and identify what help and support they need to ensure their ROWIPs are effective and completed in time for the 2007 deadline. The results of the survey are available and have been distributed to local authorities and local access forums.
The survey identified 94% of authorities requesting supplementary advice on how to write an effective ROWIP. This document has been produced in response to that request and draws on the experience of the many authorities who have already committed to preparing a ROWIP, both as part of the Countryside Agency demonstration programme and on their own. This guidance note aims to draw on the good practice developed by these authorities by sharing their experiences and presenting a range of ideas within a framework that it is hoped will inspire the development of an effective ROWIP for each authority.
As ROWIPs are new many authorities are facing the task of working out what the Plan should look like, what to put in and what to leave out. DEFRA have deliberately not produced firm guidance on this, to allow local authorities to tailor their documents to local circumstances and this document does not intend to fulfil that role either. However it is hoped that this document will provide suggestions for how a ROWIP could be presented. Authorities must be aware however that the structure suggested in this guidance note is just that - a suggestion. There is no requirement to follow this structure and it should not be seen as a constraint. Rather it is hoped it will be a practical starting point and serve as a catalyst for innovation.
Countryside Agency regional staff will continue to provide help and support to authorities with the preparation of their ROWIPs in parallel to this guidance note. This document will not remove the need to liaise with them and discuss any areas of concern. The Agency is also a statutory consultee so must be given an opportunity to input to any ROWIP before it is published.
Authorities have until November 2007 to prepare a final ROWIP. A draft plan must be published and comments considered in advance of this date. DEFRA consider that a minimum of 12 weeks should be allowed for comments to be received on the draft plan, given this draft plans should be published in or before August 2007 if the timescales are to be met. Authorities who have started preparing plans have discovered that it is easy to underestimate the scale of the ROWIP task. Taking a thorough look at the rights of way network for an area, and asking, often for the first time, if it works for the people who want to use it takes time. Given the scale of the task preparing a ROWIP inevitably has implications on staffing and budgets of rights of way sections.
Almost half of all authorities have at least 50% of an officer's time dedicated to working on the ROWIP. Experience has shown that it is important to be realistic about how much time will be required, and allocate sufficient staff resource to the task. Authorities without dedicated officers are generally making much slower progress then those where responsibility for delivery of the plan lies with a named individual. In addition to the staff resource implications a budget must be allocated to the ROWIP. Resources are required to carry out consultation and research even if it is hoped that much of the Plan can be coordinated "in-house". Many authorities have found that they need to contract parts of the research out to consultants as they do not have adequate time or skills in house.
Almost a quarter of authorities, according to the December 05 survey, have yet to make any significant progress with their ROWIP. Experience of authorities who have started has demonstrated that it takes a considerable amount of time to complete the process. Most authorities have prepared a timetable and have made realistic assessments of the time required to complete each stage. However it is unlikely that any authority which has not started by the middle of 2006 will be able to fully complete the process and prepare an effective document before the statutory deadline.
Getting Started
Before any work can start on the ROWIP the process must be planned. Careful consideration of the task and how it fits in with the work of the authority and the council's internal structures is necessary at the outset to ensure the final plan can deliver its aims. As part of the planning process authorities must decide on the scale and scope of the ROWIP. This includes considering whether joining with neighbouring authorities to write a joint plan for more than one authority area (as several authorities have done such as Lancashire, Blackpool & Blackburn with Darwen, and the Tyne & Wear authorities) is a good idea and whether to write one plan for the whole authority area or several small plans (as Hampshire have chosen to do). In addition consideration needs to be given to how the plan should address routes which are not shown on the definitive map, permissive access and other non-definitive routes.
DEFRA issued statutory guidance on ROWIPs in November 2002. Several authorities have chosen to exceed this guidance to ensure their Plans are going to be locally effective and deliverable. The most common areas where ROWIPs will exceed the requirements of the guidance are:
- Timing - several authorities aim to have published a final ROWIP in time for full integration with the Local Transport Plan.
- Consultation - with users with a wide range of needs, not just 'the usual suspects' and those with mobility and visual impairments. Several authorities have widened the consultation to ensure they have reached all groups and considered their needs when making the assessment.
- Integration of the wider accessible network - two thirds of authorities have included access other than that shown on the definitive map in their network assessments. In several cases this has resulted in the production of a total access map which includes permissive routes, CROW access, stewardship access, quiet lanes, footways etc. See Connectedness of the Network for Bedfordshire's justification for widening the scope of their ROWIP.
The key stages of the planning process are:
- Establishing a steering group within the authority to encourage effective communication across the different departments.
- Encouraging political support from elected council members. It is essential that elected members understand the value of the Plan if adequate resources are to be allocated to producing it.
- Ensuring senior managers support and understand the significance of the process.
- Preparing a timetable to guarantee delivery on schedule - example of a project plan from Shropshire.
- Allocating staff and financial resources. See Staffing for further information.
- Building relationships with Local Transport Plan officers to ensure good integration between the two plans. See the Defra guidance Signposting Guide and ROWIPs and Local Transport Plans for more information.
- Consideration of how the plan will affect neighbouring authorities.
- Involvement of the Local Access Forum. See the Signposting Guide Engaging with Local Access Forums for more information.
- Taking account other interests - land managers, heritage & nature conservation.
The signposting guide Making the most of existing resources offers advice on the initial planning process. There is also advice on securing support from council members and senior managers in the signposting guide Developing Support from Managers and Councillors.
Establishing a Steering Group
There will be a need for close co-operation between different local authority departments as plans are prepared. (DEFRA guidance 2.3.11)
Almost half of all authorities have already established a steering group to manage the ROWIP process. Producing a successful ROWIP requires a wide range of skills and process many of which are not traditionally found in ROW teams. Actively involving other people and teams in the process not only helps bridge any skills gap, it also builds the wider rapport and awareness that will help in implementing the ROWIP and securing resources. Typically members of a steering group include the ROWIP Officer and representatives from the following sections:
- Local Transport Plan
- Cycling
- Walking
- Safe Routes to Schools
- Walking for Health (or other health contacts)
- Diversity or Disability/Inclusion
- Youth services
- National Park staff, National Trail Officers and AONB officers where relevant etc.
The steering group need not be limited to these members and can be used to bring other skills and experience to the ROWIP from many varied fields, for example one authority (Hampshire) has included representatives from the University of the Third Age on their steering group.
Authorities who have not been able to establish a functioning steering group have found difficulties engaging fully with other non-highway sections of their authority and have spent longer trying to raise the profile of the ROWIP internally. For examples of steering and management groups see Steering Groups.
Encouraging Political Support
Support for the ROWIP from council members is vital to the process. Authorities with an enthusiastic politician supporting the process progress faster and can access more resources both in terms of funding and staff time.
Promoting and persuading other people about the ROWIP is just as important to improving access as producing the Plan itself. 86% of authorities were interested in further help with building political support which demonstrates rights of way officers are fully aware of the importance of gaining political support.
The signposting guide Developing Support from Managers and Councillors has been written to offer further useful advice. The Countryside Agency is planning training seminars for local authority members and officers to help deliver this support. Countryside Agency regional staff can give you more information on this training and may be able to offer other help, contact them if you want to discuss your needs further.
Ensuring Senior Management Support
Support for the ROWIP from senior council officers is also vital to an effective ROWIP. If senior managers are aware of the value of the ROWIP progress is generally faster and the end product likely to be more aspirational and achievable. Experience suggests a lack of support can often be a result of lack of briefing and understanding rather than a lack of interest.
83% of authorities expressed an interest in further help securing such support. Some people commented that they had excellent support within their authority which resulted in them having the resources they needed to do the job, but they could see that people in other authorities may need help.
The signposting guide Developing Support from Managers and Councillors offers useful further advice. The Countryside Agency is planning further support with this aspect in 2006/07. Contact your Agency staff member if you are specifically interested in more support with this.
Preparing a Timetable
The work leading up to the published Plan must be conducted to a timetable that enables authorities to have published their ROWIPs by November 2007. (DEFRA guidance 2.1.3)
Preparing a realistic timetable for the ROWIP is a key first step if the deadline of November 2007 is to be achieved. 58% of authorities have completed their timetables to date. Several authorities have prepared timetables but are experiencing difficulties sticking to them due to problems securing funding or recruiting staff.
An example Project Plan from Shropshire.
Allocating Staff and Financial Resources
89% of authorities have 1 or more staff members working on preparing the ROWIP, although the amount of time available for the task varies. Authorities who are making most progress tend to have 50% of an officer's time or more dedicated to the task.
Authorities with good political support and internal support from managers tend to have more staff resources available to them.
See Staff and Financial Resources for more information.
It is difficult to put a figure on how much a ROWIP costs to carry out. The authorities involved in the Countryside Agency exemplar project were each allocated up to £40,000 to carry out research into two specific areas. The research carried out under this project served to not only guide the production of the individual authorities' ROWIPs but also generated information and guidance which all authorities could use. Because of this these figures are generally higher than would be expected for research on elements of a ROWIP. However several authorities have employed consultants to carry out research for them costing in the region on £20,000.
It is reasonable to expect the budget for the ROWIP, excluding staff time, to be between £10,000 and £50,000. Bradford Council has been recording the time their staff have spent on the ROWIP since September 2003. The council has a team of four working on the ROWIP alongside their other work. The figures below give an idea of how much preparing a ROWIP realistically will cost an average sized metropolitan authority.
|
Sept 03 -Mar 04: |
79 hours |
Cost: £1,817 |
|
Apr 04 - Mar 05: |
564 hours |
Cost: £13,467 |
|
Apr 05 - Mar 06: |
714 hours |
Cost: £20,664 |
|
Totals: |
1357 hours |
Cost: £35,948 |
Bear in mind that this represents the combined hours of four people within the Countryside and Rights of Way team - some of whom are on higher salaries than others - and the costs are not straight hourly rates they include overheads/on-costs etc (ie they are the Council's charge -out rates).
Relationship with the Local Transport Plan
ROWIPs will be increasingly incorporated into local transport planning over the next LTP period. According to published existing LTP guidance produced by Department for Transport the aim of integrating the plans is to:
- Clearly establish the shared aims and establish a definite link between ROWIPs and LTPs.
- Ensure that, as public highways, rights of way are embraced by the LTP process and recognised in LTPs as a key ingredient in the development of an integrated transport network that provides choice in a variety of transport modes.
- Recognise the invaluable role rights of way can play in assisting LTPs to achieve the shared priority and wider quality of life objectives.
- Strengthen and facilitate the long term sustainability of rights of way.
- Reduce the quantity of plans produced by an authority in the longer term.
Experience from authorities who have made strong links with their Local Transport Plans suggests that very often there is a parallel increase in profile and long term support for rights of way in the minds of senior managers and councillors, (and often resources too) by demonstrating that Rights of Way are a mainstream part of an integrated transport network.
Unitary authorities more frequently have good links between rights of way and the Local Transport Plan as often the staff sit within the same section, or in a few cases the same officer is responsible for both. This relationship can be more difficult in bigger authorities where the Local Transport Plan may be in a different department and have no knowledge of Rights of Way.
The Merseyside authorities are working together to produce a ROWIP and are keen to ensure good integration with the LTP. This is in part a reflection on the nature of the area & the rights of way network which provides good transport opportunities to the people of Merseyside. To achieve integration between the ROWIP & LTP a project was carried out to prepare a Rights of Way position statement for inclusion in the LTP (2) and propose a ROWIP development programme. The project has resulted in LTP funding being secured to employ a joint ROWIP officer. See the report of the project.
72% of authorities expressed an interest in more advice on this process. Advice on linking with the LTP is given in the signposting guide ROWIPs and Local Transport Plans. Recent guidance has been produced by DEFRA on the Integration of ROWIPs and LTPs.
See an example of how the ROWIP can refer to the LTP from Leicestershire County Council's draft ROWIP.
Relationships with Neighbouring Authorities
Local authorities are under a duty to consult: each highway authority whose area adjoins their area and each district and parish council in their area; ... (DEFRA guidance 2.3.12)
88% authorities are working with their neighbours, several are preparing joint plans. Lancashire County Council prepared their ROWIP jointly with 2 neighbouring authorities explaining "When visiting the countryside, it is unlikely that people are concerned with local government boundaries. So Lancashire County Council, Blackpool Council & Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council - acting in our capacity as highway authority for each of our respective areas - are combining to produce a single Plan." A similar approach has been taken by Bath & North East Somerset, Bristol and South Gloucestershire councils who are working to produce a joint plan which reflects the area covered by their Joint Local Access Forum.
Authorities with National Parks or AONBs within their boundaries must work closely with them to ensure the ROWIP has relevance in all areas. This is the case in most areas with many National Park staff in particular allocating significant amounts of time to the ROWIP process.
In many areas Countryside Agency regional staff provides networking support either by regular contact through email groups or meetings of ROWIP officers within the region. This support is valued by many authorities who benefit from discussing general issues with colleagues but also appreciate the opportunity to meet neighbouring authorities to discuss more specific issues. Only 24% of authorities requested support with networking, possibly representing the regions where there is less support available. Agency regional staff are working to ensure adequate networking opportunities are available to all staff working on ROWIPs, if you wish to discuss this you should contact your regional office. In addition rights of way staff have good networking systems across the country, although these may be of more relevance to senior Rights of Way staff, it is possible ROWIP officers are unaware or not included in these groups.
Involving the Local Access Forum
Authorities must involve LAFs before preparing or reviewing their plans and in particular in making the assessments. (DEFRA guidance 2.3.15)
All authorities who have started the ROWIP process are working with their LAF. However 83% expressed interest in training for LAF members suggesting that not all authorities are able to make full use of the skills and experience of their LAF members whilst preparing the ROWIP.
See Local Access Forums for examples of how authorities have involved their Local Access Forums.
The signposting guide Engaging with Local Access Forums suggests ideas for adding value to the LAF's input to the ROWIP process.
Taking Account of Other Interests
It is important that the interests of land managers be taken into account, together with those of heritage and nature conservation. (DEFRA guidance 2.2.22)
The guidance suggests land managers in particular should be involved at an early stage. Nearly three quarters of authorities have consulted with landowners beyond those represented on the LAF. Landowners are key people rights of way officers need to work with, where good relationships exist they result in better understanding of the limitations and potential benefits on both sides.
See Landowners for more information on the issues concerning landowners and sample landowner questionnaires.
