Writing a ROWIP part 2
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 1 — Background, Introduction and Getting Started
Writing a ROWIP part 3 — Publishing a ROWIP
Writing a Rights of Way Improvement Plan
DEFRA has provided statutory guidance on ROWIPs which outlines what the Plan aims to achieve and what it should cover. The survey in December 05 suggested Authorities are accumulating a vast quantity of information on the network and the needs of the public and are now seeking guidance on how to pull all of that together into a coherent Plan which can usefully steer the future work of the authority.
Some authorities have seen the document as primarily a consultation document; the target audience being the public, and the aim being to enable them to comment on how the authority intends to provide them with a service. Others have seen it as primarily a bidding document which will provide the evidence needed to access funds internally and externally. A third group regard the plan as an internal document which lays out the council's strategy for delivery. An effective ROWIP must be able to work as all three.
Because of the many different audiences, and competing roles of the ROWIP the document must explain the context within which it sits including the legislative background and its position within other plans and strategies published by the council. It should be easy to read (remember this is an external document that the public must be able to understand). A good ROWIP is likely to contain a large amount of information but should present this in bite-sized pieces so that it is accessible to anyone who picks it up.
A number of authorities have used imaginative layouts to present the information in an easy to read format.
- Cambridgeshire has used a well designed layout with photographs and short quotes from the consultation.
- Cheshire has used the margins of the pages to present additional information.
- Northumberland and Lancashire have produced a clear and easy to read executive summary.
- Warwickshire has structured their report around the eight themes identified. Each theme 'chapter' is divided into sections - the National picture, the Situation in Warwickshire, Conclusions, Policies, Key legislation and Key references.
- Leicestershire has produced a clear and easy to read draft.
A sample format for the introductory paragraphs is:
- Vision statement stating what the ROWIP is for and what it will achieve.
- Introduction covering why the Plan has been prepared (the legislative background and statutory guidance) and how the Plan has been prepared (explaining the processes involved). See The Process of Creating a ROWIP for an example from the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.
- Description of the plan area (particularly relevant if the Plan covers more than one authority area, or a small part within an authority area). See Description of the ROWIP Area for examples.
- Policy context explaining how the plan relates to other policies and strategies. See Bracknell Forest's Policy Context, Lancashire, Blackpool & Blackburn's Policy Framework and York's Policy Context for more information.
Because much of the information is geographical maps are helpful to explain the scale of the Plan, and show where major initiatives will happen, and which areas will be affected by proposed improvements.
The following sections provide a template for a ROWIP with suggestions on content which may be covered under each heading. The structure draws on some of the current best practice to provide ideas of what an effective ROWIP may look like but it is not intended as a definitive format.
Demand Assessment
DEFRA's Statutory Guidance states "Authorities should consult widely about the needs of all users and potential users of the rights of way in their areas in order to identify what improvements they should make to their network. Consultations should include both local people and visitors to the area." (DEFRA guidance 2.2.3)
The ROWIP must report on the demand assessment which can be done in many ways. See Assessment of Need and Demand (ROWIPs) and Consultation Techniques; suggested chapter headings and which issues may be covered in each chapter are included in Lancashire, Blackpool & Blackburn's Assessment of Needs.
Advice on consultation is included in the signposting guide ROWIPs and community consultation
Birmingham City Council has used their website to thank all those who contributed to the consultation, using a statement from a council member to increase political awareness of the ROWIP.
Behaviour, attitudes and values of the public
As part of the demand assessment process research will need to have been undertaken to supply both a quantitative and qualitative understanding of by whom, how and why the current network is used, for what purpose, where, when and with what level of satisfaction. Just under half of all authorities have completed this stage.
Findings which could be discussed under this heading include:
- Satisfaction of existing users
- Motivations of people who use the network
- Reasons why people don't use it
- What people use the network for (journey to work, to school, recreation, dog walking etc).
Careful consideration should be given in this section to make sure that the demand assessment has taken adequate steps to ensure the views of the whole community of users and potential users are representatively sought. Explanations of the different survey techniques proactively used to ensure inclusive consultation (not just with 'walkers' and 'cyclists') and the formula adopted for balancing views of the different interests and their influence on the strategy will be a critical part of this chapter.
Cheshire has made good use of the consultation data to justify their conclusions:
What will happen to the suggestions made in 2003?
Stakeholder consultations in 2003 yielded over 1000 suggestions for improvements to the countryside access network; analysing and including those in this document was felt to be unrealistic at this stage. Therefore spreadsheets have been set up on the website to show which suggestions for improvements we want to investigate further for possible delivery over the next 5 year period. These suggestions have been allocated a high priority using a system developed with input from our Local Access Forum. Suggestions which have not been included not disappear. 'Medium' or 'low' priority suggestions will be investigated as resources become available. Furthermore, our priorities will be reviewed annually allowing some suggestions to 'move up' the lists.
Assessment of the needs of walkers, cyclists, horse riders and four wheel drive users
Just over a third of authorities have completed this stage. One of the easiest ways to discuss the finding may be to divide the chapter into sub-sections explaining the needs of each individual group. It is important to remember however that not all 'walkers' have the same needs or motivations. It may be more appropriate to group people by the experience that they are commonly seeking rather than by the mode by which they have chosen to use the rights of way network to facilitate it. For each group the text could present information on the groups needs generally, and findings from research into what their specific needs are locally:
- The needs of walkers & runners - Walkers and runners do not all have the same needs. The needs of a 'rambler' for instance may be very different to those of a parent walking their child to school, a local resident walking their dog or a fell runner training. This section should recognise these differences, attempt to quantify demand and describe the needs of the different groups.
- The needs of cyclists - Cyclists also vary in their needs, mountain bikers may have very specific needs which have nothing in common with those of people using the network to cycle to work. This section should address the needs of all cyclists.
- The needs of horse riders and carriage drivers - Horse riders and carriage drivers have specific needs which are more consistent than those of other groups, however there may be local need for safe places for children or inexperienced riders to go, as well as a need for places more experienced riders can exercise their horses. Again the assessment should cover all needs. See how Leicestershire handled this.
- The needs of 4 wheel drivers - DEFRA says "The ROWIP process may identify demand for recreational motoring in the countryside. & local highway authorities will need to consider how to respond to this and whether there are ways to manage demand.(sec 2.2.14) See Executive Summary of a report produced for Northamptonshire on the needs of lawful vehicular users relating to rights of way.
Almost three quarters of authorities have chosen to consult with 4 wheel drivers. If you have chosen not to consult this group this section should include an explanation of why not, often this is because there are no available routes within the authority area.
Northamptonshire County Council distributed a paper based survey to motorised vehicle users via MPV groups including GLASS, LARA and TRF.
See Motorised Users for more information.
Dog walkers represent around one third of all users of the rights of way network, although on many sites they can be the only people using the paths. The ROWIP must consider their needs, and the needs of land managers who may have concerns about dogs on their land. Two thirds of authorities have consulted dog walkers as part of their demand assessment. See a guidance note on dogs and access for countryside managers.
Research carried out by ADAS (formerly the Agricultural Advisory Service) for Bedfordshire County Council as part of their pilot ROWIP took an in depth look at the needs of walkers. The project split recreational walkers into three groups [dog walkers, casual walkers and ramblers] and considered the needs of each group. The needs of dog walkers are summarised below:
Needs of Dog Walkers
- Sufficient dog bins that are emptied regularly;
- room for the dog to run off the lead;
- safe for the dog to run off the lead i.e. no vehicles, other walkers, livestock;
- controlled undergrowth;
- no stiles or dog gates as dog gates are only suitable for small dogs;
- clear and sufficient signage;
- clear routes across fields; <li>lighting in winter on local routes near to the road;
- attractive environment; and
- opportunities for the dog to drink (natural streams, ditches or water supplied by pubs). (City of York ROWIP, p14)
Assessing the needs of the blind, partially sighted and those with mobility problems
The Act requires authorities to assess the accessibility of local rights of way to blind or partially sighted persons and others with mobility problems. Those with mobility problems can include those with children and pushchairs. (DEFRA guidance 2.2.15)
Just over one third of authorities have completed this part of the assessment, all authorities who have made progress with consultation have consulted people with reduced mobility but not all have involved those with visual impairments.
Difficulties exist for all who seek to access the countryside and open spaces around towns; improving accessibility is dependant on identifying, accepting and addressing the very real physical, intellectual and perceived barriers users and non users face. Improving accessibility for people with disabilities is a statutory requirement for ROWIPs. More than in any other area, the quality of a ROWIP will reflect the effort put into collaborating with disabled people to remove barriers.
The best ROWIPs will inherently improve accessibility for all, through everything they do; addressing disability issues must become an integral part of all management, and not a separate chapter or work area. Such improvements invariably increase accessibility for many other users too, and can help secure external funding. People with disabilities have needs and aspirations as diverse as any other access group; Highway Authorities need to be sensitive to these aspirations at a local level. For example, cycling and horseriding can increase access for people with disabilities, and so consideration needs to extend to these groups.
See an example of how Leicestershire handled this subject
See the City of York Council ROWIP
Assessment of the needs of people with different abilities
A number of authorities have widened their consultation to reach other groups with different abilities.
For more information on assessment see Needs of People with Disabilities.
The Countryside Agency is investigating what can be done to support the participation in outdoor recreation of disabled people, black and minority ethnic people, people who live in inner city areas and young people. This programme of work is called the Diversity Review.
The needs of potential users
The Statutory Guidance requires councils to consider the future needs the network has to meet. It is important to consider why those who do not use public rights of way don't, and what can be done to encourage greater use of the network.
This section may be used to describe local issues which prevent people using the network, these may include:
- Not enough information, or inaccessible information
- Poor signposting
- Lack of confidence in the quality of the route
- Fear for personal safety
- Routes do not go where people want to travel.
See the City of York Council's ROWIP for an example.
Quantitative Assessment Techniques
In order to fully understand how the network is being used it is important collect data on levels of use in addition to more qualitative information. Several authorities have established monitoring systems enable them determine how many people use the network and where and when they go. Such information is vital when making the case for funding and can be a key tool in deciding where to prioritise limited resources. (see Practical Audit Techniques for information on survey & monitoring techniques)
Where such data has been collected a discussion of the overall findings should be included in this section of the ROWIP. Authorities who have not collected user figures but are considering doing so could use this section to highlight the value of such data, and identify the need for investment in counting technology to help secure additional resources in the future.
The number of authorities monitoring use is low. A signposting guide on this subject may help raise awareness of the value of user data and offer a summary of the options.
Qualitative Assessment Techniques
There are a range of techniques which can be used to find out what your community thinks about the rights of way network. Authorities must consider which techniques will work best for them given the nature of the area and the resources available. Different techniques will be needed to reach different groups.
- 82% of authorities have used a dedicated questionnaire
- 66% have used focus groups
- Half of all authorities have used an on-line survey
- Just under half have used either an existing survey or an advertisement.
Half of all authorities have recognised the need to use more than one consultation technique and have used 4 or more different techniques.
See Assessment of Need and Demand (ROWIPs) for examples of surveys.
Further guidance on how to approach consultation is given in the Community Consultation signposting guide.
Assessing the Network
To assess the extent to which local rights of way meet the present and likely future needs of the public authorities should:
a) Study the definitive map and statement
b) Collate and consider data on applications for modifications
c) Collate and consider data on requests for improvements to the network
d) Collate and consider data on the condition of the network
e) Undertake a survey to assess the needs of the public
f) Identify any other relevant information, including other plans and strategies for the area.
DEFRA's guidance specifically refers to improvements in the network to provide safe routes to allow better access to attractions and facilities, circular routes, safe routes to school, to work and for dog walking. (DEFRA guidance 2.3.1 & 2.2.6)
87% of authorities have started the Network Assessment - although two thirds of all authorities expressed interest in further support with this stage of the ROWIP. The Countryside Agency will produce a signposting guide on this early in 2006/7. (see Evaluating Existing Networks for information on techniques and good practice)
The demand assessment identifies what people need and want from the network, once these needs are known they can be compared with what the network actually provides. Some of the elements of the network assessment can be carried out in isolation, but in order to complete the assessment process the two must be drawn together and conclusions drawn on where the network is not meeting current or potential future demand. The actions a) to d) above are covered by the headings below. The survey element (e) is covered under the demand assessment, the relevance of other plans is covered under the introduction to the ROWIP.
The definitive map and statement
The DEFRA guidance requires authorities to:
Study the definitive map and statement including any outstanding applications for modification orders and past requests for improvements to the network (a-c above). A similar assessment should be made for areas without a definitive map. (2.3.2 & 2.3.3)
This section of the ROWIP is based on the work of the rights of way section, not on the results of consultation or research. Because of this there is a risk that it appears as a separate part. Several ROWIPs have drawn conclusions which relate to definitive map work without explaining the background earlier in the document. It is important that this section is used to explain the role of the definitive map, and describe any issues which the ROWIP needs to address.
View information from Warwickshire County Council's ROWIP on Records, changes and mapping.
Read Gloucestershire's chapter on the definitive map and statement.
The Connectedness of the Network
Authorities have used a variety of techniques to assess the connectedness of the network. A number had used the Entec approach, others have used GIS to analyse the density of paths and assessed visually where routes are not connected.
This section should explain the technique used and the findings. The findings should include the nature of any problems, for example severance by major roads, lack of circular routes, bridleways not connecting with the places horse owners live, etc. One approach to discussing the findings is to address them according to user type:
- Connectedness of the footpath network & other routes open to walkers
- Connectedness of the bridleway network & routes open to equestrians
- Connectedness of the network for cyclists.
However this approach may not necessarily cover all aspects of connectedness. It is vital that authorities consider access to particular places and how the network provides that access in addition to looking at specific routes. For example the bridleway network may be well connected with no major severance issues or dead ends, but it may not give riders access to places they wish to visit.
Many authorities while assessing their networks are recognising the fragmented nature of the bridleway network. Some already have "horse strategies" which address this in some cases in imaginative ways which involve common law dedication.
Good practice suggests that it is important to address connectedness of the public rights of way network along with the wider network of non-definitive routes. By considering permissive, negotiated or other access routes gaps in the network may be dramatically reduced. DEFRA Higher Level Stewardship schemes have the potential to make significant improvements to the connectedness of the network. Stewardship advisors are encouraged to talk to local authorities about access priorities highlighted in the ROWIP and ensure new access provided through stewardship works within the ROWIP framework. See External Funding for more information.
Mendips Cross Trails Trust is increasing the bridleway network in their area by common law dedication. This allows for much faster progress than is possible through more traditional definitive map modification orders. This approach could be adopted by other trusts or authorities seeking to improve the network. See the Countryside Agency summary.
See Connectedness of the Network for case studies.
Wider network of non-definitive routes & permissive access
DEFRA's guidance states "Authorities should look at the definitive map in conjunction with the wider highway network, cycle tracks and permissive routes."
Many authorities have approached assessing the network by creating GIS layers to represent the definitive map, cycleways, access land, permissive routes, and any other access. These form the basis of a "Wider Access Map". Research has shown that access of this kind can increase the lengths of routes open to the public by significant amounts. Research undertaken by the City of York Council identified a total of 75km of linear access (198 paths) and 1188ha of open land, clearly this is of substantial benefit to the people of York. Add these extra routes to those identified through the lost ways research (a further 68km, some of which may be duplicated) and the rights of way network has the possibility of expanding by 60%.
See Connectedness of the Network for information from York's ROWIP on the wider network of access.
Historically much of this access has not been well publicised and it is often under used. Mapping all public access on one map ensures it is taken into consideration by the authority (in particular this can be useful for development control). Inclusion of the map in the ROWIP brings it to the attention of the public. Some authorities have further promoted this access by including sections of permissive routes or access land in guided walks, or in walks promoted in local newspapers. This section should describe the additional access, ideally with maps to demonstrate this where appropriate.
The quality of the network
Local authorities should collate & consider data on the condition of the network (d above - DEFRA guidance 2.3.1)
This section should describe how the data on the condition of the network has been collected, for example is it the result of a full condition survey, collated from the Best Value Performance Indicators survey of a percentage of the network, or collected in anther way?
There should be an explanation of what the data actually means, does the survey pass and fail paths or is it more descriptive?
See ROWIP Condition Surveys and for an example of a condition survey.
Access to CROW land
This section should very briefly describe the extent of CROW land within the plan area, and identify and areas which do not currently have access from the rights of way network.
For most authorities this information may be best presented on a map.
Read Gloucestershire's chapter on access rights.
Relevance of the network for sustainable travel
The ROWIP should address how the rights of way network can contribute to sustainable travel (every day journeys on foot, bike or using public transport and which do not involve the use of private motor vehicles). This may include discussion of:
- How the rights of way network can benefit sustainable travel in different locations within the plan area
- The nature of improvements required to encourage use of the network for sustainable travel.
Relevance of Promoted Paths
The plan should include information about National Trails, the national cycle network, national bridle-route network, regional routes and other nationally or locally promoted walks and rides (including information about the popularity of these routes and the contribution they make to the local economy).(DEFRA guidance 2.3.5)
See Benefits of Rights of Way for more information.
This section should list all such routes in the plan area and include information on their significance to the local economy and any other relevant data (for example if the route is fully accessible, or accessible to disabled riders, the level of promotion, estimated use levels, etc.)
There are over 650 promoted routes in the UK, many of which are very popular with locals and visitors. All authority areas have part of at least one promoted route, most have several.
Over a third of authorities are responsible for at least part of a National Trail. National Trails are some of the nation's favourite walks and rides. Many users take advantage of short circular routes which link National Trails to other public rights of way. Others spend several days or weeks walking all or part of a National Trail. The Countryside Agency recognises the importance of National Trails by supporting authorities to maintain them to a much higher standard than the majority of the network. In addition each Trail has a dedicated Trail Manager responsible for maintaining and improving the quality of the route, promotion, marketing and all other aspects of management. These officers can be contacted through the Countryside Agency or through the National Trail website. The Trails are all managed to very high standards, in order to deliver this the Trail Managers hold large amounts on information on their Trail including demand data, information on levels of use & user satisfaction, audit data and economic impact information. This information should be referred to in this section of the ROWIP.
See Promoted Paths in ROWIPs for examples and read Gloucestershire's chapter on promoted walks and rides.
Health and economic benefits
See Health and Economic Benefits for further information.
Making the Assessment
Drawing conclusions
By this stage authorities should be in a position to make an informed assessment of the matters set out in section 60(2) of the Act. They should be able to reach conclusions about the strengths and weaknesses of the local rights of way network and to identify where action is needed. This assessment should form the basis of the statements of action that are an integral part of improvement plans. (DEFRA guidance 2.3.19)
The plan so far will have reported on the findings of research and consultation but not drawn any conclusions. The amount of information collected means that not all issues raised will be significant enough to be included in the conclusions. The key conclusions will stand out as those which impact on most people. For example a conclusion may be that "lack of information about where they can go on the rights of way network prevents potential users from enjoying them more". The text would then go on to justify that statement and explain the current situation.
The exact number of conclusions will vary, but good practice suggests they can be grouped under key themes.
See Making the Assessment for case studies.
Themes may include:
- The definitive map
- The condition of the network
- Education & information provision
- Sustainable transport
- Bridleways & off road cycling
- Access for all
- Higher rights.
The Action Plan
Statements of action should follow from authorities' assessments. These should make proposals for taking the required action and state, in broad terms, how these proposals are to be realised. They should set out objectives and targets for managing and improving local rights of way in respect of each type of user. For each conclusion authorities should establish:
- Their proposed action
- The estimated costs
- The key organisations that they intend to involve
- The timescale
(DEFRA guidance 2.4.2)
The guidance suggests a table structure which has been used to good effect by a number of authorities including York, Northampton and Lancashire, Blackpool & Blackburn.
The public need to be able to see where their areas of interest or concern fit into the action plan. The actions identified must clearly relate to the assessment stage and make reference to the consultation phase.
The action plan will be used to secure commitment to implement the actions identified. It has to include specific targets which are measurable and realistic. Not all actions need to be implemented by the authority, where partnerships will be involved these should be identifies at this stage.
See ROWIP Action Plans for examples.
Small-scale improvements - quick wins
In developing their statements of action, authorities should have regard to small-scale improvements that may be identified in the course of assessments and which may be capable of being implemented at an early stage. Small-scale improvements might include creating short sections of footpath, cycle routes, bridleway or restricted byway to link with others to form more useful routes (for example circular routes) or securing the removal or replacement of barriers on footpaths or bridleways which would otherwise be capable of use by people with mobility problems. (DEFRA guidance 2.4.4)
15% of authorities have reached the stage of completing an action plan and have identified quick wins.
"We have identified some 'quick wins' in our Action Plans. These may either be one off projects which are already resourced, or actions which can be achieved within current staff numbers and budget. The quick wins are actions we aim to achieve in the first year." (Warwickshire County Council Countryside Access and Rights of Way Improvement Plan)
"Quick wins" are important because they raise the profile of access. They can be used to generate publicity and engage users. Local good news stories about improvements arising from the ROWIP will be seen by politicians and can act to make politicians and senior managers more aware of the potential benefits of the Plan. They can also serve to put more pressure on the authority to deliver as users see action in some areas and start to press for more action in areas interest to them.
In recognition of the strategic importance of "quick wins" the Countryside Agency offered grant to authorities who were able to identify projects from their ROWIPs which they could complete by the end of March 2006. Brief details of these can be found in Quick Wins.
Securing improvements to the network
Local authorities are encouraged to use voluntary means to secure improvements to the network wherever possible. (DEFRA guidance 2.4.8)
Improvements to the network can be made through changes to the definitive map, permissive access or other forms of access agreement to fill in missing links. This section should discuss the authorities approach to using such means to make improvements to the network, and identify key places where such links are required.
There are opportunities to make significant improvements to the network though access agreements under Environmental Stewardship. Stewardship advisors are encouraged to work with local authorities and to consider targets identified in ROWIPs. Authorities need to be aware of their local contact and to work with them to ensure the maximum benefit is gained from any new access secured under Stewardship, and to make advisors aware of what the local priorities are so landowners can be proactively targeted where appropriate.
Each joint character area has identified access targets. Authorities should discuss these with their RDS colleagues and refer to them in the ROWIP. General issues which apply in all areas include improving access to CROW land and upgrading existing access, for example to make an existing route accessible to all users.
