Agenda item

(NOTE: Councillors A. James, A. Davies, T. Evans, J.A. Davies and B.D.J.Phillips had earlier declared a personal interest in this agenda item but remained seated throughout the consideration of this item.)

The Committee at its meeting held on the 29^th June, 2018, gave consideration to a Scrutiny Topic Suggestion received from Myddfai Community Council (Minute 11 Refers) in which the Committee duly accepted and requested a report to be submitted for consideration. 

In accordance with that recommendation, the Committee received a report on the Management of Motorised Traffic on Public Rights of Way which outlined how the Council’s Countryside Access team currently manage the use of the County’s Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network by Motorised Vehicles.

The Committee noted that the suggested topic submitted by Myddfai Community Council was requested following regular reports of unlawful use of footpaths and bridleways by motorbikes and 4x4’s in the Myddfai area.  The Community Council had anticipated that methods of monitoring and control of the issue raised could come from a review of the subject.

The report highlighted the problem of unlawful use of the PRoW network in the County by motorised vehicles and the actions taken by the Authority in order to prevent it.

The following queries were raised during consideration of the report:-

·    It was asked, who would be liable in the event of an accident on a PRoW?  The Countryside Access Officer explained that in the case of Byways Open to all traffic the Authority would be liable if it was proved that the accident occurred due to a surface defect. However, in the case of Bridleways and Footpaths there is often shared responsibility for the surface as these PRoWs often follow existing farm tracks, in these circumstances the initial claim would normally be received by the Authority who may, depending on the cause of the accident, then refer to the landowner for their public liability insurance to manage.

·    In response to a query regarding the legal width of a PRoW, the Countryside Access Officer stated that occasionally PRoW widths are recorded in the Definitive Statement, providing a legal record of individual PRoW widths, however, this is often not the case. If there is no available legal record the physical habitual width is identified and used to define route width.  If no physical boundaries or features exist to define habitual width, all available historical mapping and written records are reviewed in order to establish the legal width of a PRoW.

·    It was asked, if farmers could request for a temporary closure of a PRoW during the lambing period?  The Countryside Access Officer explained that there is no provision under the available legislation to close PRoWs for the purposes of lambing. Typically, the farmers would manage the lambing period by using appropriate fencing and signage.  Furthermore, upon request the Authority may be able to contribute by providing signage to farmers obtained from the National Farmers Union.

·      Following a comment raised regarding the difficulties of policing and convicting persons on a PRoW, a query was raised regarding the use of CCTV.  The Countryside Access Officer stated that whilst the Local Authority would not be able to install CCTV on private land, there were allowances for landowners to install their own CCTV.  However, it was advised that landowners contact the Authority to obtain the most current legal advice prior to installing any CCTV system.

·      It was asked, how would a landowner know if there was a PRoW crossing their land?  The Countryside Access Officer explained that the Definitive Map and Statement (DMS) is held in the office of the Countryside Access team. The DMS is the conclusive legal record of all PRoW in the County and any landowner can contact the Countryside Access team and they would be able to clarify the alignment and status of any PRoW affecting their land.

·      In response to a further query regarding insurance and liability, the Countryside Access Officer clarified that the Authority has statutory maintenance responsibilities in respect of the surface of PRoWs, occasionally shared as previously explained. All PRoW furniture e.g. stiles and gates, from a legal stance are the responsibility of the landowner with the Authority having an obligation to contribute 25% towards the cost of furniture maintenance.  Until recently, with more resources and the availability of external funding the Authority has largely covered the cost of furniture installations on behalf of the landowner.  This has helped to open up the network, maintain good relationships with landowners and ensured good quality, accessible furniture is installed.  With the changes to available resources this is unlikely to continue and the Authority may have to adhere to their statutory maintenance responsibilities only.

·      In response to a query, the Countryside Access Officer stated that a Public Right of Way is the legal term that encompasses footpaths, bridleways, byways open to all traffic (BOAT) and restricted byways.  Furthermore, whilst the term ‘Green Lane’s is commonly used as a descriptive term, in legal terms it did not exist.

·      In response to a concern raised regarding the lack of funding to manage PRoW’s, the Head of Transportation & Highways explained that the Authority could only lobby the Welsh Government for its own areas of responsibility and similarly, if there was an issue with private land, the individual landowner would be responsible for seeking any additional funding by writing to the Welsh Government.

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED that the report on the Management of Motorised Traffic on Public of Rights of Way be noted.