t o co n ta ct p u b lic r ig h ts o f w a y · 2018. 2. 22. · t o co n ta ct p u b lic r ig h ts...

To contact Public Rights of Way

Address:Parks and CountrysideFarnley HallHall LaneLeedsLS12 5HA

Email:[email protected]

Telephone:0113 395 7400

new contents cover:Layout 1 18/9/09 10:10

Foreword

ForewordWhen thinking about Leeds, it is only too easy to focus solely upon the vibrant citycentre - the shopping arcades, historic buildings, and even the latest high risedevelopment. But Leeds is actually so much more than this, because surrounding thecity and with fingers of green stretching inwards, lies some very attractive countryside- making up two thirds of the district no less. And this countryside, together with ourextensive parks, gardens, woodlands, and nature reserves makes Leeds one of thegreenest cities in Britain.

The public rights of way network, comprising footpaths, bridleways and byways open toall traffic provides the key to unlocking access to much of this countryside, whether itbe for active recreational pursuits such as walking, cycling or horse-riding, or moreleisurely strolls with the children perhaps? Public rights of way can also providealternative transport links between local communities - offering the possibility ofleaving the car at home and getting some fresh air and healthy exercise along the way.

Therefore, on behalf of Leeds City Council, I am pleased to be able to invite you toread our Rights ofWay Improvement Plan.This comprehensive document has beencarefully researched and compiled by our Parks and Countryside staff and is wellworth reading in some detail. It identifies both the key issues affecting access to thecountryside around Leeds, as well as proposing a range of improvement projects whichwe will seek to address over the next decade.

I hope this document will inspire you to get out and enjoy your local rights of way, aswell as helping us to achieve some valuable improvements over the coming years.

Councillor John Proctor,Executive Member for Leisure,

Leeds City Council

April 2009

contents:Layout 1 7/10/09 17:10

7.0 Leeds ROWIP Questionnaire

7.1 Questionnaire survey results7.2 Public Rights of Way users7.3 The needs of walkers7.4 The needs of horse riders7.5 The needs of cyclists7.6 The needs of carriage drivers and motorised vehicle users7.7 Needs of users with disabilities or limited mobility7.8 Requests for new and improved provision7.9 The needs of potential users7.10 How the public access information on PROW7.11 What further information should we provide?7.12 What type of promotional material should we provide?7.13 How should we present the information?7.14 How should we distribute the information?

8.0 ROWIP - Statements of Action

8.1 Definitive Map issues and Orders8.2 Path improvements and signposting8.3 Obstructions and nuisances8.4 Planning applications8.5 Key recreational routes8.6 Missing links and developing the path network8.7 Promotion and publicity8.8 Stakeholder liaison8.9 PartnershipWorking

9.0 Action Plan

9.1 PROW Statements of Action9.2 Path improvement projects9.3 Delivering our Action Plan

Appendices

Appendix 1 Public Rights ofWay across the Leeds districtAppendix 2 List of Schedule 14 DMMO applicationsAppendix 3 Definitive Map statement of prioritiesAppendix 4 Boundary of the Excluded AreaAppendix 5 List of Excluded Areas to be surveyedAppendix 6 Parish areas covered by the Definitive MapAppendix 7 List of review matters and Definitive Map anomaliesAppendix 8 Length of PROW by parish areaAppendix 9 Summary of parish/town council responsesAppendix 10 Draft ROWIP - Consultation responsesAppendix 11 Questionnaire requests for improvements

Contents

1

Contents

Contents

Executive Summary

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Legislative Background and Statutory Guidance1.2 Relationship to Local Transport Plan

2.0 Countryside and Access in Leeds

2.1 Countryside areas and the built environment2.2 Current Rights of Way network2.3 Permissive Paths2.4 Strategic Recreational Routes2.5 Local Recreational Routes2.6 Open Access Land2.7 WoodlandTrust sites2.8 Leeds Countryside and Access Service2.9 Cross Boundary issues2.10 Planning issues

3.0 Definitive Map and Statement

3.1 Definitive Map Introduction3.2 Definitive Map Modification Order applications3.3 Excluded Area3.4 Review matters3.5 Gating Orders and Designated Areas3.6 Path Orders3.7 Geographical Information Systems

4.0 Policy Context - Nationally4.1 Choosing Activity - Department of Health4.2 Planning Policy Guidance note number 174.3 CABE Space4.4 Comprehensive Performance Assessment4.5 Environmental Stewardship

5.0 Policy Context - Locally

5.1 Review of Local Policy Documents5.2 Parks and Green Spaces Strategy

6.0 Consultation and Assessment Methodology6.1 Questionnaire survey methodology6.2 Assessment of the Definitive Map and Statement6.3 Parish and town councils6.4 Leeds Local Access Forum6.5 User Groups6.6 Draft ROWIP consultation responses

4

8

88

10

10101111121414151617

18

18202223242525

262626272728

29

2932

33333441424242

44

4444454546464747484849494949

50

505151525252535353

54

545763

64

6566676970717273758085

2

contents:Layout 1 9/23/09 8:41 AM

Executive SummaryThe Leeds Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP), forms a ten year management plan,setting out areas for consideration and improvement across the public rights of way networkwithin the Leeds district.

The ROWIP links to aims and priorities at both a national and local level, such as the WestYorkshire Local Transport Plan,Vision for Leeds, Leeds Strategic Plan, Cultural, Sport andRecreation Strategies.

As the Local Authority, we have a statutory duty to publish a Rights of Way Improvement Planfor Leeds which we see as an aspirational document highlighting improvements which, in part,are over and above the basic statutory requirements.This ROWIP provides anopportunity to bid for additional funding on an informed basis. In turn this will inform theCouncil’s future investment decisions concerning improvements to the public rights of waynetwork in Leeds.

Our draft Plan was subject to a 12 week statutory consultation period during which time,comments were received. Following this public consultation period, and taking into accountany comments and suggestions made, the final Plan is now ready to be published. The LeedsROWIP will be reviewed again within 10 years.

This Rights of Way Improvement Plan covers eight main sections and begins by setting out thelegislative requirements and guidance on how to prepare such plans as part of theCountryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000. In particular, we have focused on the following threeareas of assessment:

a) The extent to which rights of way meet the present and likely future needs of thepublic.

b) The opportunities provided by local rights of way for exercise and other forms ofopen air recreation and enjoyment.

c) The accessibility of local rights of way to blind and partially sighted persons andothers with mobility problems.

Countryside and Access in Leeds

The public rights of way network in Leeds is both extensive and varied and includes a numberof key recreational routes. Key aspects to highlight include:

A total length of path network of 799km broken down to specific categories of publicrights of way. In addition, it is also important to stress the importance of permissivepaths, which are over and above this figure and enhance overall public access.

Key strategic and recreational routes, such as the Dales Way Link, Ebor Way, LeedsCountry Way,Trans Pennine Trail and AireValley Towpath.

Local recreational routes such as the MeanwoodValley Trail, Calverley Millennium Way,Pudsey Link Bridleway, Leeds Links,The Linesway, Harland Way, Rothwell Greenway,Temple Newsam bridlepath,West Leeds Country Park and Green Gateways and theWyebeckValley Way.

Open access land (a total of 350ha) and Woodland Trust Sites.

Exec

utiv

eSu

mm

ary

..

..

..

..

Executive Summ

aryGlossary of Abbreviations

BOAT Byway Open to All TrafficBVPI Best Value Performance IndicatorsBW BridlewayCABE space Commission for Architecture and the Built EnvironmentCROW Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000DEFRA Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs DMMO Definitive Map Modification OrderDM1-11 Definitive Map Statements of ActionFP FootpathGIS Geographical Information SystemKR1-5 Key Recreational Routes - Statements of ActionLCC Leeds City CouncilLCW Leeds Country WayLDF Local Development FrameworkLPI Local Public InquiryML1-5 Missing Links - Statements of ActionNCN National Cycle NetworkON1-7 Obstruction and Nuisances - Statements of ActionPA1-5 Planning Applications - Statements of ActionPW1-5 Partnership Working - Statements of ActionPI1-19 Path Improvements - Statements of ActionPP1-6 Promotion and Publicity - Statements of ActionPPG17 Planning Policy Guidance 17 PO Path OrderRSS Regional Spatial StrategiesPROW Public Rights of WayROWIP Rights of Way Improvement PlanSL1 Stake Holder Liaison - Statement of ActionSSSI Site of Special Scientific InterestTCPA Town & Country Planning Act, 1990TPT Trans Pennine TrailTRO Traffic Regulation OrderUDP Unitary Development PlanWRCC West Riding County Council WYLTP2 West Yorkshire Local Transport Plan 2WYMCC West Yorkshire Metropolitan County CouncilW&CA81 Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981

3 4


Leeds ROWIP Questionnaire Results

The consultation process that we have undertaken has helped us to analyse the needs of walkers, cyclists, horse riders, disabled path users and motorised vehicle users. In terms of howthe respondents use the path network this is summarised in the table below:

The table below summarises the main points. A total of 775 people responded to the questionnaire

ROWIP Statements of Action

Taking into account the results of the questionnaire survey, analysis of the Definitive Map andStatement, national and local policy objectives and operational matters - a range of statementshave been formulated to guide the work that Leeds City Council undertakes to protect, maintainand improve its public rights of way network.

Our actions have been grouped into:

Definitive Map issues and Orders

Path improvements and signposting

Obstruction and nuisances

Planning applications

Key recreational routes

Missing links and developing the network

Promotion and publicity

Stakeholder liaison

Partnership working

Exec

utiv

e Su

mm

ary

......

......

......

Executive Summ

ary

% of Respondents who use public rights of way.

% of Respondents who use public rights of way on foot.

% of Respondents who use public rights of way on horseback.

% of Respondents who use public rights of way on a bicycle.

% of Respondents who use public rights of way in a wheelchair.

% of Respondents who use public rights of way for leisure purposes.

% of Respondents who use public rights of way for fitness purposes.

% of Respondents who use public rights of way to get to work.

% of Respondents who use public rights of way to get to local amenities.

89%

92%

7%

25%

2%

91%

49%

19%

31%

The Definitive Map and Statement

The Definitive Map and Statement is a legal record that indicates the location and status of apublic a right of way. This is a key information source used by many different users, landowners, agents and organisations who require accurate public rights of way informationfor recreation, land management and business purposes.

The Ordnance Survey use the public rights of way information shown on the Definitive Map intheir published maps (Explorer etc.) providing an invaluable guide to public access in the countryside and elsewhere for walkers, horse riders, cyclists and vehicular users.

As the Local Authority, we have a statutory duty to keep the Definitive Map and Statementunder continuous review and to make any modification orders as necessary. Through ourstatutory powers we can make changes to this legal document through a Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO).

Currently, we have a considerable amount of work to undertake to process 49 outstandingDMMO applications. In addition, there remains a legacy from the West Yorkshire CountyCouncil of an ‘excluded area’, of previously unsurveyed land in Leeds, which includes much ofthe inner-city, which is estimated to include some 500 paths.

Importantly, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000 has imposed a cut off date on theDefinitive Map of 1 January 2026. Consequently, after this time, it will not be possible to addany additional public rights of way to the Definitive Map on the basis that they are recorded inhistorical documents. We recognise that before 2026 we will have to carry out a full historical path survey of the whole district.

Consultation and Assessment Methodology

In preparing this Plan, we have already sought to obtain the public’s view on the current rightsof way network, how they use it now and improvements they would like to see in the future.In summary we have carried out:

Face to face questionnaire surveys Postal questionnaire surveysA ‘desk top’ assessment of the definitive map and statement to identify:-

1. The extent to which routes and networks are available to different groups of path users.

2. Areas which are deficient in rights of way for all, or particular groups of path users.3. The possible restoration of severed rights of way due to road building.

Following this assessment we have identified parish areas where there are obvious deficiencies,such as the total lack of rights of way in one parish, and no recorded bridleways in 7 otherParishes. Closer scrutiny of the definitive map has identified that there are over 20 specificpath issues or anomalies, together with a number of road severance issues.

......

Table 1

5 6


1.0 IntroductionThe Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP), is intended to form a ten year managementplan, setting out areas for consideration and improvement across the public rights of way network within the Leeds district.

The Council has a statutory duty to publish a Rights of Way Improvement Plan. This shouldmainly be seen as an aspirational document highlighting improvements which, in part, are overand above the basic statutory requirements. The ROWIP provides an opportunity for the LocalAuthority to bid for additional funding on an informed basis. This in turn will give added focusto the Council’s future investment decisions concerning improvements to the public rights ofway network in Leeds.

1.1 Legislative Background and Statutory Guidance

1.1.2 The Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000 (section 60) requires all HighwayAuthorities to prepare and publish a Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) and statutory guidance on how to prepare such plans was issued by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

1.1.3 Leeds City Council is the Highway Authority for the metropolitan district of Leeds and is responsible for the maintenance, management and legal recording of the public rights of way network within its administrative boundary. In drawing up a ROWIP we are required to:

1.1.4 The ROWIP also includes a Statement of Action proposed for the management of local rights of way and for securing an improved network of local rights of way with regard to the matters dealt with in the assessment.

Exec

utiv

e Su

mm

ary Introduction

Volunteers repair the Leeds Country Way at Horsforth 44

Chevin Forest Park

Assess the extent to which rights of way meet the present and likely futureneeds of the public.Assess the opportunities provided by local rights of way for exercise andother forms of open air recreation and enjoyment.Assess the accessibility of local rights of way to blind and partially sightedpersons and others with mobility problems.

a)

b)

c)

7 8

The Action Plan

Based on our Statements of Action we have developed our action plan which sets outs specificimprovement projects, together with their estimated costs and priorities. If delivered, thesewould improve the extent and usability of the public rights of way network, provide more publicised routes for path users, and increase understanding of the practical and legal issuessurrounding the management of public rights of way.

If all of the identified projects were to be delivered over the next ten years, the City Councilwould need to seek funding for between £2.4m and £3.9m.

Our Action Plan sets out our aspirations for the long-term development of the public rights ofway network in Leeds. The improvements that we have outlined detail our aspirations and willgive added focus to our future investment decisions to ensure that when resources are available we will be able to address our stated priorities.

It is not our intention at this stage to identify the specific funding streams that will meet ourstated priorities. However, we will work with a range of stakeholders to help bring forwardfunding packages over the lifetime of this plan.

In particular, we will seek to use Section 106 Planning Agreement monies that become available,monies from the West Yorkshire Transport Plan and third party grants to maximise the fundingthat we can draw upon. Where appropriate we will look to supplement the funding streamsidentified above with mainline capital resources from the Council, although it is recognised thatthis funding will largely act as a catalyst for securing funding packages from other sources, oftenexternal to the Council.


Intr

oduc

tion Countryside and Access in Leeds

1.2 Relationship to Local Transport Plan

1.2.1 The second West Yorkshire Local Transport Plan (WYLTP2) sets out the key transport related policies and proposals for the five year period 2006-2011 and can be found on the internet at http://www.wyltp.com

1.2.2 The WYLTP2 seeks to address several key themes which have relevance to the ROWIPas follows:-

Delivering Accessibility - Public Rights of Way (PROW) are important to everybody andespecially people without cars - the elderly, children, people on lower incomes and disabled people. They provide important links between communities and workplaces, shops, schools, and other facilities.

Tackling Congestion - PROW and cycle routes offer opportunities to reduce vehicle use for travelling to work, school, local facilities and local recreation/tourism sites etc. PROW/cycle routes can sometimes provide shorter or quicker journeys than using the car.

Safer Roads - PROW/cycle routes can segregate users from road traffic, providing safer routes for walkers, cyclists and horse-riders. Where PROW are linked by roads the opportunity arises via the ROWIP to address road safety issues such as poor sight-lines,inadequate verges, poor footways and safe crossing facilities.

Better Air Quality - Air quality can be improved if we can reduce reliance on vehicles byproviding attractive alternatives such as a quality path network and by encouraging more walking and cycling.

Quality of Life Issues - Good quality PROW can contribute to community pride, access to local facilities, and neighbourhood links as well as access to the countryside. An attractive, well maintained path network will contribute to improved quality of greenspace and help to reduce crime and fear of crime. Increased use of the path network for walking, cycling and horse-riding has physical and mental health benefits from increased exercise, reduced traffic noise and pollution. Quality PROW and cycle routes will encourage more use of the network.

1.2.3 The Government has stated that it sees the ROWIP being delivered in tandem with theLocal Transport Plan and that the majority of improvements to the PROW network willbe funded from this source. (For a fuller description of how the ROWIP relates to the WYLTP2 please see Appendix H of the WYLTP2).

2.0 Countryside and Access in Leeds2.1 Countryside areas and the built environment

2.1.1 Whilst Leeds is one of the UK’s major cities with a population of over 750,000 people, the wider metropolitan district covers an area of some 562 square kilometres, two thirds of which is rural - ranging from high moorland in the north-west to productive arable farmland in the east. There are also over 350 parks and local greenspaces and 170 woodlands, plus 17 Sites of Special Scientific Interest and 8 maintained Local Nature Reserves.

2.1.2 In addition to the main urban core, Leeds is surrounded by the towns of Otley, Wetherby, Garforth, Rothwell, Morley and Pudsey as well as many thriving villages. Historic rights of way still link and pass through all of these settlements, though sometimes they have become somewhat disjointed following housing development and major road building programs. Nevertheless there remain many urban ‘ginnels’ which provide useful routes to local facilities and/or links to the wider countryside.

2.1.3 The wealth of parks, green-spaces and attractive countryside within the Leeds area affords its residents plenty of opportunities to participate in informal outdoor recreation. Consequently, walking, horse-riding and off-road cycling are all popular activities which are provided for, to a greater or lesser extent, throughout the district. There are also many places to watch or study wildlife either as part of a walk or ride, or as an activity in its own right.

2.2 Current Rights of Way Network

2.2.1 Leeds City Council as Highway Authority has a statutory duty under section 130 of the Highways Act, 1980 to assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and

..

..

..

..

..

Wetherby to Thorp Arch Cycle Route

Reclaimed flagstone path, Surprise View, Otley Chevin

9 10


Dales Way Link - A 19 mile feeder route from Leeds to the start of the main Dales Way walking route at Ilkley. Mostly following the Meanwood Valley trail to Eccup, then via Bramhope and the Chevin to Menston in Bradford district wherein a traverse of Ilkley Moor then leads to Ilkley.

Ebor Way - A 70 mile walk from Helmsley to Ilkley through the ancient city of York (Eboracum). The route passes through the northern part of the Leeds district betweenBoston Spa, Wetherby, and Harewood to Bramhope from where it mostly follows the Dales Way Link to Ilkley.

Leeds Country Way - A 62 mile circular walking route around Leeds split into four main stages - (1) Golden Acre Park to Barwick-in-Elmet(2) Barwick-in-Elmet to Carlton(3) Carlton to Cockersdale (4) Cockersdale to Golden Acre Park

Trans Pennine Trail -The Leeds-Wakefield-Barnsley leg of a multi-user trail between Southport and Hornsea which starts at the Royal Armouries, almost in the centre of Leeds, and follows a green corridor formed by the River Aire and Aire-Calder Navigation south-east to Mickletown, thence south west to the Wakefield boundary via Methley village. This route also forms part of National Cycle Network (NCN) Route number 67.

Aire Valley Towpath - The towpath of the Leeds-Liverpool canal upgraded to allow cycling as well as walking between Granary Wharf in the centre of Leeds to Apperley Bridge and beyond through Bradford district to Saltaire and Bingley. This route forms part of the NCN Route number 66.

2.5 Local Recreational Routes

2.5.1 As well as the major recreational routes above, there are a number of shorter, signed and waymarked local trails within the Leeds district as described below:-

Meanwood Valley Trail - A popular 7 mile walking route following the green corridor of the Meanwood valley from Woodhouse Moor near Leeds University to Golden Acre Park, mostly passing through attractive woodland, grassland and streamside environments.

Calverley Millennium Way - A 7 mile circular walk around the historic parish boundary of Calverley. Established to celebrate the year 2000 by a partnership of local people and organisations, it mostly follows existing rights of way through woodlands and fields but also follows part of the Leeds-Liverpool canal towpath.

Pudsey Link Bridleway - A 6 mile, linear bridleway route for recreational walking, off-road cycling and horse-riding between Tong village and Apperley Bridge passing through attractive countryside to the west of Pudsey. First mooted as an idea in 1987 and developed over the next decade by a partnership of local walking/cycling/running and horse-riding enthusiasts together with Leeds and Bradford councils.

Coun

trys

ide

and

Acce

ss in

Lee

dsCountryside and Access in Leeds

enjoyment of any highway. This includes footpaths, bridleways and byways - which are collectively known as public rights of way.

2.2.2 Public rights of way (PROW) are recorded on a legal document known as the Definitive Map and Statement for West Yorkshire. Within the Leeds district there are currently recorded 1217 paths with a total length of 799km which comprise the following:- Footpaths (1025) 620km; Bridleways (182) 170km; Byways (10) 9km.

2.3 Permissive Paths

2.3.1 Permissive paths can be provided by any landowner who is willing to allow the public touse a particular route across their land. This can be done informally by simply putting upsigns to that effect on the land, or via a formal agreement with the local authority (including paths provided by Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Section 106 PlanningAgreements).

2.3.2 In addition a small number of permissive footpaths and bridlepaths have also been established via the government’s Countryside Stewardship scheme. (N.B. These paths may subsequently be included within the more recent Environmental Stewardship scheme which offers similar incentives to land managers for improving access to the countryside).

2.3.3 Within Leeds there are Countryside Stewardship linear access routes at:

River Wharfe/Hall Wood, Thorp Arch, (footpath)

Harewood Bank, Harewood, (bridleway)

Crab Tree Lane, East Keswick, (footpath)

Rhode’s Hill Lane, Bramham, (bridleway)

River Calder, Methley, (footpath)

2.3.4 Further information about Countryside Stewardship Schemes can be found at http://www.defra.gov.uk.

2.4 Strategic Recreational Routes

2.4.1 There are a number of long distance, signed, strategic walking and cycling routes which pass through the Leeds district. These are as follows:-

Figure 1The current Rights of Way network% of the total length of recorded PROW

Footpaths 78%

Bridleways 21%Byways 1%

......

....

(NB. This figure does not include any paths within the unsurveyed area of central Leedswhich is currently excluded from the Definitive Map, nor does it include cycletracks,permissive paths or adopted passageways).

11 12


Leeds Links - A series of interlinked paths and trails in south Leeds developed by Leeds City Council in the 1990s including routes through Beeston, Cross Flatts Park, Middleton Park, Rothwell Pastures and Rothwell Country Park and alongside the Aire-Calder Navigation/Trans Pennine Trail back into Leeds.

The Linesway - A 3 mile long disused railway between Garforth and Allerton Bywater developed by a local training partnership between Leeds City Council and Groundwork Leeds. Available for walking, cycling and horse-riding, it carries part of theLeeds Country Way and the West Yorkshire Cycle Route as well as passing close to Townclose Hills SSSI. A spur leads westwards via Lowther Lake to the Trans Pennine Trail, and a further link through Allerton Bywater Millennium village, possibly as far as Castleford has been proposed.

The Harland Way, Wetherby - Another disused railway cycle route conversion linking areas of Wetherby by a ‘triangle’ of paths in wooded cuttings with Spofforth 3 miles to the west in Harrogate district. A further link eastwards between Wetherby and Thorp Arch Trading estate was completed in 2007 by Sustrans (with Local Transport Plan funding) as part of NCN route number 66 - which will eventually continue through North Yorkshire to Tadcaster and York.

The Rothwell Greenway - A disused railway route running between Lofthouse, Robin Hood and Rothwell established in the early 1990s by Leeds City Council and Groundwork Leeds. It is also incorporated into the Leeds Links project.

The Temple Newsam Bridlepath - A 6 mile circular route around Temple Newsam Estate established by Leeds City Council in the 1990s to provide a dedicated mainly off-road riding route for local horse-riders, off-road cyclists and walkers. The route comprises a mix of public bridleways and permissive bridlepaths and is linked intothe surrounding path network.

West Leeds Country Park and Green Gateways - A recent initiative aimed at linking together various parks, open spaces and countryside on the west side of Leeds to create a circular 20 mile route taking in Kirkstall, Rodley, Calverley, Farnley, Wortley and Armley with various spurs and loops planned to nearby places of interest.

Wyke Beck Valley Way - A developing walking and cycling route following the Wyke Beck valley between Skelton Lake and Temple Newsam at its southern end with Roundhay Park at the northern end. It is also connected by several linking paths to surrounding communities, schools, places of work etc. and has been proposed as a strategic cycle route.

2.6 Open Access Land

2.6.1 Part 1 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000 granted a general right of accessto the public to walk across ‘access land’ and registered common land. Access land being defined as mountain, moor, heath or down and conclusively mapped by the Countryside Agency, (now Natural England). Within the Leeds district, the new rights came into operation on 31 October 2005 and encompassed some 350 ha of land including Hawksworth Moor, land at Reva Reservoir, parts of Otley-Chevin, Holt Lane meadow at Cookridge, Buckstone Fields at Moortown, and Townclose Hills at Kippax.

2.6.2 Most of these sites were already accessible to the public as they are managed by Leeds City council for recreation and conservation purposes. However, at Hawksworth Moor(a privately owned grouse moor) and Reva Reservoir (rough grazing let by Yorkshire Water) new stiles and/or gates have been installed to facilitate the new access rights. For further information on open access refer to the web-site http://www.countrysideaccess.gov.uk.

2.7 Woodland Trust Sites

2.7.1 The Woodland Trust is a national charity dedicated to the protection of our native woodland heritage. It campaigns to protect ancient woods, improve woodland biodiversity, increase native woodland cover and increase understanding and enjoyment of woods. It also develops accessible woodland near to where people live, in both rural and urban areas.

Coun

trys

ide

and

Acce

ss in

Lee


Rothwell Pastures

Hawksworth Moor Open Access Land

13 14


2.7.2 There are Woodland Trust sites in Leeds at the following locations:-

For more information on the Woodland Trust and site location maps see their website http://www.woodland-trust.org.uk.

2.8 Leeds Countryside and Access service

2.8.1 Leeds City Council has a Countryside and Access service based within the Directorate of City Development. Staff address four main areas of responsibility: Public Rights of Way and Access Management, Wildlife Conservation, Forestry and Countryside Ranger duties.

2.8.2 Staff within Countryside and Access actively work alongside parish and town councils, private landowners, local schools, countryside organisations, volunteers and Friends of Groups in order to encourage them to take a greater interest in their local path network. In addition to this, a small maintenance team concentrates on the larger scale works required throughout the path network.

2.8.3 These path improvement works will help to meet some of the City Council’s strategic objectives.

2.8.4 The Countryside and Access section carries out the ‘highway function’ for public rights of way on behalf of the Highway Authority (Leeds City Council), though funding has been made available from Highways Services for maintenance work only. The budget for2007/08 financial year was £155,000. From this budget allocation, four people are employed to carry out practical maintenance work on the path network throughout the whole of the Leeds metropolitan district.

2.8.5 Over the last three years the Countryside and Access section has been fortunate to attract additional funding internally of £75K in order to address some longstanding access issues.

2.8.6 There are many demands on this service, because there are many service users who benefit from having a local path network made available to them. This network must not only cater for the population of Leeds, (some 750,000 people), but also for the wider public including day visitors and those on holiday in the area.

2.8.7 However, results from the Citizen Panel questionnaire are encouraging as walking in thecountryside remains the most popular recreational activity. Between 88% and 94% of those interviewed found the routes in Leeds easy to follow, and over 80% considered the routes to be in a good condition.

2.9 Cross Boundary Issues

2.9.1 As part of the ROWIP process, a number of cross boundary issues with adjacent Councils have been identified as follows:

2.9.2 Bradford

Coun

trys

ide

and

Acce

ss in

Lee


......

..

..

West Wood which is part of Calverley Woods near Calverley village andis bounded by Eleanor Drive, Clara Drive and Calverley cutting

Ireland Wood which lies between Ireland Crescent and Hospital Lane, Cookridge

Scarcroft Plantation to the west of the A58 Wetherby Road and justnorth of Ling Lane, Scarcroft

Ling Close Wood just to the east of Ledston Luck enterprise park offthe A656 Roman Ridge Road near Kippax.

Crossley Park Wood, Linton Road, Wetherby - A small broadleaf wood-land over looking the north bank of the River Wharfe.

..

....

....

..

....West Leeds Country Park & Green Gateways project, where the boundary abutsBradford.

Although not actually a cross boundary issue as such, there is a ‘cross-authority’ issuewith Bradford Council over the proposed creation of a new bridleway route overtheir land holding at Thornbury - which is required in order to facilitate the northernapproach to the proposed A 647 Pegasus/Toucan crossing for the Pudsey Link.

Possible creation of a new bridleway link across Ilkley, Burley and Hawksworth Moorsto Intake Gate in Leeds.

Ringshaw Beck, Morley - DMMO claim to add a new route.

Definitive Map anomaly where there is no connecting route between AireboroughNos. 12 , 123 and Bingley 94.

Otley to Menston disused railway line - proposed Sustrans cycleway project.

Proposed link to the new public bridleway at High Royds Hospital development site.

Non definitive route between Menston and Otley.

Path building in Collingham Wood

15 16


2.9.3 Kirklees

2.9.4 Wakefield

2.9.5 North Yorkshire

2.10 Planning Issues

2.10.1Leeds City Council is one of the busiest Planning Authorities in the country. During 2006/07 the Planning Authority received 7,310 planning applications. In the same year Public Rights of Way Officers requested detailed information on 259 applications, of which 199 had a direct impact on the path network.

2.10.2Given the size of Leeds and its economy, there is always likely to be a significant number of planning applications being processed at any one time, many of which will have the potential to become the subject of a Path Order. As at April 2007 there are 27 planning sites that require a total of 31 Path Orders to be made or completed. There is also a significant, additional area of work linked to past and present opencast coal extraction / restoration sites such as those at Skelton Lake, St. Aidan’s and Newton Ings plus major new road schemes like the A1(M) motorway etc.

2.10.3This leaves the Rights of Way Officers with a potentially large volume of work that needs to be addressed. Although this does create resource pressures, major new developments can offer significant benefits to the rights of way network - through the provision of additional / upgraded path links and re-landscaped areas.

3.0 Definitive Map and Statement3.1 Definitive Map Introduction

3.1.1 The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949 required every county council to survey and prepare a map showing all footpaths, bridleways, and roads used as public paths (which later became byways and restricted byways) which were public rights of way. This map became the Definitive Map and Statement and is the legal recordof public rights of way.

3.1.2 The maps were prepared in three stages. Firstly a survey of paths was undertaken by parish and district councils and the identified routes were used to produce a Draft Mapand Statement. This map was made available for public inspection and representations and objections could be made. Any comments were taken into consideration and a Provisional Map and Statement then produced. Landowners and occupiers were then able to make comments and objections to this. The final stage was the production of the Definitive Map and Statement and this became the legal record of public rights of way. It provides conclusive evidence of the existence of the rights shown, at the relevant date of the map. The City Council, as the Surveying Authority for the Leeds Metropolitan District, is required under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 to keepthe Map and Statement under continuous review and to make any changes to keep the map up to date and accurate.

3.1.3 The current Definitive Map is The West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council Modified Definitive Map and this has a relevant date of 30 April 1985. This is a key information source used by many different users, landowners, agents and organisations

..

..

..

....

..

..

..

..

..

Howley Mill Lane, (Morley BW 96), Part in Kirklees is a non-definitive path makingMorley BW 96 incomplete.

Otley public bridleway No. 3, adjacent to the north bank of the river Wharfe, stopson the Definitive Map at the administrative boundary with North Yorkshire just eastof the ‘white bridge’.

Possible upgrade to bridleway of the footpath/track between Cave Lane, East Ardsleyand Lawns Lane, Wakefield via the ‘agricultural standard’ bridge over the M1 motorway.

Possible bridleway connecting route to cross River Wharfe at Carthick Ford, Kearby,North Yorkshire.

Possible new traffic free path link between Lotherton Hall & the Rein public bridlewayin North Yorkshire.

Possible upgrade of ‘Newfield Lane’ footpath to bridleway between Castle HillsWoodland (Micklefield) and Newthorpe in North Yorkshire.

Possible ‘Sustrans’ cycleway between Allerton-Bywater and Castleford via the disusedrailway, including the bridge over the River Calder into Wakefield district.

Possible DMMO footpath creation to link Walton Village with Bickerton in NorthYorkshire.

Wetherby to Thorp Arch cycle route - continuation along disused railway over the oldriver Wharfe bridge and alongside old Papyrus works / proposed housing development site at Newton Kyme.

Possible continuation bridleway between Sand Beck Lane (Wetherby No. 6) & Bickerton (North Yorkshire) via Ingmanthorpe Park which is subject to a DMMO application.

Coun

trys

ide

and

Acce

ss in

Lee

dsDefinitive M

ap and Statement

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved 100019587 (2009)

17 18


Defin

itive

Map

and

Sta

tem

ent Definitive M

ap and Statement

who require accurate public rights of way information for recreation, land management and business purposes. The Definitive Map is available for viewing and this can be arranged by contacting the Public Rights of Way Service.

3.1.4 Ordnance Survey use the public rights of way information shown on the Definitive Mapin their published maps (Explorer etc.) providing an invaluable guide to public access in the countryside and elsewhere for walkers, horse riders, cyclists and vehicular users.

3.1.5 This Definitive Map and Statement records four categories of public rights of way.

Public Footpaths which provide a right for the public to use a way on footPublic Bridleways which confer a right for the way to be used on foot, horseback or on a pedal cycleByways Open to All Traffic (known as Byway or BOAT) which have full vehicular rights, but are mainly used as bridlewaysRestricted Byways which have rights on foot, horseback, pedal cycle and vianon-mechanically propelled vehicles (e.g. horse and cart).

3.1.6 There are 1,217 ways currently recorded on the Definitive Map in Leeds and these havea cumulative distance of approximately 497 miles (799 kilometres). The vast majority of these routes are footpaths but there are in addition, 182 bridleways and 10 byways.

Total length of Definitive path network

..

......

Footpath

Bridleway

Byway Open to All Traffic

Restricted Byway

Total

Number

1,025

182

10

0

1,217

Miles

390

102

5.5

0

497

Kilometres

625

165

9

0

799

Table 2

3.1.7 A plan showing the distribution of the public rights of way in Leeds can be seen at Appendix 1 page 65.

3.1.8 Surveying Authorities were not required to produce Definitive Maps and Statements for County Boroughs within their area under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949. Therefore, much of the city centre area has yet to be fully surveyed, although work to identify public paths within this area is ongoing. This will enable the production of a Definitive Map and Statement in the future, which will help to assert and protect the public’s rights to use the paths in this area.

3.1.9 If a right of way is shown on the Definitive Map, it proves conclusively in law the existence and status of such a way. However, the Definitive Map is a minimum record ofstatus, position, width and existence. The recording of routes on the Definitive Map andStatement is without prejudice to the existence of any other rights.

3.1.10There are often cases where paths not recorded on the Definitive Map actually exist onthe ground, and have been openly used and enjoyed by the public for a considerable period of time. Alternatively, a way recorded as a public footpath may have been used as a public bridleway. In such situations, there may be a case for the route to be added or re-graded on the legal record (to protect those rights which can be shown to have been acquired).

3.1.11There may be a way that has always been a public right of way, but for some reason has been lost to recent memory. It has, therefore, not been recorded on the Definitive Map but a record of it may, nonetheless, still exist in historical documents such as Enclosure Awards, Tithe Apportionments or Finance Act Maps.

3.1.12Additions to the Definitive Map and Statement to show missing paths, or paths that have been acquired through use, are carried out by a legal process, known as a Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO). Changes to existing public rights of way can also be made with a DMMO if evidence can be produced to show that the path is incorrectly recorded.

3.1.13The Definitive Map and Statement is a legal record of public rights of way that has developed and grown by drawing on historic sources and the testimony of users since 1949. As evidence is discovered and new paths come into existence through use it will continue to grow. The Definitive Map and Statement is a historic record of public rightsof way and the implementation of the measures stated in the Rights of Way Improvement Plan will enable these rights to better meet the needs of the public in a modern context.

3.2 Definitive Map Modification Order Applications

3.2.1 The Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 enables anyone to apply for a Modification Order to record ways that are not shown on the Definitive Map on the basis of historicor user evidence. Other particulars in the Map and Statement can be modified including the position and width of a right of way or any limitations (such as stiles and gates) affecting the publics right of way. The Act provides for objections and appeals relating to Modification Order applications to be referred to Inspectors (appointed by the Secretary of State) for independent determination.

3.2.2 The Milestones Statement (see Policy Context - Locally, section 5.1.1) sets out a target of 6 DMMO applications to be determined per year. Between 2002 and 2007, the City

Pool public footpath number 7

19 20


Council determined 18 applications and 6 Review matters. Although the Council achieved its target of 6 determinations in some years, it has not been possible to meet this every year. This was due to 16 of the determined matters being subject to unresolved objections or appeals, which required referral to the Secretary of State and were subsequently heard at Local Public Inquiry.

3.2.3 As of March 2008 following 13 Local Public Inquiries, 11 orders were confirmed, 2 werenot and three appeals remained outstanding.

3.2.4 There are currently 49 outstanding DMMO applications, the earliest of these dates back to 1991, with work on investigations having commenced on the first 10 of these applications. A list of these applications is attached at Appendix 2 page 66.

3.2.5 All DMMO applications are dealt with in accordance with the City Councils published statement of priorities, see Appendix 3 on page 67.

3.2.6 The Countryside & Rights of Way Act, 2000 set a deadline of 2026 for applications to record public rights of way based on documentary evidence. This cut-off date was intended to remove the uncertainty of the existence of long forgotten rights. Natural England were piloting a ‘Lost Ways Project’ to help surveying authorities identify and record historic routes. This project was abandoned in 2008 and it is not clear if this will be replaced or the cut-off date extended or repealed. There is likely to be an increase in applications for DMMO applications as users seek to protect their rights.

Defin

itive

Map

and

Sta

tem

ent Definitive M

ap and Statement

3.3 Excluded Area

3.3.1 The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949 required Surveying Authorities to produce Definitive Maps and Statements for their areas to show public rights of way. County boroughs were excluded from the compulsory surveys, although Local Authorities could produce a map for these areas if they wished.

3.3.2 In Leeds, the whole county borough was excluded from the initial survey that was made by the West Riding County Council (WRCC). In the early 1970s a survey of the county borough was commenced. This survey was abandoned following the Local Government Act of 1972, but was recommenced by the West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council, the successor Authority to WRCC, and the Definitive Map for the partial survey of Leeds County Borough was published in 1977.

3.3.3 In 1981 the Wildlife and Countryside Act removed the exclusion of county boroughs from Definitive Maps, and altered the procedure for producing Definitive Maps, placing a statutory duty on surveying Authorities to map any previously Excluded Areas. Leeds is currently at the start of the process to map the excluded area.

3.3.4 The extent of the current Excluded Area is shown on the map attached at Appendix 4, page 69 and a list of the wards affected at Appendix 5 on page 70. A map of the area needs to be published and once a Definitive Map Modification Order has been confirmed the map will become definitive.

3.3.5 500 possible public paths have been identified in the excluded area and more are thought to exist. These paths have been identified by members of the public and through examination of maps. Each path has been surveyed to establish its physical characteristics. Historic research will be done to determine if there is documentary evidence to support the inclusion of the path on the Definitive Map and Statement. Consultation with local residents and owners will enable the identification of path usersand other evidence for or against the existence of public rights. Orders will then be made to add these paths to the Definitive Map.

21 22

Leeds urban ginnel


Defin

itive

Map

and

Sta

tem

ent Definitive M

ap and Statement

3.4 Review Matters

3.4.1 By 1973 West Riding County Council (WRCC) had produced a Definitive Map for its area which had a relevant date of 30 September 1952. Once definitive maps and statements were produced they were required to be reviewed every five years. In 1978the first review of the Definitive Map and Statement was begun and a Draft Revised Map and Statement for West Yorkshire was published in 1980. However many objections to this document were received.

3.4.2 In 1981 the Wildlife and Countryside Act led to the abolition of the existing review procedures prior to the resolution of the outstanding objections. The Secretary of Statefurther directed WYMCC to abandon all planned modifications which had attracted objections and to publish a new modified map and statement for the surveyed area of the county containing only undisputed changes, under the provisions of the 1981 Act. This was duly published with a relevant date of 30 April 1985.

3.4.3 Leeds City Council succeeded WYMCC in 1986 and is still working with the relevant section of the 1985 West Yorkshire Definitive Map.

3.4.4 There are still approx 150 matters that were objected to as part of the 1985 review that remain unresolved. These include width variations, missing links, status queries etc.

3.4.5 The Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000 set a cut off date on the Definitive Map of 1 January 2026. After this time it will not be possible to add any additional public rights of way to the Definitive Map on the basis that they are recorded in historical documents. Although, due to the abandonment of the ‘Lost Ways Project’, the ‘cut off date’ could be extended or repealed. We recognise it is still important to carry out a full historical survey of the district to record historic rights - which we will continue to pursue as a Parish by Parish review.

3.4.6 The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006 has already extinguished most motorised vehicular rights which were not recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement as a byway open to all traffic prior to 2 May 2006. There are a few exemptions and vehicular rights were not extinguished if;

The route was used mainly by motorised vehicles;Was included on the list of publicly maintained streets;Created or built expressly for motorised vehicles;Came into existence though motorised vehicular use before 1930;A valid Definitive Map Modification Order application for a byway was submitted before 20 January 2005 or determined before 2 May 2006.

Routes where vehicular rights previously existed can now only be recorded as a restricted byway - a route for non-motorised vehicles. There are only two outstanding byway applications in Leeds.

3.4.7 Additionally there are many anomalies on the Definitive Map that have been discovered,such as errors in transcription between one version and the next; instances where the Map and Statement do not tally and paths redrawn on the wrong line, or recorded as the wrong status.

3.4.8 In the Leeds Metropolitan District there are 36 Parish Areas and a total of 719 Review matters that will require an estimated 1,000 orders to bring the Definitive Map and Statement up to date.

3.4.9 Attached at Appendix 6 on page 71 is a map showing the Parish Areas, and at Appendix 7 on page 72, a table showing the number of known Definitive Map matters requiring investigation.

3.5 Gating Orders and Designated Areas

3.5.1 The Countryside & Rights of Way Act, 2000 amended the Highways Act, 1980 to allow the closure or diversion of public rights of way for the purposes of crime prevention orwhere they passed through school grounds to protect pupils and staff. Crime Prevention Orders can only be made in areas that are designated by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as Crime Prevention areas. There are currently seven designated areas in Leeds.

3.5.2 These provisions were viewed as too restrictive and time consuming, because of the need for the area to be designated and the right of the public to object. The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act, 2005 introduced Gating Orders which allow barriers to be erected across public rights of way and other highways to restrict access when they are leading to crime or anti-social behaviour. Other measures to prevent crime and anti-social behaviour, such as street lighting, must already have been tried andfailed. Public highway rights are not extinguished but effectively suspended until the Gating Order is revoked.

3.5.3 Gating Orders are processed by the Council’s Community Safety Service and the Parks and Countryside Service act only as a consultee. This allows the public rights of way staff to focus on their core functions, to assert and protect the publics right to use and enjoy the public right of way network.

......

..

..

23 24

All Saints Drive, Rothwell


Defin

itive

Map

and

Sta

tem

ent Policy Context - Nationally

3.6 Path Orders

3.6.1 The Council processes a number of Public Path Orders each year, the majority of whichare generated by development. Leeds is being developed and regenerated at a rapid rate, with Leeds City Council currently being the second busiest Planning Authority in England, second only to Westminster in London. Approximately two thirds of the changes that have occurred to the Definitive Map have been as a result of building development or new roads / waterways.

3.7 Geographical Information Systems

3.7.1 The public rights of way network has been recorded onto a geographical information system (GIS). Use of GIS will allow more efficient management of the Definitive Map by making it quicker and easier to produce a new map for the Excluded Area, a consolidated map for the whole of Leeds and maps for Definitive Map Modification Order Applications. GIS has also helped to speed up the Land Charges searches and identify and map Excluded Area and historic paths that need to recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement.

3.7.2 In future GIS could be used to improve the promotion, monitoring and management of the public rights of way network through;

Links to a management database to record all issues, works, structures and details of public rights of wayPublic display on the internetAllowing the public to report problems over the internetEasier production of publicity materialsIdentify where temporary path closures have had to be implemented to safeguard the public.

4.0 Policy Context - Nationally4.1 Choosing Activity, a Physical Activity Action Plan - Department of

Health:

4.1.1 The Choosing Health white paper delivery plan outlines the key steps the Government will be taking over the next three years to deliver Choosing Health: Making Healthier Choices Easier.

4.1.2 The Choosing Activity plan brings together in one place all the commitments relating tophysical activity contained within the white paper as well as further activity across government, which will contribute to increasing levels of physical activity across the whole population. Two of the main goals are to ensure high-quality, well targeted and attractive facilities for walking and cycling and continuing to make our public spaces andthe countryside more accessible and attractive. The Rights of Way Improvement Plan will be instrumental to help achieve these goals.

4.2 Planning Policy Guidance Note number 17

4.2.1 Planning Policy Guidance 17 (PPG17) sets out the policies needed to be taken into account by local planning authorities in the preparation of their development plans. It clearly sets out a number of guiding principles that authorities should consider when identifying where to locate new areas of open space, sports and recreational facilities. Authorities are also encouraged to promote accessibility by walking, cycling and public transport as alternatives to the use of the car, and ensure that facilities are accessible for people with disabilities.

4.2.2 It is acknowledged within urban fringe areas that the countryside around towns provides a valuable resource for the provision of sport and recreation, particularly in situations where there is an absence of land in urban areas to meet provision.

......

....Accessible bridleway, Danefield Woods, Chevin Forest Park

Aberford public footpath number 1

25 26


Polic

y Co

ntex

t - N

atio

nally

Policy Context - Nationally4.2.3 This guidance acknowledges that the public rights of way network is an important

recreational facility, and authorities are encouraged to seek opportunities to provide better facilities for walkers, cyclists and horse-riders - for example by adding links to existing rights of way networks. The Rights of Way Improvement Plan will help to achieve some of the guiding principles set out within this Planning Policy Guidance.

4.3 CABE SPACE

4.3.1 Since 200 CABE Space has been gathering evidence that demonstrates how green spaces can offer lasting economic, social, cultural and environmental benefits. They have also highlighted the need for workforce development and an increase in skills profiles, the need for site based staff, attitudes to risk, how quality parks and green spaces can influence behaviour and the need for evidence based performance management. This has seen an increase in the national profile and importance of parks and green spaces.

4.3.2 A recent document entitled Physical Activity and the Built Environment has highlighted the need for health professionals to come together to meet the challenges of increasinglevels of obesity and the costs of treating related chronic diseases. CABE space have also identified the need for greater cross departmental working by national government, along with better co-ordination between primary care trusts and local authorities.

4.3.3 The Rights of Way Improvement Plan may help influence the design and management ofthe built environment and could play a pivotal role in promoting and sustaining health. Recent research has shown that most sustained exercise is taken during the course of everyday activities, such as travelling to work or going to the shops, rather than specifically for health purposes. Our built environment should therefore, provide a network of routes and destinations that maximise the potential for activity on foot, or bicycle, rather than motorised transport.

4.4 Comprehensive Performance Assessments

Comprehensive Performance Assessments can be summarised as follows:

Raising standards for all children and young people and enabling every child to achieve his or her potential.

Creating healthier communities where people have healthier lifestyles and where health inequalities for all age groups are reduced.

Encouraging sustainable communities, that is communities that have the right conditions for increasing employment and wealth and improving the quality, cleanliness and safety of local areas.

Developing safer and stronger communities.

Meeting local transport needs more effectively.

The ROWIP can offer economic, social, cultural and environment benefits as the path networkis seen not only as a key recreational resource, but also as a transportation network beingused as an alternative to the car, meeting many of the objectives outlined in the CPA.

4.5 Environmental Stewardship

4.5.1 Environmental Stewardship is an agri-environmental scheme managed by DEFRA which provides funding to farmers and other land managers who deliver environmental management on their land. The scheme builds on the success of the previous ‘Countryside Stewardship’ and ‘Environmentally Sensitive Areas’ schemes.

4.5.2 Its primary objectives are to conserve wildlife (biodiversity), maintain and enhance landscape quality and character, protect the historic environment and natural resources,promote public access and understanding of the countryside and natural resource protection.

4.5.3 There are three elements to the scheme:-Entry Level Stewardship which is open to all those farming in England and will address environmental issues affecting the wider countryside Organic Entry Level Stewardship which is available to those wishing to farm organically Higher Level Stewardship which provides more resources in exchange for moresignificant environmental benefits in high priority situations and areas.

4.5.4 Higher Level Stewardship also offers the possibility of improving public access by providing access to unusual or unique features on the land, to fill gaps in the PROW network, or add to or enhance long distance routes, provide access to land-locked CROW designated Open Access Land or upgrade CROW Open Access Land for other users e.g. the disabled, horse-riders and cyclists.

..

..

....

.. ......

Carlton Footpath No.1 near Hope Farm

27 28


Polic

y Co

ntex

t - L

ocal

lyPolicy Context -Locally5.0 Policy Context - Locally5.1 Review of Local Policy Documents

5.1.1 There is a range of local strategies and initiatives which have implications for active recreation and improvement of our green infrastructure that impact on the public rights of way network. These are summarised in the table below.

Local Policy / Strategic Documents

West Yorkshire Local TransportPlan 2006 - 2011

Vision for Leeds 2004 - 2020

Leeds Strategic Plan 2008 - 2011

Tackling congestion.Delivering accessibility.Safer roads.Better Air Quality / Environment.

Environment City.Harmonious Communities.Health and Wellbeing.A modern transport system.Thriving places.Enterprise and the economy.

An environment that is clean, green, attractive andabove all sustainable.Cleaner, greener and more attractive City througheffective environmental management and changedbehaviours.Deliver and facilitate a range of transport proposalsfor an enhanced transport system, including cyclingand walking.Enable more people to become involved in sportand culture by providing better quality and widerranging activities and facilities.Reduce the rate of increase in obesity and raisephysical activity for all.Reduce health inequalities through the promotionof healthy life choices and improved access to services.Increased accessibility and connectivity through investment in a high quality transport system andthrough influencing others and changing behaviours.Increased participation in Cultural opportunitiesthrough engaging with our communities.Increase the proportion of vulnerable groups engaged in education, training or employment. Improve the quality and sustainability of the builtand natural environment.More inclusive, varied and vibrant communitiesthrough empowering people to contribute to decision making and delivering local services.

Key focus areas for the ROWIP

....

....

....

..

....

..

..

..

..

....

....

....

....

..

..

............

..........

........

............

Increase the number of local people engaged in activities to meet community needs and improvethe quality of life for local residents.

More active more often.Sporting opportunities.Contributing to neighbourhood renewal.Contributing to a successful city.Investing in people and places.

Celebrating Leeds: making Leeds a vibrant place inwhich to live, work, learn and play by providing excellent cultural opportunities, experiences and facilities for everyone.Promoting access: opening doors to cultural opportunities for the many, not the few.Regenerating neighbourhoods and supporting communities: access to good quality and affordablecultural amenities.Life Long Learning: supporting individuals and communities to acquire the skills and knowledge torealise their full potential.Cultural infrastructure: adding to the cultural resources that a major city needs to have, whilstmaintaining and restoring existing facilities.

To provide the spatial planning framework for theuse of land within the city.Identify a number of Planning Policy Guidance documents such as PPG17 which is currently thesubject of an LCC study. A key mechanism to deliver the spatial objectives ofthe Community Strategy (Vision for Leeds).The Core Strategy aims to promote safe and sustainable forms of travel and create a network ofconnected green spaces to achieve an improved environment and well connected City. Its intentionis to identify a green infrastructure framework forthe district.

Transport and communications. The environment (including water, minerals andwaste, energy generation and use). Tourism and leisure. Urban and rural regeneration.

Places for people.Quality Places.Creating a Healthier City.Supporting Regeneration.

Taking the Lead - a strategy forsport and active recreation inLeeds 2006 - 2012

The Cultural Strategy for Leeds

Planning Policy Local Development Framework

Regional Spatial Strategy (Yorkshire and Humber Plan)

Parks and Green Space Strategyto 2020

29 30


PolicyContext-Locally

PolicyContext-Locally

5.2. Parks and Green Spaces StrategyThe following diagram illustrates how the Parks and Green Space Strategy links toother strategies and particularly, the Public Rights of Way Improvement Plan.

5.2.1 The Parks and Greenspace Strategy mainly considers land for public access, althoughit does recognise the importance of private green belt land as part of the landscape,often accessible via the public rights of way network. Similarly, the public rights ofway network provide areas for relaxation, and opportunities for exercise.

Milestones Statement - amanagement plan for publicrights of way in Leeds.

Access to the CountrysideStrategy

Leeds Countryside Strategy

Leeds Nature ConservationStrategy

Biodiversity Action for Leeds.

Urban Forest Strategy for Leeds.

Changes to the Definitive Map.Maintenance of the public rights of way network toenable people to enjoy their legal rights of access.Enforcing the protection of public rights of way.Developing the public rights of way network byidentifying and improving key recreational links.

To assert, protect, maintain and record public rightsof way, in order to promote their use and otherforms of countryside access within Leeds.To provide a framework for the management ofpublic rights of way and access in Leeds.

To provide a framework for the stewardship of abetter countryside for current and futuregenerations to enjoy.Identifies access to the countryside as part of itscore strategy.To co-ordinate, balance and where possible,reconcile often conflicting interests and changes inthe countryside through positive and sustainedaction.

To protect areas valuable for nature conservation.To enhance the environment for natureconservation.To increase awareness about the environment.Facilitate the enjoyment of nature throughout theDistrict.

Biodiversity underpins recreation and health.Managing the path network to take into account.biodiversity.

Sets out important role that woodlands contributetowards Health, Environmental, Social, Recreational,Educational, and Economic benefits.

........

..

..

..

....

........

....

..

The Vision for Leeds

Integrated Local Cultural Strategy

Parks and Green SpaceStrategy

AllotmentsStrategy

CountrysideStrategy

Fixed PlayStrategy

Urban ForestStrategy

Playing PitchStrategy

Rights of WayImprovement Plan

Biodiversity ActionPlan

Cemeteries and Crematoria Strategy

Completion of the Leeds Country Way Challenge walk, Golden Acre Park

31 32


Cons

ulta

tion

and

Asse

ssm

ent M

etho

dolo

gyConsultation and Assessm

ent Methodology

6.0 Consultation and Assessment Methodology6.1 Questionnaire survey methodology

6.1.1 In order to ascertain the public’s views on the current rights of way network, how they use it now, and improvements they would like to see in the future - a questionnaire survey methodology was chosen.

6.1.2 Following an internal review of other similar questionnaires, a simple but extensive questionnaire survey was devised in order to address the main ROWIP issues within the Leeds district. Most questions were multiple choice, but many gave the respondent the opportunity to include comments in their own words. The questionnaire was split into sections by user group, and respondents only filled in the sections relevant to them.Consultations within the Parks and Countryside Service and with the Leeds Local Access Forum during the initial stages ensured that the format and content of the questionnaire was as accessible, and the responses given as useful, as possible. A pilot test was conducted amongst Countryside and Access staff before the public consultation began.

6.1.3 The questionnaire survey aimed to gather the views of a wide cross-section of the Leeds community, including those people that do not currently use the public rights of way network. In order to do this effectively, a number of approaches were taken, and both targeted and non-targeted methods were used:

Postal survey: questionnaires were mailed out to addresses included in the Parksand Countryside key stakeholder database (which includes local community interest and ‘Friends of’ groups, allotment/gardening associations, outreach projects, conservation organisations, town/parish councils and walking groups), the Leeds Public Rights of Way Forum and the Equality and Diversity communitygroup database. In an accompanying letter recipients were given background information on the survey and invited to request further questionnaires.

Face-to-face surveys in parks and green spaces: park locations selected for the survey were widely distributed around Leeds, and were surveyed at various times on weekdays in order to ensure that a variety of user groups were encountered. Countryside and Access staff approached park users and filled in the questionnaire with them, clarifying any terminology or questions with them if necessary, and giving them information on the aims and objectives of the survey.

Other surveys: batches of questionnaires were also sent out to outdoor education facilities, community centres, visitor centres and local outdoor pursuitshops, where they were promoted by site-based staff. An electronic version wasalso e-mailed to various Council departments, both to raise awareness of the survey as a whole and to invite people to take part.

6.2 Assessment of the Definitive Map and Statement.

6.2.1 General assessment observations

6.2.2 Scrutiny of the Definitive Map and Statement together with information about unrecorded rights of way, outstanding applications for Definitive Map Modification Orders (DMMO’s), Public Path Orders and past requests for improvements to the network allows a preliminary assessment to be made of the following:

The extent to which routes and networks are available to different groups of users.Areas which are deficient in public rights of way for all or particular groups.Obvious inconsistencies and anomalies in relation to individual public rights of way.Other opportunities to improve the network, including the restoration of severed public rights of way due to road building.

6.2.3 In order to assess the extent to which routes and networks are available to different groups of users and identify which areas are deficient in public rights of way for all or particular groups of users, the Definitive Map and Statement were analysed to reveal the length of each category of public right of way and their relative percentages within each parish or area. This information can be found in Appendix 8 page 74.

..

..

..

........

On the Ebor Way footpath at Otley

33 34


Cons

ulta

tion

and

Asse

ssm

ent M

etho

dolo


ent Methodology

6.2.4 Whilst it can be seen that the provision of rights of way varies across the district, there are some obvious deficiencies in the network which can be identified as follows:-

Walton is the only parish area in Leeds without any definitive rights of way.

Byways (BOATS) are only recorded in 6 parish and town council areas (Arthington, Barwick, Collingham, Morley, Otley, and Pudsey) plus Leeds.

There are no bridleways at all recorded in 7 parishes (Bramham, Clifford, Lotherton, Pool, Sturton Grange, Thorp Arch, and Wothersome) and virtually none in Morley (less than a mile out of 57 miles).

There is a lower proportion of bridleways (than the Leeds metropolitan district average of 21% by length) in the following parish areas;- Aireborough (19%), Bramhope (8%), Boston Spa (17%), Great and Little Preston (10%), Horsforth (8%), Ledsham (17%), Micklefield (10%), and Morley (2%) plus Leeds (18% in themapped area and 1% in the Excluded area).

6.2.5 Identified anomalies - Closer scrutiny of the Definitive Map also reveals a small number of inconsistencies and anomalies affecting individual public rights of way which require addressing, either through the existing DMMO process and/or through the ROWIP. These are listed below:-

Carlton Footpath No.1- This is a long standing anomaly whereby a section of recorded footpath within the parish of Carlton meets a bridleway (Aireborough No. 55) at the border with the neighbouring former administrative area ofAireborough. Whilst it is obvious that the route between Yeadon and the hamlet of West Carlton is one and the same (and is alleged to be part of a longer, historic packhorse route between Yeadon and Otley), horse-riders and cyclists are currently prevented from using it by the lack of recorded bridleway rights and the presence of stiles, fences and locked gates. If upgraded to bridleway status by agreement or order, this route would then form part of a key off-road link between Yeadon and the Chevin Forest Country Park where there is a good network of bridleways.

Boston Spa Bridleway No. 10 - When a DMMO application to upgrade the riverside footpath to bridleway was investigated here, documentary evidence supported a route crossing the River Wharfe by way of an historic ford and an Order was subsequently confirmed by the Secretary of State on this basis. Unfortunately, owing to higher water levels caused by weirs downstream of Boston Spa, the ford is no longer safe to use - resulting in the bridleway here becoming a legal ‘dead-end’ as it currently only joins a footpath. (There is thougha nearby public footpath/track leading up to the adjacent road bridge which could simply be upgraded to bridleway status by Order).

Barwick-in-Elmet and Scholes Footpath No. 17 - This footpath from the south end of Barwick village terminates on the Definitive Map at its junction with Parlington Parish at Barwick Beck. It is an historical anomaly which occurred at the time the original Definitive Map was being drawn up in the early 1950s, and has proved difficult to resolve owing to the lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating a continuation on the Parlington side of the boundary. Nevertheless, a solution in the form of a proposed field edge diversion on the Barwick side of the boundary looks as if it might finally resolve this anomaly.

Otley-Chevin (Danefield Plantation) - A small number of Definitive Map inconsistencies and anomalies have been identified here which require addressing by way of Orders to reconcile the bridleway and footpath network as shown on the Definitive Map with that which is actually available on the ground. This will result in a net gain to the length of rights of way recorded on the Definitive Map but will only indirectly affect path users as all of these footpaths and bridleways are already in use by the public.

Wothersome Bridleway No. 1a/1b - The connecting track through Young Pickhill Rash, though part of the original bridleway route as surveyed for inclusion in thefirst Draft Definitive Map, was subsequently withdrawn after objections were made at the time. It is, however, an obvious linking route worthy of being re-considered as it avoids a lengthy on-road detour via Thorner Lane and Thorner Road. As both of these roads now experience vehicular traffic at greater volumes and speeds than in the 1950s, together with all of the dangers that can cause to horse-riders, walkers and cyclists, it would seem only sensible to investigate the possibility of establishing this route as a public bridleway either through Agreement or Order.

6.2.6 Identified opportunities for improvement - Other identified opportunities to improve the public rights of way network are as follows:-

East Keswick Bridleway No. 2 to Footpath No. 10 (Ebor Way) - Although not actually severed by the busy A659 Harewood Avenue Road as such, walkers on the Ebor Way long distance recreational route are inconvenienced by having to leave the side of the River Wharfe and climb up to this busy road; they are then endangered by having to walk alongside the passing traffic - with no footway provision and only narrow and intermittent verges for approximately 550 metres. A new footpath link here avoiding the main road and parallel to the River Wharfe (by going along the edge of cultivated fields) would be the preferred solution to this long-standing problem.

....

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

Calverley Cutting Byway

35 36


Cons

ulta

tion

and

Asse

ssm

ent M

etho

dolo


ent Methodology

Public Footpath No. 132 Leeds - This route between Newsam Green and Temple Newsam Estate was diverted as part of the M1-A1 Motorway scheme and now links ‘The Avenue’ (a road limited by Traffic Regulation Order to non-motorised users) to Temple Newsam. Unfortunately because this route is only a footpath it is not available to horse-riders and cyclists - yet it would, if upgraded, provide a very useful direct link to the ‘Temple Newsam Bridlepath’ circuit.

Public Footpath No. 14 Collingham - Also known as Compton Lane this ‘green lane’ type track links Moor Lane Unclassified Road and Dalton Lane bridleway with the hamlet of Compton - from where Compton Lane continues westwardsas an adopted road. Although the archive evidence for this route has not yet been thoroughly researched, it is shown as a track on a number of historical maps and so may well have higher legal status than footpath. It is of value because it would make a key improvement in the bridleway and country lane network between the Thorner, Bramham Park and Collingham area - enabling a circular ride to be undertaken without having to use the busy A659 Wattlesyke and A58 main roads.

Public Footpath No. 12 Bramhope - Requests have been received by local residents of Bramhope for a new public footpath to be created to link Bramhope footpath number 12 at Breary Grange Farm to Kings Road and thence to Golden Acre Park via the western boundary of Blackill Quarry. The aim being to avoid having to walk along the footway of the busy A660 from Golden Acre Corner (now a roundabout) as well as providing greater connectivity in the local path network. However, as this all lies on private land it would ideally need to be progressed by Agreement with the landowners concerned.

Public Footpath No. 58 to 66 Leeds - An idea which arose out of the village design statement for Adel is for a field-edge footpath running parallel with the north side of the A6120 Leeds Outer Ring Road, between the New Rover Cricket ground and the Meanwood Valley Trail subway crossing. Whilst this link does offer a quieter and more pleasant alternative to the footway of the Ring Road, it does cross private farmland and horse paddocks - so would entail negotiation with the landowners/tenants concerned and probably extensive fencing works too.

Public Footpath No. 56 to 71 Leeds - Another new linking footpath proposal to avoid having to walk alongside the busy Outer Ring Road - this time along its southern side between Parkside Road, Meanwood and the Weetwood. It would appear that there is the possibility of creating a new route here, within land owned by Leeds City Council, by building a new footbridge over Meanwood Beck and making an informal path across a meadow onto a woodland path beyond.

Public Footpath No. 102 Leeds - This is a key linking footpath between the village of Shadwell and Roundhay Park. It is, however, rather narrow in places and use of this path by cyclists has resulted in complaints by walkers and Shadwell Parish Council. On the other hand, Leeds City Council has also received a request for this path to be widened and upgraded to a bridleway to provide for a circular horse-riding route utilising the Ring Road verge and nearby Colliers Lane bridleway. In addition, this route has been identified by

Sustrans as a possible cycle route to link Shadwell and beyond from the northern end of the Wykebeck Valley Way within Roundhay Park. Whilst it is clear that the current narrow footpath is incapable of safely accommodating cyclists and horse riders - further investigation of the possibilities for a wider shared use route or a parallel segregated route would seem to be worthwhile.

Public Bridleway No.17 Thorner - This route was partly diverted onto the line ofEllerker Lane in the 1990s, but the continuation through Kiddal Wood to the A64 remained on its original alignment. Unfortunately, the A64 is too busy for horse-riding along and there is no nearby bridleway on the south side of the main road either. Horse riders currently have no other option than to turn round and re-trace their steps. Requests have therefore been received by local riders for a circuit to be created on the tracks within the adjacent Saw Wood. (Whilst this has been resisted by the landowner in recent years, it may be worthre-investigating the possibilities here - especially if the nearby disused railway is to be converted in the future into a traffic-free cycle route by Sustrans).

Bardsey Village to ‘The Congreves’ - A key aim of the Bardsey village design statement was the creation of a surfaced footpath across the fields between the main part of the village and an outlying housing area known as the Congreves. This part of the village is only otherwise connected by the busy A58 Wetherby Road which is not really conducive to walking and cycling, especially for children.An initial path from the Sports and Social club via the villages ‘Park Field project’ was completed in 2006 and it is hoped that a link alongside Bardsey Beck to a proposed housing development path off First Avenue can soon be made.

Castle Hills Woodland, Micklefield - Following the completion of an underpass asa result of the construction of the new A1(M) Motorway, this attractive woodland which is mostly owned by Leeds City Council is now better linked to both the village and the surrounding path network. It is therefore proposed to upgrade the forest track footpaths here to bridleway status to benefit a wider cross section of the path using public.

Manston to Wetherby Disused Railway - This route is a long held ambition of Sustrans who aim to create a National Cycle Network route between east Leeds and Wetherby following as far as possible, the remaining sections of disused railway which link Manston, Scholes, Thorner, Bardsey, East Keswick, Collingham and Wetherby. Whilst, not all of the old railway track is still available for conversion, enough of it remains to form the basis of a mainly ‘traffic-free’ route for walking, cycling and horse riding - offering opportunities for non-car based travel as well as healthy exercise and recreation.

Skelton Lake and Footbridge - Following restoration of the former opencast coal site here, a new network of footpaths and bridleways has been laid out but still requires (in 2007) final agreement with the Coal Authority and the landowners concerned to add these routes to the Definitive Map. A major new footbridge for walking and cycling over the River Aire and Aire-Calder Navigation is also planned which will link Temple Newsam to Rothwell Country Park, as well as the Trans Pennine Trail to the Rothwell Greenway and Wyke Beck Valley Way.

....

..

..

..

....

..

..

..

..

37 38


Cons

ulta

tion

and

Asse

ssm

ent M

etho

dolo


ent MethodologySt. Aidan’s Country Park - A major opencast coal restoration scheme which

will, when completed, create a completely new network of footpaths and bridleways through the developing country park and wetlands with links to the surrounding path network including the Leeds Country Way, Trans Pennine Trail and Linesway routes.

Fairburn/Newton Ings Riverside Path - A footpath link to the south of Fairburn Ings Nature Reserve and running along the north bank of the River Aire (between Ledston Footpaths No. 11 and 9/10 by the disused railway bridge at Lin Dyke) has been requested by the Ramblers Association. Whilst passing over old coal spoil-tip land, this missing link in the path network is worthy of further investigation.

Pudsey Footpath No. 143 - By upgrading this footpath to bridleway status a veryuseful off-road link can be made for horse-riders and cyclists between Tong village in Bradford (via Spring Lane), and Cockersdale to Upper Moor Side, where it meets Pudsey Bridleway No. 144 through Nan Whins/Sykes’ Wood. This would provide an additional connection to the Pudsey Link bridleway project as well as offering a more traffic-free route for local circular rides.

6.2.7 Road Severance Issues - As Leeds is a major urban centre at the heart of the West Yorkshire conurbation it is served by several major A-roads (A65, A660, A61, A58, A64, A653, A647, A6120 Ring Road etc.) which bisect the district. These A-roads as well as B, and even busy minor roads can cause severance to the public rights of way network as non-motorised users find it unpleasant and/or dangerous to cross, or go along such roads especially where path junctions are off-set.

6.2.8 In addition, there are four Motorways through the district - M62, M621, M1 and A1(M) which have also caused disruption to the PROW network, even though over-bridges and subways have been provided by the Highways Agency for a limited number of footpath and bridleway crossing points together with parallel linking paths.

6.2.9 Key road severance issues which have been identified as significantly affecting PROW users in Leeds are listed below:-

A647 Leeds-Bradford Road - A major dual carriageway with only a few signalised pedestrian crossings - which effectively severs the countryside around Pudsey into two halves for off-road cyclists and particularly horse riders - despite there being a large number of horses in the area. A desire to rectify the disjointed nature of the bridleway network both north and south of this effective ‘road barrier’ led to the formation of the Pudsey Link bridleway project - a key aim of which has always been to achieve a safe crossing of this very busy road for all bridleway users. Following detailed investigation, a design for a ‘Pegasus’ and ‘Toucan’ crossing is being formulated (in 2008/09) to link Daleside Road with Thornbury Playing Fields where a new bridleway link route is being negotiated.

A6120 Leeds Outer Ring Road - Pudsey bridleway numbers 13 (Priesthorpe Lane) and 14 (Owlcotes Hill) were both effectively severed when the Outer Ring Road was constructed. At Priesthorpe Lane only a stepped pedestrian footbridge was provided, while at the bottom of Owlcotes Hill there is only an at-grade crossing of the dual carriageway via a gap in the crash barriers. A solution for improving the connectivity of these bridleways is required in the future, perhaps in conjunction with other highway works to improve the Outer Ring Road.

A65 Bradford Road - Aireborough bridleway number 30 exits onto the eastern side of Bradford Road at a point just south of the ‘Hare and Hounds’ junction. Whilst the new High Royds housing development scheme is providing an attractive perimeter bridlepath (with links into the surrounding path network tothe south and west) a safe crossing facility is required to enable all bridleway users to cross the A65 and thus link to the bridleway network around the Chevin to the east, and vice-versa.

A660 Otley Road - Three bridleways (Leeds Nos. 5, 9 and 15) exit onto the A660 within 250m of each other in the vicinity of Breary Marsh and the Parkway Hotel. Whilst there are footways to either side of the road here the verge along the west side is narrow and uneven and not really conducive to use. Measures to improve the safety and connectivity of these paths, for horse-ridersand off-road cyclists in particular, requires further investigation.

King Lane, Adel - Whilst only classed as a minor country lane, this busy local road is used as a short cut from the A660 to the A6120 by a significant number of motor vehicles. It only has intermittent, poor quality footways and verges of inconsistent width making it difficult to safely walk or ride along in places. The Meanwood Valley Trail and Leeds Country Way recreational walking routes have to go along this road. Two other bridleways also exit onto it at Golden Acre Park and opposite Golf Farm respectively. The Leeds University sports field development at Clonmore Farm to the north side of King Lane has agreed (in 2007) to provide a bridleway route between Golden Acre Park and Five LaneEnds junction; but the remainder of the road will still require further improvements to make it safer for walking, cycling and horse-riding.

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

Enjoying a Leeds Bike Week event at Methley

39 40


Cons

ulta

tion

and

Asse

ssm

ent M

etho

dolo


ent Methodology

A6120 Leeds Outer Ring Road - At Scotland Mill Lane (Leeds bridleway Nos. 65 and 69) there is an at grade crossing of a fast and busy dual carriageway section of the outer ring road which is unpleasant for walkers and cyclists but potentially very dangerous for horse-riders. There is, however, a farm standard underpass nearby on Leeds footpath number 66 which could be utilised as a better bridleway crossing facility - with appropriate legal and physical upgrading work to its linking paths.

A61 Harrogate Road - Harewood bridleway No 19 (School Lane) meets the busy A61 almost opposite to Wikefield Farm but there is no continuation route here for the bridleway. Instead, there is a quiet country road (Fortshot Lane) about 200 metres to the north-east which is only linked by a narrow verge alongside the main road. An opportunity therefore exists here to make a safe off-road link, and thus a usable bridleway circuit, by negotiating a field edge route with landowner/farmer concerned.

A64 York Road - Barwick-in-Elmet bridleway No. 28 which is the continuation ofthe popular Becca Banks bridleway from Aberford exits onto the very busy A64 approximately 300m east of Woodlands Farm. Unfortunately, the next nearest public bridleway (Mangrill Lane) is 800m to the west on the north side of the road. In recent years the Highways Agency, as operator of the former trunk road here, installed a 3m wide surfaced verge route part way along - to make a link between Potterton Lane (a quiet road limited by a TRO) and Mangrill Lane. The opportunity exists therefore to consider extending a similar verge-side or field edge route eastwards to link up with Barwick bridleway No 28 and thus considerably improve the connectivity and safety of the bridleway network in the local area.

A659 Harewood Avenue - Harewood Bridleways Nos 8 and 22 plus a permissivebridlepath from Harewood Village all meet this fast and busy road which has no footways. The opportunity exists to create a new parallel bridleway here through a wide tree belt at the side of the road, thus providing a safe off road connecting route.

6.3 Parish and town councils

6.3.1 In order to formally consult with all parish and town councils within the Leeds metropolitan district, a letter (together with a parish-based Definitive Map extract) was sent out on 5 April 2006 seeking their views in relation to the local rights of way network. In particular, their attention was drawn to the key ROWIP requirements to:-

a) Assess the extent to which local rights of way meet the present and likely future needs of the public.b) Assess the opportunities provided by local rights of way for exercise and other forms of open air recreation and enjoyment.c) Assess the opportunities provided by local rights of way to blind or partially sighted persons and those with mobility problems.d) Prepare a statement of action for the management of local rights of way and for securing an improved network of local rights of way.

6.3.2 A summary of the original responses received together with additional suggestions made at the draft consultation stage, can be found at Appendix 9, page 75.

6.4 Leeds Local Access Forum

6.4.1 The Members of the Leeds Local Access Forum have provided their comments on the process of researching and developing the Leeds ROWIP and these have been taken into consideration in preparing the draft and final documents.

6.5 User groups

6.5.1 Over the last few years, areas for path improvements and new links have been suggested by representatives of the various user groups. Many of these ideas have been incorporated within the ROWIP.

6.6 Draft ROWIP Consultation Responses

6.6.1 The Draft ROWIP for Leeds was published in July 2008 and was made available to the public as a printed document, a compact disc and via the Council’s website www.leeds.gov.uk.

6.6.2 Comments were invited within a 12 week period, originally up to the 13 October 2008,but subsequently extended to the end of October to give a little more time for responses to be submitted. A short questionnaire in the form of a tear off sheet was included within the draft ROWIP document itself but additional written suggestions andcomments were also invited.

6.6.3 Approximately 300 copies of the document were sent out to individuals, parish and town councils, all elected members of Leeds City Council, members of the Leeds Local Access Forum, local path user groups and large landowning estates.

6.6.4 Of the respondents 82% felt that the Council had covered all the most important access routes and issues; 77% believed that we had set the ROWIP within the correct Policy context, both Nationally and Locally, and 91% agreed with the listed ‘Statements

..

..

..

..

A misty guided walk across Hawksworth Moor

41 42


Cons

ulta

tion

and

Asse

ssm

ent M

etho

dolo

gyLeeds ROW

IP Questionnaireof Action’ for improving our management of the Public Rights of Way network.

6.6.5 Regarding the longer term priorities for improving the rights of way network in Leeds, these were as follows:- (1 being the most important).

6.6.6 Detailed analysis of the results can be found at Appendix 11 page 85. 77..00 LLeeeeddss RROOWWIIPP QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirree7.1 Questionnaire Survey Results

7.1.1 A total of 775 people responded to the questionnaire survey. These included people from a wide cross-section of the Leeds population and a balance of male and female respondents.

7.1.2 Of the respondents, 89% use the public rights of way network. 92% of these use rights of way on foot, 7% on horseback, 25% on a bicycle and 2% in a wheelchair. Most (67%) of these people use rights of way in just one way (e.g. on foot). 91% use rights of way for leisure, 49% for fitness; 19% use them to get to work or school and 31% to get to local amenities. Most people (82%) use circular routes, and access the network fromhome or by using a private vehicle.

7.2 Public Rights of Way users

7.2.1 63% of users surveyed had experienced difficulties at some time when using the rights of way network, the most common issues being path obstruction, dog fouling, fly tippingand a lack of signage. Where respondents could describe their concerns in their own words, several mentioned difficulties arising when different user groups use the same rights of way, physical barriers to access (stiles too high or narrow, barbed wire, ploughed fields etc.) and concerns about animals on rights of way, including dogs off leads and farm animals.

84% of those who reported problems reported more than one issue.

35% had not experienced any difficulties when using the network. (The remaining 2% did not answer).

....

All rights of way should be fully signposted, with destinations and distances where appropriate.

A proactive approach should be taken towards establishing missing links in the public rights of way network.

Historical research should be carried out, on a parish by parish basis, to determine whether there are ‘lost ways’ which need adding to, or legally upgrading, on the Definitive Map and Statement.

Surfaces and path furniture should be improved and upgraded whenever possible.

Rights of way should, wherever reasonably possible, be made more accessible for the less able.

More information on walking, cycling and horse riding should be produced and published.

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

Riding the Pudsey Link, Scholebrook Lane near Tong Village

Waymarking the Leeds Country Way

43 44


Leed

s RO

WIP

Que

stio

nnai

reLeeds ROW

IP Questionnaire7.3 The needs of walkers

7.3.1 How do walkers use the rights of way in Leeds? 92% of walkers go walking in the countryside, and 81% of these do so more than once a month; 44% walk in the countryside more than once a week, including 10% who do so every day. Of the 44%, two thirds were over 45 years old.

7.3.2 94% of walkers surveyed use rights of way when walking in the countryside. Walks in the countryside tend to range from 1-10 miles in length, with walks 3-5 miles long beingthe most popular. All walks in the countryside appear to involve crossing or travelling along busy roads, but 72% of walkers surveyed only do so once or twice on the averagewalk.

7.3.3 What are the priorities for improvement for walkers? When walkers were asked to prioritise potential improvements to the rights of way network, the top three priorities emerged as follows:

Improvements to signposting and waymarking.Improvements to dangerous road/path junctions.Additional paths to link gaps in the network.

7.4 The needs of horse riders

7.4.1 How do horse-riders use the public rights of way network? Of the horse riders surveyed, 89% do not go riding in the countryside. Of the 8% that do ride in the countryside, 71% do so more than once a week, including 9% who do so every day. 90% of the horse riders surveyed ride on rights of way, and 62% of rides are 1-5 miles long. 49% of riders said that on their average ride they travelled along or crossed a busy road 1-2 times; 32% did so three to six times, and 19% did so over seven times.

7.4.2 15% of the horse riders surveyed use a horsebox.

7.4.3 57% of horse riders surveyed would be willing to use additional routes on a toll riding basis.

7.4.4 What are the priorities for improvement for horseriders? Horse riders identified the following top three priorities for improvement to the public rights of way network:

Improvements to dangerous road/path junctions.Additional paths to link gaps in the network. Improvements to signposting and waymarking.

7.5 The needs of cyclists

7.5.1 How do cyclists use the public rights of way network? Of the respondents who use public rights of way, 29% of cyclists surveyed go cycling in the countryside; 68% do not (and 3% did not answer). Cycle rides appear to involve traffic free cycle paths, country lanes and bridleways/byways in roughly equal measure, 76% of the cyclists surveyed stated that their cycle ride involves rights of way. Cumulative results indicate that 64% cycle in the countryside more than once a month, including 27% who do so more than once a week and 4% who do so every day. Cycle rides of 1-5 miles, 5-10 miles and 10-20 miles are equally popular, and these three options were selected by 79% of respondents.

7.5.2 What are the priorities for improvement for cyclists? Cyclists identified the following top three priorities for improvement to the public rights of way network:

Improvements to signposting and waymarking.Improvements to dangerous road/path junctions.Additional paths to link gaps in the network.

7.6 The needs of carriage drivers and motorised vehicle users

7.6.1 Of the respondents who use public rights of way, 15% use horse drawn or motorised vehicles in the countryside. Of these, 85% stated they were motorised vehicle users and 3% are horse and carriage users. Of those who do use byways open to all traffic*, cumulatively, 31% use byways more than once a month and 10% do so more than once a week. No respondents use the byways every day. The length of journey travelled ranged from 5 to over 30 miles, with 37% of respondents having an average journey length of 5-15 miles.

7.6.2 What are the priorities for improvement for carriage drivers and motorised vehicle users? Carriage drivers and motorised vehicle users identified the following as the top three priorities for improvements to the path network:

Improvements to signposting and waymarking.Additional paths to link gaps in the network. Improvements to dangerous road/path junctions.

However, when the responses of horse-drawn carriage drivers were looked at separately, the following priorities emerged:

Carry out surface improvements.Additional publicity.Additional multi-user routes.

*Due to the wording of the questionnaire, there may have been some confusion on this question as towhat is deemed a ‘byway open to all traffic’

...... ......

......

......

......

Riding out from Middleton Equestrian Centre

45 46


LeedsROWIPQuestionnaire

LeedsROW

IPQuestionnaire

7.7 The needs of users with disabilities or limited mobility

7.7.1 The ‘Access for Disabled People’ section was filled in by 46 disabled people (a third ofwhom were wheelchair users) and 48 others who, while they may or may not bedisabled, may face some barriers to access to the countryside. The latter group mayhave been elderly people, parents with pushchairs or people filling the form in on behalfof a disabled person, and this was often mentioned in a later section of thequestionnaire. In total, this section was filled in by 12% of the total respondents.

7.7.2 63% of the respondents use the public rights of way network. 85% do so more thanonce a month, 51% more than once a week and 14% every day. Average routes alongrights of way tend to be 1 to 3 miles (47% of respondents chose this option). Routes ofunder 1 mile, 3-5 miles and 5-10 miles were all roughly equal in popularity.

7.7.3 Within this section, respondents were asked to prioritise the following five categoriesaccording to their importance in developing and improving the rights of way networkfor disabled people:

Ramps to replace steps where possible.Installation of gates in place of stiles, where possible.More surfaced routes.Designated disabled parking spaces.Publicity of suitable routes.

7.7.4 Average ranks were determined for the above groups, both within-group and as anoverall average. In all calculations, the first three priorities (in blue) were given thegreatest priority.

7.7.5 Respondents were also asked to select which of the following list limit their accessto/on public rights of way:

Lack of parking.Access features.Unsuitable path surfaces.Gradients/steps.Lack of information.Transport to start of route.

NB: Items in blue were selected more frequently.

7.8 Requests for new and improved provision

7.8.1 In the general ‘Improvements’ section, respondents who filled in this section selectedthe following as the top three priorities for improvements to the rights of way network:-

Carry out surface improvements.Improvements for disabled access.Improvements to signposting and waymarking.

7.8.2 Individual requests for path improvements etc can be found in Appendix 10 page 80.

7.9 The needs of potential users

7.9.1 Non-rights of way users, when asked to prioritise potential improvements to the rightsof way network, identified the following as their (average) top three priorities:

Improvements to dangerous road/path junctions.Carry out surface improvements.Improvements to signposting and waymarking.

7.10 How the public access information on rights of way?(The results in the following section are based on average responses of all users).

7.10.1At present, people appear to use Ordnance Survey maps, leaflets and guidebooks, andsignposts in roughly equal measure when obtaining information on rights of way. Othersources of information include:

Experienced walkers.Walking groups.Bridleway groups.Guided walks.The internet.Libraries.Magazines and newspapers.Saddleries, liveries and feed shops.Public Rights of Way staff.Parents and friends.Tourist information.

7.10.2Some respondents find it hard to find information on rights of way, saying that they donot know where to look, do not know the local area, and find paths by stumbling acrossthem. Others find that they only use the paths within the area they know, or frequentparks rather than the wider countryside.

......

..

....

..

....

......

......

....................

...... Boardwalk repairs, Eccup Whin Woodland

47 48


Leed

s RO

WIP

Que

stio

nnai

reROW

IP Statements of Action

7.11 What further information should we provide?

7.11.170% of respondents would like to see more information on walking; 27% would like to see more information on cycling; 15% on easy access routes for disabled people and 10% on horse riding. Several other users of rights of way were flagged up here, including parents/guardians with pushchairs, and other additional information was requested on child-friendly cycle routes, health walks, disabled horse riding, traffic-free cycle routes, walks using public transport, local history and wildlife found along rights ofway.

15% did not answer this section, and many of these people stated that they are happy with the amount of information that is already provided.

7.12 What type of promotional material should we provide?

7.12.140% of respondents would like to see more packs of route maps produced. Leaflets were the second most popular option, chosen by 34% of respondents, and the third specified option - booklets - was preferred by 23% of the people surveyed.

7.12.2Others used the ‘other’ section to request promotional material in local newspapers, downloadable maps from the LCC website, information boards, and new versions of 1:25000 maps showing accessibility and surfacing.

7.13 How should we present the information?

7.13.1Given the choice of written descriptions, annotated maps or both, 59% requested a combination of descriptions and maps. Of the remainder, annotated maps were preferred by 23% of the users, and 9% preferred the idea of written descriptions. Other ideas suggested included internet downloads, laminated maps showing various routes around an area, and websites for each area showing species lists found there.

7.14 How should we distribute information?

7.14.1Of the options given in the questionnaire, the website was the most popular option as ameans of distributing information about rights of way, chosen by 52% of surveyed people. Tourist Information Centres and libraries were also popular, selected by 46% and 42% of respondents respectively. Other suggestions included community centres, surgeries, museums and newspapers, pubs, on-site interpretation, and accessible facilities.

8.0 ROWIP Statements of ActionFollowing the outcome of the initial consultation exercise, we have outlined in this section our statements of action for improving the public rights of way network in Leeds. Our actions have been grouped into:

Definitive Map issues and OrdersPath improvements and signpostingObstruction and nuisancesPlanning ApplicationsKey recreational routesMissing links and developing the networkPromotion and publicity Stakeholder liaisonPartnership working

8.1 Definitive Map issues and Orders

DM1 We will Continue to review the Definitive Map and Statement.DM2 We will take a proactive approach to dealing with DMMO applications.DM3 We will continue to produce a Legal Event Modification Order (LEMO) each

year.DM4 The Excluded Area of Leeds will be mapped by 2015.DM5 We will Consolidate the Definitive Map and Statement by 2015.DM6 We will endeavour to meet the 2026 cut off date for recording historical public

rights of way as set out in the CROW Act.DM7 We will continue to identify and record all Definitive Map anomalies, missing

links and unrecorded paths. DM8 The Definitive Map and Statement will be available to view on line by 2015.DM9 We will provide and update an online register of applications for DMMO

applications.DM10 We will provide and update an online register of 31(6) Deposited Maps and

Statutory Declarations.

................

..

49 50

The Trans Pennine Trail near Methley


ROW

IP S

tate

men

ts o

f Ac

tion

ROWIP Statem

ents of ActionDM11 We will determine all applications for Path Orders within 12 weeks of receipt. DM12 When necessary we will negotiate with landowners to realign paths that have

been affected by natural erosion.DM13 A budget will need to be identified and extra resources found to manage the

Definitive Map and Statement in Leeds.DM14 The Statement of Priorities will be reviewed in line with changes in legislationDM15 Where new parish council areas have been defined, the paths within them

should be re-numbered accordingly.

8.2 Path improvements and signposting

PI1 We will take a proactive approach to dealing with path maintenance issues.PI2 All rights of way will be signposted where they leave a metalled road.PI3 Where appropriate, signs will have destinations and symbols included.PI4 Where reasonably possible all stiles will be replaced, or augmented, by gates to

be compliant with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act,1995 and 2005.

PI5 We will establish a systematic survey and monitoring methodology.PI6 We will establish a priority list for maintenance issues and review this list

monthly.PI7 We will seek additional resources for major improvement path projects.PI8 We will aim to achieve 2 cuts a year for the definitive path network. PI9 We will aim to achieve 4 cuts a year for key recreational routes.PI10 Where necessary we will temporary close paths to safeguard path users.PI11 We will seek funding to employ a Rights of Way InspectorPI12 We will improve access controls and path furniture in order to allow, where

practical and reasonable, disabled access - but still restrict unauthorised vehicular use.

PI13 We will seek to improve path surfaces & drainage but there will be a presumption against using tarmac to re-surface bridleways.

PI14 In conjunction with landowners, we will seek to improve path furniture for all legitimate path users.

PI15 We will seek additional revenue funding for the maintenance of new PROWPI16 We will prioritise the improvement of paths established by DMMOs to make

them available for public use.PI17 We will seek to secure funding for maintenance and improvement works for

non definitive paths.

8.3 Obstructions and nuisances

ON1 We will take a proactive approach to dealing with path obstructions and nuisances.

ON2 We will establish a Priority list for enforcement issues.ON3 Prosecution will be considered if all other efforts have failed.ON4 We will raise the profile of public rights of way law and practice to educate

landowners and farmers on their roles and responsibilities. ON5 There will be clear written procedures for dealing with enforcement issues.ON6 There will be a clear written procedure to apply for gates or stiles on public

rights of way.ON7 We will only install barriers across public rights of way as a last resort to

prevent unauthorised access by motor vehicles.ON8 We recognise the importance of some urban ginnels as through routes and

will endeavour to protect them for future use.

8.4 Planning applications

PA1 We will assert and protect the rights of the public where they are affected by planned development.

PA2 We will raise the profile of public rights of way, and the need for informal outdoor recreational facilities, within new development sites in conjunction withPPG17.

PA3 We will seek to secure section 106 planning agreements for path improvementswithin development sites.

PA4 We will seek to secure section 106 funding for path improvements in the vicinity of new development sites.

PA5 We will seek to ensure that developers provide suitable alternative routes for paths affected by development.

PA6 We will seek to ensure that non definitive routes are recognised on planning applications and provisions made for them.

8.5 Key recreational routes

KR1 We will build and maintain key recreational routes to higher standards.KR2 We will aim to make all our key recreational route publications available via the

Council’s website.KR3 We will clearly sign all key recreational routes.KR4 We will endeavour to monitor user numbers along our key recreational routes.KR5 We will give a higher priority to improving surfaces and drainage along our key

recreational routes.

8.6 Missing links and developing the path network

ML1 We will work proactively with neighbouring authorities to resolve cross boundary issues.

ML2 We will endeavour to seek new links in the path network particularly for key recreational routes.

ML3 We will seek to secure new funding to make paths more accessible for people with disabilities.

ML4 We will concentrate on creating new links to join up the fragmented bridleway network.

ML5 We will assist the ‘Safe routes to school’ initiative where appropriate.

The Leeds-Liverpool canal towpath

51 52


ROW

IP S

tate

men

ts o

f Ac

tion

Action Plan

8.7 Promotion and publicity

PP1 We will make all PROW and access publications available on the Council’s website.

PP2 We will provide both maps and descriptions for published leaflets of local routes.

PP3 We will raise the profile of the benefits of using the PROWnetwork for recreation and health.

PP4 We will make available on request all of our leaflets in different languages and in large print.

PP5 We will produce an education leaflet for landowners and developers about theirresponsibilities.

PP6 We will produce more local, circular route leaflets for walkers, but more especially for horse riders and cyclists as provision is particularly lacking in this regard.

8.8 Stakeholder liaison

SL1 We will continue to develop good working relationships with all of the key Countryside and Access stakeholders - including parish and town councils; Community Paths Partnership groups; path user group representatives; farming and landowner group representatives; and members of the Leeds Local Access Forum.

8.9 Partnership working

PW1 We will establish farm wide packages which will involve the farming community taking a greater interest in their local path network.

PW2 We will seek to work with more parish and town councils through the Community Paths Partnership scheme.

PW3 We will seek to work in partnership with other services within the Council to achieve ‘holistic’ benefits for the path network, its users and the environment.

PW4 Where appropriate, we will seek to work with other organisations external to the Council to maximise the benefits which can be achieved for the path network, its users and the environment.

PW5 We will develop a formalised training programme to support and enhance the work that is carried out by our volunteers.

9.0 Action Plan9.1 PROW - Statements of action

Co

ncl

usi

on

fro

m

Ass

ess

me

nt

Con

tinue

to

revi

ew t

he

Def

initi

ve M

ap a

nd S

tate

men

t.

Nee

d to

map

the

Exc

lude

d A

rea

of L

eeds

.

To a

chie

ve t

he c

ut o

ff da

te fo

r th

eD

efin

itive

Map

and

St

atem

ent.

Nee

d to

mak

e th

e D

efin

itive

Map

and

Stat

emen

t ea

sily

av

aila

ble

to v

iew

.

Prov

ide

onlin

e re

gist

ers

ofD

MM

O a

pplic

atio

ns a

nd

Sect

ion

31(6

) D

epos

its.

Con

solid

ate

the

Def

initi

ve M

apan

d St

atem

ent.

Rev

iew

the

Sta

tem

ent

of

Prio

ritie

s.

Re

com

me

nd

ed

act

ion

Det

erm

ine

DM

MO

app

licat

ions

with

in 1

2 m

onth

s of

rec

eipt

and

prod

uce

a LE

MO

eac

h ye

ar.

To p

ublis

h a

map

of t

he

excl

uded

are

a, re

view

it a

nd m

ake

Ord

ers

to r

ecor

d pa

ths.

Con

tinue

to

rese

arch

and

id

entif

y hi

stor

ic r

oute

s, m

issi

nglin

ks a

nd u

nrec

orde

d pa

ths

and

mak

e O

rder

s to

rec

ord

them

.

Dig

itise

the

Def

initi

ve M

ap a

ndSt

atem

ent.

The

n m

ake

it av

aila

ble

for

view

ing

onlin

e.

Prov

ide

the

onlin

e re

gist

ers

and

cont

inue

to

upda

te t

hem

.

Upd

ate

the

base

pla

n w

hen

requ

ired

as

soon

as

the

Excl

uded

Are

a ha

s be

en m

appe

d.

Up

date

the

sta

tem

ent

of

prio

ritie

s in

line

with

cha

nges

inle

gisl

atio

n.

Est

imat

ed

co

sts

With

in e

xist

ing

reso

urce

s

With

in e

xist

ing

reso

urce

s

£150

K

Plus

see

k fu

ndin

g £6

0K

With

in e

xist

ing

reso

urce

s

£150

K >

With

in e

xist

ing

reso

urce

s

£360

K

Co

mp

leti

on

dat

e

Ong

oing

2015

to

publ

ish

map

then

rev

iew

is o

ngoi

ng.

2026

2009

2015

2009

the

n on

goin

g

2015

Whe

n re

quir

ed

Ke

y o

rgan

isat

ion

s

LCC

Wor

k w

ith v

ario

us U

ser

Gro

ups

and

othe

r LC

CSe

rvic

es.

Wor

k w

ith v

ario

us U

ser

Gro

ups

and

othe

r LC

CSe

rvic

es.

Wor

k w

ith v

ario

us U

ser

Gro

ups

and

othe

r LC

CSe

rvic

es.

Wor

k w

ith v

ario

us U

ser

Gro

ups

and

othe

r LC

CSe

rvic

es.

LCC

Page

min

imum

& m

axim

um e

stim

ated

cos

tings

53 54

The Leeds City Council website


Actio

n Pl

anAction Plan

Co

ncl

usi

on

fro

m

Ass

ess

me

nt

Sign

post

all

publ

ic r

ight

s of

way

whe

re t

hey

leav

e a

met

alle

d ro

ad.

Path

s ov

ergr

own

mak

ing

them

di

fficu

lt to

use

.

Pres

sure

on

exis

ting

reve

nue

budg

et t

o m

aint

ain

a gr

owin

g pa

th n

etw

ork.

Lack

of k

now

ledg

e an

d un

ders

tand

ing

of p

ublic

rig

hts

ofw

ay le

gisl

atio

n.

Nee

d to

pro

tect

and

impr

ove

the

path

net

wor

k w

here

it is

affe

cted

by d

evel

opm

ent.

Rai

se t

he p

rofil

e of

pub

lic r

ight

s of

way

incl

udin

g ke

y re

crea

tiona

lro

utes

.

Mon

itor

the

use

of K

ey

Rec

reat

iona

l Rou

tes

and

sele

cted

publ

ic r

ight

s of

way

.

Re

com

me

nd

ed

act

ion

Esta

blis

h a

proa

ctiv

e si

gn p

ostin

gst

rate

gy a

cros

s Le

eds

& in

clud

ede

stin

atio

ns a

nd s

ymbo

ls w

here

appr

opri

ate.

Esta

blis

h a

mor

e pr

oact

ive

cycl

ical

mai

nten

ance

pro

gram

me.

Nee

d to

see

k ad

ditio

nal f

unds

for

the

mai

nten

ance

of n

ew P

ROW

adde

d to

the

Def

initi

ve M

ap.

Rai

se t

he p

rofil

e of

pub

lic r

ight

s of

way

thr

ough

an

info

rmat

ion

leaf

let

aim

ed a

t la

ndow

ners

and

de

velo

pers

.

Nee

d to

att

ract

s.1

06 m

onie

s to

assi

st w

ith p

ath

impr

ovem

ents

.

Mak

e da

ta a

vaila

ble

on li

ne a

nd

secu

re fu

ndin

g to

pub

lish

and

re-p

rint

leaf

lets

etc

.

To s

et u

p au

tom

atic

cou

nter

s an

dca

rry

out

on s

ite s

urve

ys.

Est

imat

ed

co

sts

With

in e

xist

ing

reso

urce

s

With

in e

xist

ing

reso

urce

s

£15K

- £

50K

With

in e

xist

ing

reso

urce

s

£50K

- £

150K

With

in e

xist

ing

reso

urce

s

With

in e

xist

ing

reso

urce

s

£65K

- £

200K

Co

mp

leti

on

dat

e

2017

2017

Ong

oing

2009

Ong

oing

Ong

oing

Ong

oing

Ke

y o

rgan

isat

ion

s

LCC

Hig

hway

s Se

rvic

es,

cont

ract

ors

and

vo

lunt

eers

.

LCC

, con

trac

tors

, fa

rmer

s an

d vo

lunt

eers

.

LCC

& L

ocal

C

ontr

acto

rs.

LCC

, NFU

& C

LA.

LCC

, Dev

elop

ers,

Loca

lC

ontr

acto

rs, U

ser

grou

ps, p

aris

h &

tow

nC

ounc

ils.

LCC

and

Lo

cal C

ontr

acto

rs.

LCC

and

Loc

al

Con

trac

tors

.

Page

min

imum

& m

axim

um e

stim

ated

cos

tings

Co

ncl

usi

on

fro

m

Ass

ess

me

nt

Nee

d to

pro

vide

mor

e ci

rcul

arro

ute

leaf

lets

par

ticul

arly

for

hors

e ri

ders

and

cyc

lists

.

Des

ire

for

mor

e lo

cal

invo

lvem

ent

in m

anag

ing

the

publ

ic r

ight

s of

way

net

wor

k.

Nee

d to

enc

oura

ge m

ore

peop

leto

und

erta

ke h

ealth

y ex

erci

se in

the

wid

er c

ount

rysi

de.

Volu

ntee

rs c

an fe

el u

nder

valu

edan

d no

t su

ppor

ted.

Re

com

me

nd

ed

act

ion

To p

rodu

ce 6

rou

te c

ards

or

leaf

lets

per

yea

r ov

er t

he n

ext

5 ye

ars.

Seek

add

ition

al fu

nds

for

C

ount

rysi

de/C

omm

unity

Ran

gers

.

Seek

add

ition

al fu

nds

for

C

ount

rysi

de/ C

omm

unity

Ran

gers

to le

ad a

nd c

arry

out

a g

uide

dw

alks

pro

gram

me

thro

ugho

utLe

eds.

Esta

blis

h a

form

al t

rain

ing

prog

ram

me

to e

nhan

ce a

nd

deve

lop

the

skill

s of

vol

unte

ers

and

volu

ntee

r le

ader

s.

Est

imat

ed

co

sts

With

in e

xist

ing

reso

urce

s

£50K

- £

150K

£50K

- £

150K

With

in e

xist

ing

reso

urce

s

£100

K -

£30

0K

Co

mp

leti

on

dat

e

2015

Ong

oing

Ong

oing

Ong

oing

Ke

y o

rgan

isat

ion

s

LCC

, par

ish

& t

own

coun

cils

, Int

eres

t &

Use

rG

roup

s.

LCC

, par

ish

& t

own

Cou

ncils

, Nat

ural

En

glan

d.

LCC

, Pri

mar

y C

are

Trus

ts.

LCC

, Use

r gr

oups

,Pa

rish

& T

own

Cou

ncils

& in

tere

st g

roup

s.

Page

min

imum

& m

axim

um e

stim

ated

cos

tings

Stat

emen

ts o

f act

ion

min

imum

and

max

imum

cos

tings

- £

525,

000

- £8

60,0

00>

55 56


9.2 Path improvement projects9.2.1 Listed below are the key path improvement projects that we would like to address

over the next ten years. However, we recognise that other path improvement projects are likely to become apparent during this period and priorities may change.

Actio

n Pl

anAction Plan

Pat

h I

mp

rove

me

nt

Pro

ject

Riv

ersi

de p

ath

colla

pse

&

othe

r na

tura

l pat

h er

osio

n.

Nee

d to

mak

e al

l pat

hs s

uita

ble

for

thei

r in

tend

ed u

se.

Peop

le w

ith m

obili

ty p

robl

ems

unab

le t

o ga

in a

cces

s in

to t

hew

ider

cou

ntry

side

.

Impr

ove

ease

of a

cces

s al

ong

key

recr

eatio

nal r

oute

s.

Frag

men

ted

path

net

wor

k.

Car

lton

FP 1

De

tail

/ d

esc

rip

tio

n

Rep

air

or r

ealig

n pa

ths.

Impr

ove

the

surf

ace

and

drai

nage

as a

ppro

pria

te.

Iden

tify

area

s w

here

pat

hs c

ould

be m

ade

mor

e ac

cess

ible

for

thos

e w

ith M

obili

ty p

robl

ems.

Impr

ove

the

stan

dard

of

mai

nten

ance

, pat

h fu

rnitu

re a

ndsi

gnin

g al

ong

Key

Rec

reat

iona

lR

oute

s.

Upg

rade

exi

stin

g pa

ths

and/

or

crea

te n

ew p

ath

links

whe

re

appr

opri

ate.

Upg

radi

ng o

f foo

tpat

h se

ctio

n to

brid

lew

ay b

y le

gal a

gree

men

t /

orde

r; an

d as

soci

ated

sur

faci

ng,

fenc

ing

and

path

furn

iture

wor

ks.

Est

imat

ed

co

sts

£150

K>

£150

K>

£150

K>

£150

K>

£150

K>

£50K

- £

150K

£800

K -

£90

0K

Pri

ori

ty

Whe

n re

quir

ed

Ong

oing

Ong

oing

Ong

oing

Ong

oing

Hig

h

Co

mm

en

ts

Wor

k w

ith v

ario

usla

ndow

ners

, En

viro

nmen

t Age

ncy

&us

er g

roup

s.

Wor

k w

ith la

ndow

ners

,ot

her

Cou

ncil

Serv

ices

& u

ser

grou

ps.

Wor

k w

ith lo

cal g

roup

sw

ho s

peci

alis

e in

mak

ing

the

wid

er c

ount

rysi

dem

ore

acce

ssib

le.

LCC

and

Loc

al

Con

trac

tors

.

LCC

, Dev

elop

ers,

Loca

lC

ontr

acto

rs, U

ser

grou

ps, p

aris

h &

tow

nco

unci

ls.

A k

ey m

issi

ng li

nk in

the

brid

lew

ay n

etw

ork,

lin

king

Yea

don

to O

tley-

Che

vin

whi

ch w

ill a

void

a lo

ng d

etou

r vi

a bu

syco

untr

y ro

ads.

Page

min

imum

& m

axim

um e

stim

ated

cos

tings

Pat

h I

mp

rove

me

nt

Pro

ject

Bost

on S

pa B

W10

Barw

ick-

in-E

lmet

FP

17

Otle

y-C

hevi

n (D

anef

ield

Pl

anta

tion)

A n

ew F

P al

ong

the

Sout

h ba

nk o

f the

Riv

er W

harf

e at

Otle

y.

Wot

hers

ome

BW 1

a / 1

b

East

Kes

wic

k BW

2 -

FP

10(E

bor W

ay)

De

tail

/ d

esc

rip

tio

n

Upg

radi

ng o

f foo

tpat

h to

Br

idle

way

by

Ord

er.

To d

iver

t a

dead

-end

foot

path

by

crea

ting

a ne

w fi

eld-

edge

pat

h lin

k.

To c

orre

ct a

num

ber

of D

efin

itive

Map

ano

mal

ies

and

inco

nsis

tenc

ies

by w

ay o

f Ord

ers.

To c

reat

e by

Agr

eem

ent

/ Ord

er a

‘new

’ pub

lic fo

otpa

th.

To c

reat

e by

Agr

eem

ent

/ Ord

er a

‘new

’ bri

dlew

ay li

nk a

long

an

exis

ting

trac

k.

To c

reat

e by

agr

eem

ent

/ ord

er a

new

foot

path

link

alo

ngsi

de t

heR

iver

Wha

rfe.

Est

imat

ed

co

sts

£5K

£5K

- £

15K

£5K

- £

15K

£5K

- £

15K

£5K

- £

15K

£50K

- £

150K

£75K

- £

215K

Pri

ori

ty

Hig

h

Med

ium

Med

ium

Low

Med

ium

Hig

h

Co

mm

en

ts

Follo

win

g a

DM

MO

, thi

sw

ork

is n

ow r

equi

red

topr

ovid

e br

idle

way

acc

ess

to t

he n

earb

y br

idge

ove

rth

e R

iver

Wha

rfe.

Thi

s pa

th h

as b

een

a de

ad-

end

sinc

e th

e ea

rly

1950

’s.

To r

econ

cile

the

bri

dlew

ayan

d fo

otpa

th n

etw

ork

assh

own

on t

he d

efin

itive

map

with

tha

t w

hich

isav

aila

ble

on t

he g

roun

d.

Thi

s pa

th is

bei

ng u

sed

but

wou

ld b

enef

it fr

om b

eing

form

alis

ed a

nd im

prov

ed.

Thi

s ‘ne

w’ b

ridl

eway

will

prov

ide

an o

ff ro

ad li

nkbe

twee

n ex

istin

g br

idle

-w

ays;

thu

s av

oidi

ng a

de

tour

via

bus

y ro

ads.

Thi

s ne

w fo

otpa

th w

ould

prov

ide

a sa

fe o

ff-ro

ad li

nkbe

twee

n ex

istin

g pa

ths

-th

us a

void

ing

fast

, veh

icul

artr

affic

on

the

busy

A65

9H

arew

ood

Ave

nue.

Page

min

imum

& m

axim

um e

stim

ated

cos

tings

57 58


Actio

n Pl

anAction Plan

Pat

h I

mp

rove

me

nt

Pro

ject

Leed

s FP

132

Col

lingh

am F

P 14

(C

ompt

onLa

ne)

Bram

hope

FP

12 t

o G

olde

nA

cre

Park

Leed

s FP

58

to 6

6

Leed

s FP

56

to 7

1

De

tail

/ d

esc

rip

tio

n

To u

pgra

de a

n ex

istin

g fo

otpa

th t

obr

idle

way

sta

tus

by A

gree

men

t /

Ord

er.

To u

pgra

de a

n ex

istin

g fo

otpa

th t

obr

idle

way

sta

tus

by A

gree

men

t /

Ord

er.

To c

reat

e a

new

Foo

tpat

h by

Agr

eem

ent

/ Ord

er.

To c

reat

e a

new

foot

path

link

ad

jace

nt t

o th

e A

6120

.

To c

reat

e a

new

foot

path

link

acro

ss L

CC

land

bet

wee

n th

eM

eanw

ood

Valle

y Tr

ail &

W

eetw

ood.

Est

imat

ed

co

sts

£15K

- £

50K

£15K

- £

50K

£15K

- £

50K

£50K

- £

150K

£5K

- £

15K

£100

K -

£315

K

Pri

ori

ty

Med

ium

Hig

h

Med

ium

Low

Med

ium

Co

mm

en

ts

Thi

s w

ill p

rovi

de a

n en

hanc

ed li

nk fo

r br

idle

way

use

rs t

o th

eTe

mpl

e N

ewsa

m

Brid

lepa

th.

Thi

s w

ill m

ake

a ke

y im

prov

emen

t to

the

br

idle

way

net

wor

k in

the

Tho

rner

, Bra

mha

m P

ark

&C

ollin

gham

are

a.

Thi

s w

ill c

reat

e an

off

road

link

for

wal

kers

bet

wee

nBr

amho

pe a

nd G

olde

nA

cre

Park

.

Thi

s re

quir

es fu

rthe

r in

vest

igat

ion

and

asse

ssm

ent

of n

eed.

A u

sefu

l lin

k w

hich

wou

lden

hanc

e th

e M

eanw

ood

Valle

y.

Page

min

imum

& m

axim

um e

stim

ated

cos

tings

Pat

h I

mp

rove

me

nt

Pro

ject

Leed

s FP

102

Tho

rner

BW

17 (

Saw

/Kid

dal

Woo

ds)

Tho

rner

FP

5

Bard

sey

villa

ge t

o 1s

t A

venu

e (t

he C

ongr

eves

)

A n

ew fo

otpa

th b

etw

een

Bram

ham

Sch

ool a

nd W

illow

Gar

th

Cas

tle H

ills W

oodl

and,

Mic

klef

ield

Man

ston

to

Wet

herb

y D

isus

ed R

ailw

ay

A n

ew F

P al

ong

the

Nor

thba

nk o

f the

Riv

er W

harf

e at

Wet

herb

y

De

tail

/ d

esc

rip

tio

n

To u

pgra

de t

his

foot

path

to

cycl

eway

or

brid

lew

ay b

y A

gree

men

t/O

rder

- p

lus

path

w

iden

ing

and

resu

rfac

ing

wor

ks.

To c

reat

e ne

w b

ridl

eway

link

s, w

ithin

Kid

dal W

ood.

Div

ert/

exte

nd F

P vi

a a

field

edg

e tr

ack

to c

onne

ct F

P 6.

To c

reat

e a

new

wal

king

/cyc

ling

link

byA

gree

men

t.

To c

reat

e a

new

FP

conn

ectin

gBr

amha

m F

P no

’s 1

and

7.

To u

p gr

ade

fore

st t

rack

foot

path

s to

brid

lew

ay.

To c

reat

e a

mos

tly ‘t

raffi

c fr

ee’ r

oute

for

wal

kers

, cyc

lists

, and

hor

se r

ider

s.

To c

reat

e by

agr

eem

ent

/ Ord

er a

‘new

’ pub

lic fo

otpa

th. F

rom

the

W

ildne

rnes

s ca

rpar

k W

ethe

rby

to jo

inFP

20

near

Flin

t M

ill F

arm

.

Est

imat

ed

co

sts

£50K

- £

150K

£15K

- £

50K

£5K

-£1

5K

£50K

- £

150K

£5K

- £

15K

£15K

- £

50K

£150

K >

£5 -

£15

K

Pri

ori

ty

Med

ium

Med

ium

Low

/ M

ediu

m

Hig

h

Low

/ M

ediu

m

Med

ium

Med

ium

Low

/ M

ediu

m

Co

mm

en

ts

Thi

s is

a p

opul

ar b

ut n

arro

wfo

otpa

th l

inki

ng S

hadw

ell a

ndR

ound

hay

Park

& m

ay b

ecom

epa

rt o

f a s

trat

egic

cyc

le r

oute

.

The

se p

ropo

sed

links

will

pr

ovid

e a

circ

ular

net

wor

k av

oidi

ng t

he b

usy

A64

roa

d.

To a

void

wal

king

alo

ng a

nar

row

and

busy

roa

d (C

arr

Lane

).

Thi

s pr

opos

ed li

nk, w

hich

was

iden

tifie

d in

the

loca

l vill

age

desi

gn s

tate

men

t, w

ill a

void

wal

king

/cyc

ling

alo

ng t

he b

usy

A58

roa

d.

Will

pro

vide

a u

sefu

l loc

al li

nken

ablin

g ci

rcul

ar w

alks

.

Thi

s pr

opos

ed u

pgra

de w

ill

prov

ide

a w

ider

mea

ns o

f acc

ess.

Thi

s ro

ute

has

been

iden

tifie

d as

an im

port

ant

key

recr

eatio

nal

rout

e by

Sus

tran

s fo

r th

e N

a-tio

nal C

ycle

net

wor

k (r

oute

66)

.

Thi

s pa

th is

bei

ng u

sed

but

wou

ldbe

nefit

from

bei

ng fo

rmal

ised

and

impr

oved

.

Page

min

imum

& m

axim

um e

stim

ated

cos

tings

£

295K

- £

595>

59 60


ActionPlan

ActionPlan

Pat

hIm

pro

vement

Pro

ject

ParlingtonPath

ImprovementProject

SkeltonLake&Footbridge

StAidan’sCountryPark

Fairburn/NewtonIngs

riversidepath

PudseyFP143

Deta

il/description

Tocreateamore

comprehensiveandmeaningful

pathnetworkforpedestrians,

horseridersandcyclists.

Tocreatenewpathswithinthe

sitebyagreement/orders;and

facilitateanewfootbridgeacross

theRiverAire&Canal.

Tocreateaseriesofnewfoot-

pathsandbridlewaysacrossthe

formeropencastcoalsite.

Tocreateanewfootpathlink

alongthenorthbankoftheRiver

Aire.

Toupgradethisfootpathto

bridlewaybyAgreement/Order.

Estim

atedco

sts

£15K-£50K

£150K>

£15K-£50K

£50-£150K?

£15K-£50K

£245K-£450K>

Priority

High

High

High

Medium

Medium

Comments

Newrouteswillconnect

intotheexistingpath

networkandlinkParlington

toBarwick-in-Elmete.

Theserouteswilllink

TempleNewsam,and

RothwellCountryParksas

wellastotheTransPennine

Trail.

Thesenewrouteswilllink

tootherkeyrecreational

routessuchastheLeeds

CountryWay,‘TheLinesway’

&TransPennineTrail.

Thislinkwasrequestedby

theRamblersAssociation

andAllertonBywaterParish

Councilbutrequiresfurther

investigation.

Thisproposedupgradewill

provideausefuloffroadlink

forhorseridersandcyclists

betweenCockersdaleand

NanWhins(Sykes’)Wood.

Pageminimum&maximumestimatedcostings

Pat

hIm

pro

vement

Pro

ject

A647Leeds-BradfordRoad

(PudseyLink)

A660OtleyRoad

KingLane,Adel

KingLane&LeedsBW18plus

FPNos20&21(part)

Deta

il/description

Toprovidesignalised‘Pegasus’and

‘Toucan’crossingsforhorse

riders,cyclists,andwalkersplus

approachpaths.

Improveroadcrossings,vergesand

signing.

Toimprovetheexistingvergesof

theroadforwalkingandbuild

newadoptedfootwayswhere

appropriate.

Tocreateare-alignedpath

crossingpointatGolfFarmand

upgradethefootpathnorthof

KingLanetobridleway.

Estim

atedco

sts

£150K>

£50K-£150K

£150K>

£50K-£150K

£400K-£600K>

Priority

High

Low/Medium

High

Med/High

Comments

Thepathnetworkis

disjointedduetothebusy

A647effectivelycreatinga

barrierforbridlewayusers

wishingtoaccessthewider

countrysideoneitherside.

AkeyBridlewaycrossing

pointofabusyroad.

KingLaneisabusy‘country’

roadwithvergesofvarying

qualityandwidth.TheLeeds

CountryWayand

MeanwoodValleyTrailboth

followthisroadinpart,and

vergeimprovementsarere-

quiredtoaddressroad

safetyconcerns.

LeedsBW18alsomeets

KingLane(atablindbendat

GolfFarm)butthereisno

continuationbridleway

northwardstoEccupasthis

iscurrentlyafootpath

acrossLCCFarmland.

Pageminimum&maximumestimatedcostings

ROWIPprojectsminimumandmaximumcostings-£2,440,000-£3,935,000>

61 62


9.3 Delivering our Action Plan

9.3.1 This plan outlines our aspirations for the long-term development of the public rights ofway network in Leeds. This will give added focus to our future investment decisions to ensure that when resources are available, we will be able to address our stated priorities.

9.3.2 It will be important for the City Council, in conjunction with the Leeds Local Access Forum, to establish a working methodology for the prioritisation of path improvement projects. If all of the identified path improvement projects were to be delivered over the next ten years, the City Council would need to seek funding for between £2.38m and £3.90m.

9.3.3 It is not our intention at this stage to identify the specific funding streams that will meet our stated priorities, however we will work with a range of stakeholders to help bring forward funding packages over the lifetime of this plan.

9.3.4 In particular, we will seek to use Section 106 planning monies that become available, monies from the West Yorkshire Transport Plan and third party grants to maximise the funding that we can draw upon. Where appropriate we will look to supplement the funding streams identified above with mainline capital resources from the Council. We recognised that this funding will largely act as a catalyst for securing funding packages from other sources, often external to the Council.

Appendices

Appendix 1 Public Rights of Way across the Leeds district 65

Appendix 2 List of Schedule 14 DMMO applications 66

Appendix 3 Definitive Map Statement of Priorities 67

Appendix 4 Boundary of the Excluded Area 69

Appendix 5 List of Excluded Areas to be surveyed 70

Appendix 6 Parish areas covered by the Definitive Map 71

Appendix 7 List of review matters & Definitive Map anomalies 72

Appendix 8 Length of public rights of way by parish area 73

Appendix 9 Summary of parish and town council responses 75

Appendix 10 Draft consultation responses 80

Appendix 11 Questionnaire requests for improvements 85

Actio

n Pl

anAppendices

63 64

The Leeds Country Way at Wike Lane, Bardsey


Appe

ndic

esAppendices

Appendix 1 Public Rights of Way across the Leeds district Appendix 2 List of schedule 14 DMMO applications

Date

1 March-912 September-923 August-984 June-995 July-996 October-997 November-998 December-999 February-0010 September-0011 September-0012 February-0113 March-0114 July-0115 October-0116 October-0117 November-0118 December-0119 January-0220 March-0221 April-0222 August-0223 September-0224 September-0225 October-0226 February-0327 February-0328 April-0329 May-0330 July-0331 August-0332 September-0333 September-0334 December-0335 December-0336 June-0437 August-0438 August-0439 October-0440 February-0541 April-0542 May-0543 June-0544 Aug-0545 April-0646 September-0647 September-0648 January-0849 January-08

Claim

New Footpath Excluded AreaNew FootpathNew FootpathUpgrade FP to BWNew FootpathNew FootpathNew FootpathNew FootpathUpgrade FP to BWNew FootpathNew FootpathNew FootpathUpgrade FP to BOATMultiple FPsNew FootpathNew FootpathNew FootpathNew FootpathNew FootpathWidth VariationNew FootpathNew FootpathNew FootpathNew FootpathNew FootpathNumerous New FootpathsNew FootpathUpgrade FP to BWNew FootpathNew FootpathNew FootpathNew FootpathNew BOAT?Upgrade FP to BWNumerous New RoutesNew FootpathNew BridlewayNumerous New FootpathsNew FootpathNew FootpathNew FootpathNew FootpathNew FootpathNew FootpathNew FootpathNew FootpathNew FootpathNew FootpathNew Footpath

Location

Templegate, Temple NewsamBruntcliffe Drive, MorleyLing Lane, ScarcroftSunnybank Lane, PudseyBack Clarence Road, HorsforthBarkers Well, Lawns LaneGreenbanks Ave, HorsforthMethley JunctionPudsey 38Scotland Ln Reservoirs, HorsforthLeeds Rd Allotments, GarforthOtley Road, BramhopePudsey 1 Coal Hill Lane, RodleyTaylor Lane, Carr Head, BarwickRingshaw Beck, MorleyMill Lane, GildersomeWestern Flats Park, LS 12Haigh Wood/Woolin CrescentThorner 10Jumbos Nick, KippaxStreet Lane, GildersomeRichardshaw Road, PudseyPeasehill Allotments, RawdonFountain Street, ChurwellRawdon BillingPrince Street, G&L PrestonCarlton 1Scatcherd Grove, MorleyWainscott Cottage, ShadwellWood Lane, RothwellEngine Fields, YeadonWest Park Road, LS8Post Hill, PudseyBoat Lane, Methley etcCragg Wood DriveFulneck, PudseyCambridge Drive, OtleyVickersdaleNew / Old Lane, DrighlingtonTile Lane, AdelThe Crescent, MicklefieldHalf Mile - Farsley BeckNewhold, GarforthTyersal Lane to Old ReservoirsThe Piggeries, BramleyPriesthorpe School, PudseyEast Busk Lane, Otley Cliff Road, Headingley

Applications affected by Planning Issues© Crown copyright. All rights reserved 100019587 (2009)65 66


Appe

ndic

esAppendices

67 68

Appendix 3 Definitive Map Statement of Priorities

LEEDS CITY COUNCIL

WILDLIFE & COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981

MODIFICATION OF THE DEFINITIVE MAP & STATEMENT

STATEMENT OF PRIORITIES

Leeds City Council is the surveying authority for the purpose of the preparation and modification of the Definitive Map and Statement of public rights of way for the MetropolitanDistrict of Leeds. The Council has considered the requirements of part 3 of the Wildlife &Countryside Act 1981 and, in accordance with the Department of Environment Circular 2/93,has adopted the following priorities for bringing and keeping the Definitive Map and Statement up to date.

PRIORITY & WORK CATEGORY

(1) The preparation of modification orders made under the following provisions containedwithin the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981:

section 53(3)(c) - discovery of evidence by the Council of discrepancies or omissions in relation to the Definitive Map and Statement.

or

section 53(5) - third party applications for modification orders.in circumstances where urgent action is considered to be necessary either in the public interest or in the interests of safeguarding the use of public rights of way.

(2) The preparation of a Definitive Map and Statement for the built-up areas of Leeds not covered by the existing Definitive Map.

(3) The review of the Definitive Map and Statement, area by area including investigation anddetermination of applications made under section 53(5) of the Wildlife & Countryside Act1981. Applications made on the basis of historical evidence will take priority over others dueto the cut off date imposed by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

(4) The investigation and determination of Definitive Map Modification Order Applicationsmade under Schedule 14 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 in order of receipt, unless 1or 3 above applies.

(5) The preparation of a modification order to take account of all legal events, which have occurred since the relevant date of the Definitive Map and Statement.

(6) The periodic preparation of a consolidated Definitive Map and Statement to take accountof modification orders properly made to the Definitive Map and Statement from time to timeunder provisions contained within the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

AREAS TO BE REVIEWED

Aberford; Aireborough; Arthington; Austhorpe; Bardsey; Barwick; Boston Spa; Bramham;Bramhope; Carlton; Clifford; Collingham; East Keswick; Garforth; Great and Little Preston;Harewood; Horsforth; Ledsham; Ledston; Surveyed area of Leeds County Borough; Lotherton;Micklefield; Morley; Otley; Parlington; Pool; Pudsey; Rothwell; Scarcroft; Swillington; Thorner;Thorp Arch; Walton; Wetherby; Wothersome.

The order in which the areas will be reviewed will be determined by Schedule 14 applicationsand anomalies within a parish area.

NOTE

If any person wishes to make any representation about any public right of way shown in, oromitted from, the Definitive Maps and Statement, this should be done on the prescribed form.

The City Council is mindful of the right of applicants for a modification order to apply to theSecretary of State for a direction if the Council does not give a decision within 12 months ofreceiving an application in the prescribed form. The City Council trusts, however, that applicants will appreciate the progress with the exercise as a whole will best be made if applicants have regard to this Statement of Priorities and to the stage reached with the review when deciding the time at which to submit applications.

Any claimed public right of way, which has not been subject to an application in the prescribedform will be investigated when the relevant area review is undertaken, unless (1) above applies.

Where review matters are disputed or raise complicated questions of fact, decisions may bedelayed and local inquiries or hearings may be called by the Secretary of State. Consequently,it may be necessary to move onto the next review area before all the issues arising from a review have been settled.

The Statement of Priorities does not necessarily mean that work in any one category will bedealt with to the complete exclusion of any work in any other category. It will also be necessary to keep this Statement of Priorities under review and to amend it, if necessary, inlight of experience.


Appendix 4 Boundary of the Excluded Area Appendix 5 List of Excluded Areas to be surveyed

1. Armley

2. Beeston

3. Bramley

4. Burmantofts

5. Chapel Allerton

6. City and Holbeck

7. Cookridge

8. Harehills

9. Halton

10. Headingley

11. Hunslet

12. Kirkstall

13. Moortown

14. North

15. Richmond Hill

16. Roundhay

17. Seacroft

18. University

19. Weetwood

20. Whinmoor

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved 100019587 (2009)

Appendices

70

Appendices

69

Leeds


Appe

ndic

esAppendices

70 71

Appendix 6 Parish areas covered by the Definitive Map Appendix 7 List of review matters & Definitive Map anomaliesAp

pend

ices

AppendicesAberford 2 1 0 3Aireborough 4 25 4 33Arthington 0 1 0 1Austhorpe 3 2 0 5Bardsey 4 7 0 11Barwick 9 9 1 19Boston Spa 0 0 0 0Bramham 3 2 0 5Bramhope 0 3 1 4Carlton 0 0 1 1Clifford 0 2 0 2Collingham 4 9 0 13East Keswick 2 2 0 4Garforth 1 12 3 16Great & Little Preston 1 1 1 3Harewood 11 2 0 13Horsforth 1 9 3 13Ledsham 2 0 0 2Ledston 2 0 0 2Leeds 8 50 7 65Leeds (Exc Area) 1 15 3 19Lotherton 0 0 0 0Micklefield 1 2 1 4Morley 1 28 8 37Otley 2 10 1 13Parlington 1 5 0 6Pool 0 1 0 1Pudsey 9 17 9 35Rothwell 61 40 2 103Scarcroft 0 2 1 3Sturton Grange 0 1 0 1Swillington 6 5 0 11Thorner 1 3 1 5Thorp Arch 3 4 0 7Walton 0 2 0 2Wetherby 2 10 0 12Wothersome 0 0 0 0TOTAL 145 282 47 474

1980 Review Matters

Anomolies/Review Matters

DMMO’s TotalParish Area

Otle

y

Bard

sey

Scar

crof

t

Tho

rnerC

ollin

ghamW

ethe

rby

Wal

ton

Clif

ford

Bram

ham

Abe

rfor

d

Loth

erto

nPa

rlin

gton

Bost

on S

paTho

rp-

Arc

h

Car

lton

Pool

Bram

hope

Art

hing

ton

Har

ewoo

d

East

Kes

wic

k

Hor

sfor

th

Puds

ey

Mor

ley

Rot

hwel

l

Swill

ingt

onG

arfo

rth

Mic

klef

ield

Leds

ham

Leds

ton

Stur

ton

Gra

nge

Gt

&Li

ttle

Pres

ton

Barw

ick

in E

lmet

& S

chol

es

Leed

s Are

a

Leed

s Are

a

Leed

s Are

a

Leed

s Are

a

Air

ebor

ough

Exc

lud

ed

Are

a

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved 100019587 (2009)71 72


Appe

ndic

esAppendices

Appendix 8 Length of public rights of way by parish area

3.729.082.49.364.5615.252.47.314.622.311.326.241.089.726.187.6316.65.216.314.8881.712.129.5855.6211.212.176.2324.0630.93.31

-.583.309.238.622.43

-5.43

-

389.70

AberfordAireboroughArthingtonAusthorpeBardseyBarwickBoston SpaBramhamBramhopeCarltonCliffordCollinghamEast KeswickGarforthGreat and Little PrestonHarewoodHorsforth*Kearby with NetherbyLedshamLedstonLeedsLothertonMicklefieldMorley OtleyParlingtonPoolPudseyRothwellScarcroft*Spenborough*StanleySturton GrangeSwillingtonThornerThorp ArchWaltonWetherbyWothersome

TOTALS

1.936.641.65.613.295.88.48-.4.95-

2.05.734.78.69

10.481.44.261.3.65

18.44-

1.0.962.732.33

-6.1410.59.860.02

--

2.513.02

--

5.72.79

101.88

3.1110.692.65.985.309.53.77-

.641.53

-3.301.187.701.1116.892.32.422.091.0529.97

-1.611.554.43.75

-9.8817.681.38.003

--

4.054.91

--

9.264.49

165.05

--

2.17--

.76-----

.25--------.4--

.79

.44--

.68-----------

5.49

--

3.51--

1.22-----

.41--------

.65--

1.27.71--

1.10-----------

8.87

5.736.416.31.977.8521.872.887.315.023.261.328.542.5314.506.8718.1118.09.477.615.53

100.552.1210.5857.3714.384.506.2330.8841.494.17.02.583.3011.7411.642.43

-11.132.79

497.07

9.1657.5710.181.5612.6735.284.6711.768.105.252.1313.754.0723.3610.9828.3726.37.76

12.238.89

162.793.3016.8993.1022.437.2410.0349.6569.0167.10.003.945.3218.9618.803.91

-17.944.49

798.63

6.0646.884.03.587.3724.533.9011.767.463.722.1310.042.9015.669.8711.4824.05.34

10.157.84

132.173.3015.2890.3017.323.4910.0338.6751.35.33

-.945.3214.9213.893.91

-8.74

-

624.71

* NB: Kearby with Netherby, Spenborough and Stanley are not parishes within Leeds but following Boundary Commission Changes some paths originally within these adjoining parishes, now fall within theLeeds Metropolitan District.

Parish area FootpathsMiles Km

BridlewaysMiles Km

BywaysMiles Km

TotalsMiles Km

Percentage of total length of public rights of way by parish area

668140375870831009271100737167904092

N/A84888110090977748100787479

N/AN/A10079741000490

79

AberfordAireboroughArthingtonAusthorpeBardseyBarwickBoston SpaBramhamBramhopeCarltonCliffordCollinghamEast KeswickGarforthGreat and Little PrestonHarewoodHorsforth*Kearby with NetherbyLedshamLedstonLeeds (Def area)LothertonMicklefieldMorley OtleyParlingtonPoolPudseyRothwellScarcroft*Spenborough*StanleySturton GrangeSwillingtonThornerThorp ArchWaltonWetherbyWothersomeLeeds MetropolitanDistrict

341926624227170829024293310608

N/A171218010220520202621

N/AN/A

021260051100

21

003400300000300000

N/A001001300200

N/AN/A

0000000

1

* NB: Kearby with Netherby, Spenborough and Stanley are not parishes within Leeds but following Boundary Commission Changes some paths originally within these adjoining parishes, now fall within theLeeds Metropolitan District.

Parish area Footpaths%

Bridleways%

Byways%

73 74


Appe

ndic

esAppendicesAppendix 9 Summary of parish and town council responses

Listed below is a short summary of the written responses received from parish and towncouncils for Leeds City Council’s consideration as part of the ROWIP process.

Aberford & District Parish CouncilThe extent of the local rights of way network meets current requirements; and no increase in access rights for the general public can be foreseen in the immediate future. However, whilst paths are relatively well signed, the condition of stiles and gates in places is poor and overgrown vegetation a problem. The terrain and agricultural nature of the landscape make issues pertaining to accessibility difficult to address, so regular maintenance of stiles and gates plus pruning vegetation is seen as the main requirement for improvement over the next 5-10 years.

Arthington Parish CouncilThe paths are used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders and the Ebor Way uses paths within the parish. Would like to see more footpaths and bridleways but not Byways Open to All Traffic (BOAT’s) as feels vehicular use damages the paths. Some stiles need fixing and would prefer to see wooden rather than metal signposts. Most paths in useable condition but bridleway No. 8 identified as being muddy throughout the year.

Suggest the following new paths:- (a) In Creskeld Wood. (b) From footpath No. 5 northwards to join footpath going south from

Staircase Lane (in Bramhope Parish).(c) Along the old railway track from Arthington to Pool Bank. (d) Establish a new road-side footpath alongside the busy A659 between

Ingfield Farm and Holt Farm to enable safe access to and from the Mawson’sLane Byway.

Barwick-in-Elmet and Scholes Parish CouncilOverall, the current path network is reasonably adequate having been very much improved over the last 20 years by both Leeds City Council and the Barwick Parish Paths Partnership. Apart from ongoing negotiations between Leeds City Council and Parlington Estate to try and resolve the dead-ended Footpath No. 17; and any future changes associated with a possible ‘East Leeds Orbital road’ to the west of Scholes, no future extensions of the current ROW network are contemplated.

However, the following roadside verge/footway improvements to link ROW were suggested:-

(a) Along north verge of A64 between footpath No. 37 and the disused railway.

(b) Along the eastern verge of Long Lane between Barwick village and Parlington Lane bridleway.

(c) Along the southern verge of the A64 to link the Becca Banks bridleway (No. 28) with Potterton Lane.

Boston Spa Parish CouncilImprove signposting and also seek opportunities for cycleways to link local schools. In addition the following path improvements and links were suggested;-

(a) Repair and re-surface the footpath alongside the River Wharfe between Thorp Arch Bridge and Firgreen Beck to facilitate wheelchair access.

(b) Divert part of Boston Spa footpath No. 16 to take it out of Low Mills farmyard.

(c) Establish a permissive footpath alongside Firgreen Beck to link the riverside path with footpath No. 16.

(d) Establish a permissive path from Clifford Moor Road to Boston Road via St. John’s farm track and the south side of St. John’s school.

(e) Convert Winnow Lane (an adopted road) to a bridleway to restrict vehicles and fly-tipping.

(f) Eo extend the riverside footpath westwards from Holgate Lane bridleway.

Bramham Parish Council (plus Wothersome Parish)A comprehensive path condition survey was carried out with detailed recommendations for maintaining and/or improving each footpath or bridleway as necessary. A particular problem with heavy agricultural machinery damaging the surfaceof paths to the point where several became impassable in winter was identified. Also, the observation was made that ‘as would be expected of rural footpaths, the majority are not suitable for disabled or partially sighted access’.

The following routes not currently shown on the Definitive Map were requested:- (a) Footpath between Bramham School and Willow Garth - connecting foot

path Nos. 1 and 7 and lying partly within Clifford Parish.(b) A direct link between bridleway Nos. 1a and 1b Wothersome.(c) An off-road link from Wothersome bridleway No. 6 to Barwick Bridleway

No.33 (Mangrill Lane).

Clifford Parish CouncilThe parish is part of the Parish Paths Partnership scheme and a condition assessment was carried out in 2005. There are overhanging branch, rabbit hole and rotten stile step problems on footpath No. 1; and deep tractor ruts on footpath No. 2; while footpath 3 since it has been tarmacked (with Parish Paths grant monies) is now satisfactory.

Suggested future paths are as follows:- (a) Bramham School to Willow Garth as mentioned above. (b) Rhodes Lane (unclassified road) to footpath No. 1.

Collingham with Linton ParishThe following suggestions for path improvements were supplied by Collingham with Linton Footpath Action Group and cited as being extracted from the ‘Parish Plan’:-

(a) Link footpath No. 18 to Northgate Lane to create a circular walk.(b) Build a new cycleway bridge over the River Wharfe on the line of the

disused railway; and create a new bridleway link between Collingham, Linton and Wetherby.

(c) Establish a new bridleway running the length of Harewood Avenue(A659) as this is becoming increasingly dangerous for non-motorised users.

(d) Create a bridleway link between Collingham and East Keswick, possibly usingthe Manston to Wetherby railway line with connecting routes.

(e) Build a new footbridge over Collingham Beck to link the car park on Linton Lane to footpath No. 3.

75 76


Appe

ndic

esAppendices

(f) a safe but sympathetic footway is required along the western verge of LintonLane to improve access to the Ebor Way footpath across the Golf Course.

(g) definitive Map Modification Orders are required for the following paths in daily use:- (i) Highcroft to Harewood Road; (ii) Bridge Paddock to Church Lane; (iii) Millbeck Green to Sports Ground; (iv) Sodom Lane, Linton.

(h) improve access alongside the River Wharfe generally, but in particular from Linton Bridge along the south bank to Langwith Wood if possible. Also, re-establish the Carthick Wood ford.

East Keswick Parish Council Paths within the confines of the village are ‘convenience’ paths and meet local needs. The other footpaths and bridleways within the wider parish provide excellent opportunities for walking or riding in beautiful countryside. For people with sight or mobility problems footpath Nos. 4 and 7, and Bridleway Nos. 7 and 8 would be accessible but other paths either have stiles, uneven surfaces or steps - some being practically impossible to improve.

Suggested new paths to be created are as follows:- (a) Extend footpath No. 10 on the south side of the River Wharfe to join up

with bridleway No. 2 near the bridge.(b) To utilise the disused railway from Bardsey sports ground.(c) To create a separate path through the trees bordering the north side of

Harewood Avenue.(d) To open up the overgrown Fitts Lane - the historic route down to the river.(e) To create a route to Collingham across fields from the track passing Field

House, off Crabtree Lane.

Great and Little PrestonFelt unable to make sensible comments until an up to date copy of the Definitive Map was available. Did though provide a map showing all current footpaths, including rights of way, permissive and natural.

Harewood Parish CouncilConsider that the present local rights of way network meets the needs of the public and provides adequate opportunities for open air exercise, recreation and enjoyment. Accessibility for blind or partially sighted persons is considered adequate provided theyare accompanied. Stiles and kissing gates present a severe problem to wheelchair boundpersons so suggest marking such routes as ‘unsuitable for wheelchairs’.

Otley Town CouncilBelieves that the extension of the local rights of way network would greatly benefit Otley both as a tourist resource and to encourage residents to take healthy exercise. Provided a plan showing routes, either not on the definitive map but which have been used for many years; or new routes for creation as valuable links to existing paths in the network.

These were as follows:- (a) Footpath along southern bank of River Wharfe from the ‘white bridge’ east

to the old Pool road at Knotford Nook.(b) Continuation of East Busk Lane to the disused railway. (c) Disused railway line from A660 roundabout to Pool village.(d) Path along edge of Chevin from Chevin End Farm east to Chevin Forest

Park.

(e) Disused railway line west from A6308/A660 roundabout towards A65 at Moss Brook and Menston Station.

(f) Path connecting disused railway to A660 via Stubbings Farm access track; (g) Existing grassy track across fields between East Chevin Road and path

below East Chevin quarry. (h) Path along north bank of River Wharfe between Otley Bridge and the

Bradford boundary/Weston Lane past the Sailing Club.

Shadwell Parish CouncilWould like all stiles to be kept in good repair; the Woodhouse Farm path (which was established via a DMMO) to be put on the Definitive Map (NB will happen the next time the map is consolidated); a ‘No Cycling’ sign to be put up on footpath No. 102.

They also requested that a new path be created through the woods adjacent to the north side of the Leeds Outer Ring Road to link footpath No. 102 to the Woodhouse Farm footpath.

Thorner Parish CouncilThe following comments and suggestions were made at the draft ROWIP stage:-

(a) A schedule of maintenance work to be agreed with the parish council, and early consultation to take place on any proposed changes to the existing PROW network.

(b) Sustrans have completed a report on the Manston to Wetherby disused railway for the Cross Gates to Thorner section, at an estimated cost of £800K, which it is hoped can be delivered with W. Yorkshire Local Transport Plan funding.

(c) Divert Thorner Footpath No. 5 along a field edge track to avoid having to walk along Carr Lane which is a narrow and busy road.

(d) Create a new right of way from the bottom of Intake Lane, off Sandyhills to join with Thorner Footpath No. 1 near Carr Farm.

Thorp Arch Parish CouncilHaving reviewed the rights of way within its parish boundary, they consider that the following improvements would provide significant benefit to the local community and visitors:-

(a) A new footpath through fields along the north bank of the River Wharfe south-eastwards from Thorp Arch Bridge to Ings Lane.

(b) A new connecting footpath to link the ‘Countryside Stewardship’ permissive footpath adjacent to Hall Wood with Flintmill Lane on the Ebor Way north of Thorp Arch village.

Walton Parish CouncilThis parish currently has no rights of way recorded on the Definitive Map, however they believe that the following two routes could provide an opportunity for exercise and enjoyment:-

(a) A footpath/track that leads from Wighill Lane north and then eastwards to Rudgate, known as Inholmes Lane.

(b)A farm track/footpath leading from Hall Park Road northwards across the boundary with North Yorkshire to Bickerton village.

77 78


Appe

ndic

esAppendices

Wetherby Town Council Wetherby Town Council has worked for many years with Leeds City Council via the Parish Paths Partnership to maintain and improve its local rights of way. It has also enjoyed the benefit of The Harland Way walking and cycling route along the old disused railway line within the town. New footpaths and bridleways have also been created or re-routed as a result of the upgrading of the A1 to A1(M) Motorway to the east of Wetherby, and this has created a desire to have these routes shown on an updated Ordnance Survey map and eventually the Definitive Map.

Within Wetherby there is a determination to keep the footpaths and bridleways open, both for their enjoyment today and for the generations to come. They want to build onthe outdoor recreational facilities that exist, and provide everyone with the opportunity to enjoy healthy exercise via the public path network. Regarding disabled access, suggestions to improve this included installing handrails next to steps, and kissing gates to replace stiles. The increasing number of retired people was also identified as a reason to consider improving paths in this way.

In response to the ROWIP process for Leeds, Wetherby Parish Paths Partnership formed a sub-group to carry out a comprehensive review of all the paths used in, and around, Wetherby - whether these were recorded on the Definitive Map or not. Unfortunately, the document produced is too large to be reproduced here in full, but its findings regarding signposting, path maintenance and Definitive Map issues etc. will be taken into account by the Countryside and Access section and acted upon in partnership with the Parish Paths Group wherever feasible. There was also a desire to improve awareness of the path network by producing a comprehensive map of ‘Wetherby Walks’.

Suggestions for new circular and linking routes to improve the connectivity and use of the surrounding path network are listed below:-

(a) Formalising the permissive footpath along the north side of the River Wharfe between the Wilderness Car Park and the sewage works via Crowcroft Bank, then east along the field edge to join footpath No. 20/Thorp Arch No. 4 from Flint Mill Farm.

(b) Creating a new path along the southern bank of the River Wharfe between the Grange Park bridge over the A1 and Wetherby Grange. Thence eastwards into Boston Spa parish via Hatfield Bank and Wray Wood to Leys Lane.

(c) A new footpath (to be added by way of a DMMO ) to the east bank of the River Wharfe between the Scaur Bank footbridge and Collingham footpath No. 3. Also a link back to Wetherby Bridge along the flood embankment of Wetherby Ings. NB: (DMMO confirmed April 2007).

(d) A proposed 8.5 mile circular walk around Wetherby and into the countryside to the north and east of the town utilising existing paths - to besignposted, waymarked and publicised.

79 80

Appendix 10 Draft ROWIP - Consultation Responses

Draft ROWIP Consultation Results

The Draft ROWIP for Leeds was published in July 2008 and was made available to the public asa printed document, a Compact Disc and via the Councilís website www.leeds.gov.uk.

Comments were invited within a 12 week period, originally up to the 13 October 2008, butsubsequently extended to the end of October to give a little more time for responses to besubmitted.

A short questionnaire in the form of a tear off sheet was included within the draft ROWIPdocument itself but additional written suggestions and comments were also invited. Approximately 300 copies of the document were sent out to individuals, Parish and TownCouncils, all 99 elected members of Leeds City Council, members of the Leeds Local AccessForum, local path user groups and large landowning estates.

Results from the Consultation Response forms

22 completed response forms were received and the results are listed below:-

Q1. In relation to Chapter 2, -’Countryside & Access in Leeds’, have we covered all the most important access routes and issues?

Yes 18 (82%) No 2 (9%) Don’t know 2 (9%)

Suggested additions:- (a) There is an extra Woodland Trust site at Crossley Park Wood, Linton Road,

Wetherby.(b) Refer to developing network- by adding off road routes next to busy roads;

and creating missing links for modern recreation and utility journeys.(c) Ensure routes through development sites are wide enough for cycle or

bridlepath use.(d) Routes around the lake at Roundhay and Golden Acre Parks.

Q2. In relation to Chapters 4 & 5, Policy context, Nationally and Locally, have we included everything of relevance?

Yes 17 (77%) No 2 (9%) Don’t know 3 (14%)

Suggested additions:-(a) As well as focussing on rights of way the document should consider play

parks for children and areas for the disabled to sit in cultivated areas.(b) Get an input from Healthy Walking and NHS Leeds.

Q3. In chapter 8 & 9 we have listed a number of ‘Statements of Action’ for improving our management of the Rights of Way networkin Leeds. Taken as a whole, do you;-

Agree with all statements 8 (36%)Agree with most statements 12 (55%)Neither agree nor disagree with the statements 2 (9%)Disagree with most of the statements 0Disagree with all of the statements 0


Appe

ndic

esAppendices

81 82

Contd. From Q3.

Suggested additions:-(a) Include text on how the general public can find out which review matters

and definitive map anomalies are included in the Appendix 6 list.(b) We hope that the city council will take ownership of the ROWIP and that

there will be manpower and resources to implement the Statements of Action.

(c) 8.2 PI5 & PI6 Need dates.(d) PI14 Aim to ensure is not adequate need date by which LCC will cease

failing in its statutory duty.(e) 8.3 ON5 & ON6 Need dates.(f) No mention of policy on BOATs. Should do all possible to remove existing

BOATs and prevent more being created. Put in place mechanisms to measuresuccess of achieving points of action. Present climate is to move towards a ‘result based accountability’ to measure effectiveness to achieve targets at action points.

(g) 8.2 Path improvements should take on board the need to consider surfacingmaterials other than urban black-top for footpaths especially through sensitive areas such as woodlands and fields.

(h) 8.9 PW5 Please talk to BTCV about the training of ROW volunteers as wemay be able to help access existing or new funds for volunteer training courses.

(i) 8.3 ON7 Use bollards to prevent motorised traffic - barriers prevent walkers, so defeat purpose.

Q4. At section 9.2 on pages 51 to 56, we have identified a number of path improvement projects which could be delivered over the next ten years. Please list in order below those projects which you think should be addressed first.

The top 5 projects were as follows:1) East Keswick Bridleway 2 to East Keswick Footpath 10 (Ebor Way)2) Wothersome Bridleway 1a /1b 3) Manston to Wetherby disused Railway 4) Bardsey Village to First Avenue5) Leeds FP 102

Q5 Thinking about longer term priorities for improving the rights of way network in Leeds, please can you score on a scale of 1 - 5 (1 beingthe most important and 5 being the least important) the following statements.

The results were as follows:-1) All rights of way should be fully signposted, with destinations and distances

where appropriate.2) A proactive approach should be taken towards establishing missing links in

the public rights of way network.3) Historical research should be carried out, on a parish by parish basis, to

determine whether there are ‘lost ways’ which need adding to, or legally upgrading, on the definitive map and statement.

4) Surfaces and path furniture should be improved and upgraded whenever possible.

5) Rights of way should, wherever reasonably possible, be made more accessiblefor the less able.

6) More information on walking, cycling and horse riding should be produced and published.

Q6 Are there any other points or suggestions that you would like to make regarding the improvement of rights of way in Leeds?

The following comments were made:-

Need to ensure that existing or new routes within developments sites are sufficiently wide for bridleway or cycle use. If possible have some visual ammenity ie not trapped between big buildings or high fences.Improved cycle routes into the city centre is a must if traffic levels are to be reduced at commuter time.West Leeds and Green Gateway trails should be a priority. Stiles should be improved as many are so bad that people above medium build are unable to squeeze through them.To improve bridleway paths that are already in use and link them up.For the path from Roundhay Park to Shadwell a safe crossing over or under theringroad needs consideration.Published walks leaflets should show distance, scale and more accurate routes and the path around Roundhay Park Lake is unsuitable as it is muddy most of year.More effort should be made to prevent horse riders and cyclists from using public footpaths and chewing up the ground.

Additional Written Responses

As well as the completed response forms, 23 written submissions were received in the form ofe-mails, letters, or reports ranging from a couple of sentences to several pages of text. Wherethese written comments raised typographical errors or factual inaccuracies within the draftdocument , these have been incorporated into the final ROWIP document. In addition, a smallnumber of amendments have been made to the ROWIP Statements of Action in Chapter 8;and several key path improvement projects added to the ‘Action Plan’ tables in Chapter 9.

A summary of more general comments and observations received appears below in order togive a flavour of respondents views on the public path network in Leeds and how it might beimproved in the future.

Summary of additional comments

Any encouragement of cycling welcomed but should be extra to Footpath network.The public rights of way service is under resourced.322km of paths excluded from the definitive map - urgent recording needed.Target of 6 DMMOs per year not good enough should be more.Add various other LCC strategy documents.There are statutory duties included as well as path improvements, nevertheless anything will be an improvement if LCC can find the funds.2015 much too late for the definitive map to be made available on line.Standards for paths - needs to be a set of criteria to measure standards ie what is expected of surface, access, directions, cleanliness etc.Linking paths together, especially on busy / country roads by construction of 1m wide paths inside fields.

..

..........

..

........

..

......

..


Appe

ndic

esAppendices

83 84

The aesthetic start of a path is vital; poor signing, litter or accessibility will put many people off.Add definitive map path numbers to sign posts.Concern over alleygating - need to find creative and sustainable solutions to any issues.Link and make priority any paths near large areas of people eg hospitals, schools, shops etc.No mention of alleygating.Concerned that LCC see permissive paths as acceptable.Should have path orders as well as 106 agreements.What’s happened about Milestones?Concern about the amount of cyclists that use footpaths.Suggestion for a mainly traffic free cycle route between Bramhope Village and Golden Acre Park and King Lane.More effort should be made to prevent cyclists and horses damaging footpath surfaces.Published routes should show distance scale and more accurate routes.Footpath round Roundhay park lake too muddy.For the path from Roundhay Park to Shadwell safe crossing either under or over the ring road needs consideration.To improve bridleway paths that are already in use and link them up.Shortage of joined up routes for cyclists particularly in the SW area of Leeds.In general an excellent document and very much welcome the support towards walkers, cyclist and the disabled.Title photographs.Concern over unauthorised motorbikes causing damage at Castle Hills Woodland Micklefield. Have footpaths in built up areas added to the definitive map asap.Maintain public rights of way to highest possible standards plus make new footpaths.We believe it’s important for missing links to be investigated and for research into lost routes and claims to be pursued.Welcome such a well detailed and easy to read document.Concern regarding missing sign posts and overly restricted squeeze stiles that some people have difficulty getting through. The situation is so bad that people above mediumbuild trying to exercise and lose weight are unable to squeeze through.Pleased to see that the TPT is well represented in the Plan. Sections of the TPT most in need of improvement eg Skelton Grange bridge all have major issues that need to be addressed and require significant investment.There is an opportunity to capitalise on the TPT and create further links from the trail to various local communities, allowing easier access to the countryside along the trail as well as providing utility journeys using the route.Need to ensure that existing or new routes within development sites are sufficiently wide for bridleway or cycleway use and if possible have some visual amenity ie not trapped between big buildings or high fences.Get input from healthy walking and NHS Leeds.It is important to encourage use of greenspaces, and cycling and walking to them as a contribution to community safety.Community paths partnership and training of rights of way volunteers please talk to BTCV, may be able to access existing funds or seek new funds.Need to make all paths usable for their intended use. People with mobility problems unable to gain access to the wider countryside.Wyke Beck Valley has been declared a key part of the EASEL and Aire Valley major regeneration proposals by LCC and must also be a key element of the ROWIP.Path improvements should take on board the need to consider surfacing materials other than black top for footpaths, especially through sensitive areas such as woodlandsand fields.

..

..

..

..

..

..

........

..

..................................

..

..

......Would like to see paths alongside all the Leeds navigations. There is a notable gap alongside the Aire and Calder navigation to the East of Bullholme Lock, near Castleford.The Aire and Calder navigation towpath could of course form part of a longer distance east / west walking route extending from Leeds to Selby and Goole.The action plan / statements generally are too weak and too woolly giving LCC numerous get out clauses.Where new Parish Council areas have been defined the paths within them should be re numbered accordingly. Greater attention needs to be given to keeping paths clear of overgrown vegetation particularly in urban areas and ginnels. Fly tipping seems to be on the increase on publicfootpaths.Welcome more consultation with Parish and Town Councils over all path maintenance and improvement matters, including the making of path orders.No mention of a policy on Byways Open To All Traffic. LCC should prevent any more from being created.Greater emphasis should be given to the Leeds to Wetherby link. This would facilitate access on foot and by cycle to the countryside in a safe and attractive way.The proposed footpath between Bardsey Village and First Avenue should be a high priority project.Many local footpaths become impassable, in summer because of becoming overgrown; and in winter because of mud caused by horses and tractors.More information should be made available about who is responsible for maintenance of the footpaths and who to approach to rectify these problems.We hope that the City Council will take ownership of the ROWIP and that there will be the man power and resources to implement the statements of action.Plans for PROW improvements should be publicised and so should the achievements asthey are implemented so that the public are made aware.Linear, multi use recreational routes such as the Lines Way, Rothwell Green Way and Leeds Links should have an enhanced level of maintenance.More time and resources should be given to record non definitive routes that are clearly in public use.

..

..............

..

......

....


Appe

ndic

esAppendices

85 86

Appendix 11 Questionnaire requests for improvements

1. Signposting and waymarkinga. Improve right of way signs to include information on destination, distance and

surface (using symbols to describe suitability for wheelchairs and pushchairs).b. Lowered tactile signs - e.g. Braille, textured.c. Location maps. d. More way markers please (especially on the Meanwood Valley Trail).e. Walkers should be aware where footpaths lead to - rambling over farmland

may damage crops. Better signposting would help.

2. Path maintenance (including surfacing and drainage)a. Cut back greenery along routes to give them a wider feeling and improve the

general sense of safety.b. Improvements need to be made the Meanwood Valley Trail along King Lane as

it comes out of Golden Acre Park.c. Improve surface conditions of footpaths/bridleways: they are often extremely

muddy/impassable in inclement months.d. Stop resurfacing bridleways with such coarse stone and then using an

inadequate amount of top covering. When it washes away the surfaces are worse to use than before they were resurfaced.

e. Remember people are trying to get away from concrete and tarmac.f. Surface improvements can help to improve disabled access.

3. Path furniture and access controlsa. More litter bins and benches.b. Lighting.c. More seating at regular intervals along routes.d. Prevent motorised vehicles using bridleways and footpaths (e.g. trail bike

riders).e. The ends of the walkways in Breary Marsh should be ramped, as should the

bridge in the marsh which has a 9” step-up!

4. New path links and definitive map issuesa. Develop a route from Wyke Beck Valley & Roundhay Park to Temple Newsam.b. Link up the Temple Newsam bridleway with Stile Hill Way and the Colton

public footpaths. Bullerthorpe Lane is a very busy road with no pedestrian access.

c. There is a way past Grims Dike which could be improved and slightly widened to enable walkers, pushchairs and families to access the bridleway and thus Temple Newsam Park.

d. Shell Lane in LS28 area needs improvement. e. Rights of way from Rockwood Road have been blocked by a locked gate for

40 years, between Rockwood Road through Priesthorpe School and Priesthorpe Lane.

f. New footpath link off the road between The Rein and Lotherton Hall to avoid busy and fast traffic.

g. Potential for cycle routes round Otley, e.g. disused railway line.

5. Dog and farm animal issuesa. If dog exercising areas are signed or provided then maintenance of these

areas should also be carried out. Biannual bark chip mulching could sanitise the paths and surrounds.

b. Indication on leaflets/maps stating where livestock may be encountered - cows occasionally chase dogs!

c. Make stiles dog friendly.

6. Cycling and cycle routesa. Better and more integrated cycle paths.b. Cycle routes suitable for families and children.c. Incentives to get cyclists off paths onto roads and cycleways.d. More work with ‘Sustrans’ national charity (sustainable transport routes for

cyclists). Routes for 3-5 days. Quiet roads to be designated cycle, local & farm use only, and more unused footpaths designated for cyclist/pedestrian use.

e. Mountain bikes should be encouraged to use/fit a bell. f. Potential for cycle routes round Otley, e.g. disused railway line.g. Many cyclists use country lanes so a website using experience/showing routes

would be useful.

7. Horse riding and bridlewaysa. Do not have heavy sprung self closing gates on bridleways. (The heavy gates

spring back and often strike the horse before they have time to get through).b. Stop resurfacing bridleways with such coarse stone and then using an

inadequate amount of top covering. When it washes away the surfaces are worse to use than before they were resurfaced.

8. Accessibility (including health walks, buddy schemes, disabled access and provisions for pushchairs)

a. Pinch stiles can form a barrier to overweight people, who may not be able to fit through the gaps, or may damage their clothing or injure themselves whilst trying to get through.

b. Replace stiles with disabled-friendly access furniture.c. Surface improvements will also help to improve disabled access. The ends of

the walkways in Breary Marsh should be ramped, as should the bridge in the marsh which has a 9” step-up!

d. Lowered kerbs.e. Toilets - especially disabled access toilets; shelters.f. Start a walking buddy scheme.g. Smaller circular routes for prams / pushchairs.

9. Publicity and provision of information a. Establish a council website for walkers. b. Advertise walks connecting with bus/train routes.c. Perhaps a walk locally each week with info in local newspapers stating time,

length, ease of access and venue.d. Provide information on cafes, shops, pubs, toilet provision etc.e. Improve representation for public rights of way on the LCC website.f. Many cyclists use country lanes, so a website showing routes, provided by

experienced users/officers, would be useful.

10. Public transporta. Better and more frequent public transport to different parts of the network.b. Bus timetables giving OS grid references for country stops and a timetable on

every stop would be a help.


Appe

ndic

esAppendices

87 88

11. Miscellaneousa. Do not allow people to extend gardens near rights of way.b. Greater ranger presence/patrols.c. Improvements to parking: there are many rights of way that you can’t get to

on foot. d. More traffic signs asking drivers to slow down on country lanes.e. Stop motorised access to Parkside Road, Meanwood. Make it one-way from

Church Lane to the Ring Road.
