Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP)

Comment

Representation ID: 16

Received: 24/02/2009

Respondent: Essex LAF

Does not include any reference to the creation of Bridleways or Byways although these are mentioned later in the document. If additions are planned as stated in Core Action C, then the Vision should be amended to include these.

Comment

Representation ID: 17

Received: 24/02/2009

Respondent: Essex LAF

Permissive paths - As these currently fill in some gaps in the network, shouldn't an improvement plan include the possibility of seeking to convert these to PROWs?

Comment

Representation ID: 18

Received: 24/02/2009

Respondent: Essex LAF

This was scheduled for delivery between January and May 2008 so this should be included in the PROWIP - update required.

Comment

Representation ID: 19

Received: 24/02/2009

Respondent: Essex LAF

Core action B -Implementation -
The statement that a funding review is required as it is insufficient for maintenance or provision of staff is not acceptable, SoS BC has a statutory duty to fulfil the requirements of PROWs, funds must be identified and provided.

Comment

Representation ID: 20

Received: 24/02/2009

Respondent: Essex LAF

Table (no reference number!) -
The table does not provide any schedule for the outcomes of the proposed actions. A statement that the PROWIP has to be approved before a schedule can be established is not acceptable.
A proposed schedule for each action should be included with any necessary provisos.

Comment

Representation ID: 21

Received: 24/02/2009

Respondent: Essex LAF

Appendix 2 - Cycle Map
Although this map published by SoS BC indicates a Country Park to the north of the Borough, no mention is made of this in the ROWIP. Even if the provision of this is still tentative, there is no reason not to include the intention to provide PROWs within the park and to show how these would link to PROWs outside the area e.g. Roach Valley Way.