You're very welcome. Just thought it was a golden opportunity to introduce yourself.
Well, let's move on to the formal business. Do we have any apologies of absence?
Thank you, Chairman. We have apologies from Councillor Seer and Councillor Gibson.
Thank you for that. Do we have any declarations of interest, members?
No? Moving swiftly on. Minutes of the previous meeting held 12 February. Have we all read
them? Do I have a proposer? Very happy to second. All in favour? Yes, that's nearly
all of us. That's superb. Thank you. And one abstention.
Right, move on to item 4, then, which is the appeal against prioritisation of the definitive
map modification order. Case 117. Who is going to introduce this? Thank you, Andrew.
So the background to the case, in 1990, the County Council initiated a case seeking
to establish if a public right of way exists over a 3.1 metre section between the A17 and
a point near to Griffin's farm. If I could just bring up slide number 2, if that's possible.
So on the slide there, it's the red line, running from the A17 up to where it says Hi,
Dyke
. A formal application was made by the British Horse Society in July 2020, which
seeks a modification order to record the restricted byway over the route in question. So the current
priority of the case and the original officer assessment, the case as initiated by the authority
in 1990 is ranked 21st out of 479 cases in the priority schedule that are awaiting progression.
It should be noted that there are 21 cases currently being progressed and that the rate
of the cases which have previously been given higher priority under awaiting officer availability
for progression. The British Horse Society's application made in July 2020 is linked to
the case, but it was not felt that any of the exception criteria applied to it wanted
to be raised in the priority and dealt with sooner. So just a quick thing on the location.
So as I've already pointed out, it runs north-south between the A17 and Hi Dyke near to Griffin's
Farm. It's intersected by two roads, Temple Road and Long Lane, which are both public
carriage roads. So that's an aerial photo just showing the landscape. The route is set
within the Royal Landscape and it runs along the Roman Road known as Irvine Street, which
connected the then provincial capital of London with York via Lincoln. It also forms part
of the Viking Way. So that's a 140-mile long distance walking route. That one's between
the Humber in North Lincolnshire and Oakham in Rutland and it crosses pretty much the
length of the county of Lincolnshire. The Viking Way was developed and promoted by Lincolnshire
County Council. All three sections of the route have the appearance of a green lane
with an unmetalled surface. So from Google Street View I've taken various photographs
at the entry points at each section. So moving on to the appeal. The appeal against the standing
of the modification or the case in the priority schedule was made by our own countryside access
and community project officer following a complaint made by the member of the public
about the state of the surface of the route caused by off-roaders. So I've got some photographs
which were submitted by the member of the public. So as you can see it's well rutted
in some of these photos. And again there's further rutting just slightly further up and
someone's sadly deposited some rubbish by the side of it. Comparing the photos against
aerial photography we believe that it relates to the middle section. So that's between
Temple Road and Long Lane leading up to what is Cocte Hat to Plantation on the map above.
The appeal does not seem to meet any of the first of the seven criterions in the priority
policy but consideration should be given as to whether they meet criterion eight where
the route will significantly assist in achieving a countryside and rights-of-way improvement
plan objective or statement of action as outlined in the countryside access and community projects
officer email of January 2024. They are core task 10 developed long distance routes and
trails, statement of action 18 identify and develop circular and linear recreational routes
to and from tourism and countryside sites, statement of action 19 improve the maintenance
and management of routes close to popular areas of the county and key tourism areas
and statement of action 20 improve maintenance and promotion of promoted routes and county
trails. So as pointed out a moment ago the route does form part of the Viking Way which
has been developed and promoted by us as an authority. Just as a bit of background there
has been a recent project looking to improve the work, that's included improved way marking,
changes to the route to improve safety and access to local facilities, access and service
and access improvements and information including maps, directions being updated and added to
the visit link and share website and the development of new shorter walking routes branching from
the Viking Way including a circular walk, incorporating the route in question. So these
are routes that will branch off to try and incorporate local habitations and services.
So the Viking Way is one of if not the premier walking route in Lincolnshire and is itself
a tourist attraction. I don't have any counts as to how well it's being used but earlier
this year the website received nearly 10,000 views just on the Viking Way alone. That tells
you how popular it is for people looking to visit Lincolnshire. It's a popular route and
we will be celebrating its 50th anniversary in 2026. In addition to criteria point 8 I
should point out that paragraph 3.6 of the priority policy states that the above numbered
exception criteria does not cover every eventuality and it is recognised that an exceptional circumstance
of there may be other reasons why it should benefit the public for a case to be considered
out of normal order. So the County Council's historic places manager has informed that
excavations of Irvine Street running across land under cultivation further north to the
Kain route have found the remains of the road well preserved in places. So this suggests
that in areas where the Irvine Street hasn't been ploughed and remains a feature in the
landscape such as this, it could contain high quality archaeological remains in a good state
of preservation. Therefore any use of the route by off-roaders has the potential to
cause damage by, damage to any archaeological remains that might exist under the surface.
The member of the public who complained about the state of the route informed that some
of the ruts allegedly caused by off-roaders were over half a metre deep and there's also
a lot of rubbish and broken car parts including a whole bumper and this was evidence in four
of the photographs shown earlier. The cutting up of the surface would also make it difficult
for members of the local communities and tourists to seek, seeking to walk the Viking way to
use this part of the route. So as it currently stands, only the bottom section, the stretch
between the A17 and Long Lane is recorded as a publicly maintainable highway and this
is highlighted blue in the plan up on the screen. The top and middle sections of the
route where the damage to the surface has occurred are not recorded as a public right
of way or highway, so these sections, so the control of these sections fall outside of
our jurisdiction. Should the route be recorded as a public right of way by the making and
confirmation of a modification order under the evidence driven statutory process, it
may bring these sections of the route into our jurisdiction and this would enable us
to consider what options are available to mitigate damage to the surface of the route
and any underlying archaeology to facilitate pedestrian use of this part of the Viking
way. So I've finished. Thank you very much. As I was saying earlier, as a 14 year old,
I can remember attending a cyclocross that was held on those very roads and I'm really
disappointed to see the state they're in. Do we have any other speakers? Firstly, Councillor
Kerrio. Thanks very much, Chairman and thank you
to Andrew for a very interesting presentation. Like you, Chairman, I was horrified to see
the state of that. I'm actually familiar with that little bit of a stretch of countryside,
both driving along the public highway and actually walking occasionally along those
routes, the cocked hat plantation on the map just triggered a memory or two there. I'm
taking a wild guess here, but I don't think those ruts are caused by legitimate agricultural
traffic. And I think there is a point here about segregating pedestrians, whether they're
going to and from work or recreational and horse riders from motorised vehicles, that
the two do not always mix, particularly in a countryside context.
So on that one ground alone, the matter of preserving the fabric of the right of way,
I would support this particular application. I was interested in the two criteria which
Mr Pickwell put forward, criteria 8 as being possibly something we could look at, should
we choose to go with the recommendation or the appeal, rather, and also the business
of exceptional circumstances, bearing in mind that we are talking about a nationally significant
route for which we are responsible, but at the moment which we do not have powers to
maintain. But I was also particularly noting the point made of additional walks which are
being considered, which could spring off this, which would fulfil those objectives we've
talked about in this committee and elsewhere in this council of generating a joined up
network of footpaths and indeed bridleways and encouraging use, both recreational and
non recreational of that network. So for all those reasons and being mindful
of the possible routes we could use to justify it, my reaction is to thank Mr Pickwell again
for the presentation and the facts of the case and to support what we have proposed
before us today. Thank you, Chairman.
Are you formally moving it, Councillor Karygiannis?
Yes, happy to move. >> Thank you.
Councillor Clark. >> Thanks, Chair.
It's obvious I'm going to support the application, but what I want is off you good people is
some guidance. When we sit here and we come up with an application
and that application moves up the scale, can we be in a danger then at a later date of
having another meeting with another application and then knocking that first one down that
we've already agreed? It just seems like we're going round and round
on this. And I know there's supposed to be a long date
to when all the applications are dealt with, and I'm not, you know, for one minute criticising
the council for doing it, but how long will one application be waiting for?
Yes, that's dependent upon pretty much the evidence driven process.
So there are factors within that that we don't have control over.
So when we investigate a case, if we determine to make an order, then members of the public
do have a right to object to that. And once they initiate that objection, we
then have to submit it to the Secretary of State and that's usually dealt with by way
of public inquiry and equally if we determine not to make a modification order, then the
applicant has the right to appeal that decision. So it's very unusual for a modification order
case to go through without objections being made either by a decision not to make an order
called or an order made and it not objected to, most commonly are objected to, so that
really does lengthen our timescales and it's just a factor that we just don't have control
over. When it comes to taking on these cases, they
do generally go to the bottom of the cases that are awaiting that have been previously
prioritised, so there's almost like a mini priority list within that as well, unless
of course I think in the last one where it was at all thought, it was felt by the council
without one because I think there were significant threats there that that should in that particular
instance go right to the top, so it was the next case to be worked on and that has now
actually started. But in terms of timescales, it's something
very difficult for us to provide just simply because we don't have a full control over
the process. >> Was that formally seconded?
Thank you. So we have moved the motion to move this as
a priority case and I think that's very reasonable considering it's the Viking way, which is
something we have promoted, but it is also a good walk as well.
So all in favour. Thank you very much.
That is clearly carried. Gives Andrew a bit more work to do, but this
is just the way it is and the legal bits around this do make things slow and it does I find
it just as frustrating as you do, Councillor Clark.
So with that, we've reached the end of our business and I'll bring the meeting to a formal
close. Sorry, I haven't closed it then.
Moving on. >> Our caseload is just over 500 cases at
the moment and we've received about 300 pretty much from in the last couple of years.
Do we have the capacity to deal with this process correctly and properly and that's
not questioning the calibre of your skill and understanding, but we haven't got enough
boots on the ground to deal with these, which is why we're getting this continuously reoccurring
prioritisation, stepping down. Should we be actually increasing our capacity
to deal with these or are we just happy to let them wait, because as I understand it,
if after 12 months we haven't responded, they can go directly to the Secretary of State
and we are high bound to respond. >> That's right.
So if we haven't determined an application within 12 months, then the applicant has the
right to seek a direction from the Secretary of State.
In terms of resourcing, Mr Fletcher might be the better one to answer that question.
Thank you for just coming on there. You're absolutely right, that at the moment
the resources are stretched in terms of the amount that we've received.
I think it is 62% of our cases are now from one particular source and they all came in
in the last two years. So each one does take a significant amount
of time. What we're doing on that is we've already
raised and I'm talking to my manager, the head of environment, about what we can do
resources wise and get more resource in. We've also been working with Andrew to look
at how we can streamline the process to make it quicker and easier for the officers that
we have to make a decision. Now, we can't control -- after we've made
a decision and made an order, we can't control that process as much as we would like, because
it could disappear up to the planning inspector, but we're focusing on trying to get to the
point of being able to make the decision and make the order, and then that's as far as
we're able to take it on a lot of them. So we're currently looking at some more resources
and some more staff for that and just trying to work it through.
The new legislation, which sadly is a little bit delayed, but when that comes in, that
also allows us to make a preliminary, evidential test for all of the existing applications
and new ones. That will give us the power where they don't
meet certain criteria, and I'm waiting for the regulations to tell me which criteria
that is, but that will give us the power to dismiss them without needing to take them
any further, and that I'm hoping will bring down some of the applications that we've got,
and it's just a case of trying to do as much as we can, because we've been completely swamped.
I've heard what you said, and again, as I understand it, the person who is making these
applications on behalf of the - it's an individual, but representing those two organisations - would
be deemed now to be an expert, and the evidence he's submitting from tithe maps, enclosure
awards, old ordnance, so-and-so maps - is evidentiary secure, because if you look at
any one area, you'll see they're discounting some and they're advancing others.
We would - win and lose isn't right, but actually, what they're proposing in many cases makes
a great deal of sense, as in this one, but at the moment, they've also said that they
wouldn't use that 12-month rule.
I think there's an informal agreement between us and them, or they've indicated that they
won't jump the gun and use the 12-month rule.
Do we understand that or not, or is that they're Damoclean sort of hanging over us, that they're
200, well-evidenced, that DMMOs could just - if they wait for 12 months, they could just
go to the sector of state?
It is a sort of Damocles hanging over us, unfortunately.
Whilst they can make an agreement that they wouldn't do it, they would still retain the
power to do it.
We have recently had one in Well, where we've been given a direction, and the timescale
that we were given by the planning inspector was six months to make the decision.
So it - and of course, once those come in, that messes the whole work plan up entirely
as well.
So there isn't much answer I can give you than just to agree that actually it hangs
over us, and we just need to work with them to try and resolve them all.
Thank you very much for the support of the officers, I think that's a real good idea.
Ian, did you want to come back in before we wrap up?
I just wanted to pick up on the comments which we've just heard, and I think they're absolutely
right to be made.
But I just wondered, we are trapped at the moment in ever-decreasing circles because
we have an ever-increasing number of these cases being brought, we have finite resource
to deal with them, we already have a very, very significant backlog.
What we do in this committee is basically move things up or down in terms of the importance,
and as Councillor Clark alluded to a few moments ago, if we move one up by definition, we can't
move all of them up, something else is moving down on the list, and the list is already
very long, and there are, I won't call them professional, but there are people absolutely
legitimately bringing an awful lot of these to our attention, so my question is, can we
examine ways of dealing with this differently?
Because it is quite clear that where we are now is not sustainable.
We cannot simply apply resource from elsewhere within a finite council budget to deal with
this because that would be resource which would have to come from somewhere else.
It's all right for a member to say, can we look at different ways of working, and I'm
very well aware that there is a legal framework and probably a practice framework within which
we work, but could you comment briefly on what options we do have, and maybe through
you, Chairman, we could ask the committee to ask you to look at ways of working either
across the board or with individual applicants, for want of a better word, which can somehow
streamline a process which is just out of hand?
I think I've asked those questions previously.
We are waiting, I think the Act of Parliament went through 2016, and we're still waiting
for DEFRA to come up with their guidance, so we are with the next month of fun for everybody.
We will be waiting on DEFRA, and until DEFRA do that guidance, our officers are stuck between
a rock and a hard place, but I would tend to agree with what you said, that if the cases
are being prepared that thoroughly by these people, whether or not we could actually use
that to speed the things through, but we can't do within the present framework, so it's very
difficult and I'm very supportive of the officers.
Thank you.
I thought it might be helpful if I come in and explain what we are doing to streamline.
So the current approach has always been to develop a very detailed case report, which
would then save time when it gets objected to, because it would become a Statement of
Case, which is another large document you need to prepare for the planning inspector.
I'm aware that you've been involved with Rights of Way for ages, so I do apologise if I'm
telling you things you already know, but what we've been exploring, what we've been exploring
with Andrew is what I call the minimum viable product, would be the term you were looking
for.
We have now got a template report set up, there was already a template, but it's reducing
the amount of time that it takes to make a decision.
We've gone through the standard evidence list to have a cut-off point where we've assessed
as much as we can, we're not going to try and look at every last piece of paper that's
ever been looked at unless there's a real need, so we're looking at reducing the amount
of time, the amount of evidence we look at so that we've got, as I say, the minimum viable
product, a template report so that they're just not having to write a blank piece of
paper, and the other thing is looking at how we're looking at resources to develop evidence
packs for the officers so that they're not trying to do - they basically can get it all
in one piece in front of them, look through and make a decision.
So we're aiming to build up the officers so they're able to get about four done a year,
which is about the national standard, but we're also then looking at mixing the roles
so they can do some public path orders as well, so there's a few things that we are
looking at to streamline.
With 500 cases, there is still a large mountain for us to climb, but we're doing the best
we can in that sense.
I did like what you were saying about whether we can get the applicant to do - if they are
experts perhaps there's a particular way that they can present their evidence.
At the moment it's just being given to us as a firehouse of information, but there may
be some ways of exploring what they're doing there to see if we can shorten it down, certainly
with the ramblers ones.
Quite happy to support them helping themselves and relieving the officers, and I'm also quite
happy with the thought that we've got a process that puts it in an appropriate format for
the officers with the technical expertise to do it.
That doesn't mean to say they have to assemble the packages themselves, so you could actually
streamline it, make them work harder, but I think there is the will within your department
to actually get through a lot more of these.
So thank you very much.
Any other comments?
Well, that's a real good meeting.
Thanks very much, officers, for your input.
Thanks very much, members, for your input, and have a safe journey home.
Thank you.
[END]