6. Evaluation

Despite the relatively low rate of response to the questionnaire, the responses received gave a good indication of the public perception of the network. It is evident that the network serves most users adequately, albeit some improvements are required.

The results of the BVPI 178 Survey shown in Section 4 demonstrates a high pass rate for 2003 - 2004 when a 5% sample of the network was assessed.

The full network was assessed during 2004 and it highlighted a lack of signing. This was addressed during 2005 and is reflected in the high pass rates for 2006 onwards.

(1) Analysis of network

In addition to the assessment through the questionnaire, a desktop study was undertaken to assess the network as recorded on the DMS. This study involved considering all available relevant records held within Southend Borough Council offices.

The results of this study, outlined below, are highlighted in the Statement of Action as core actions.

• It is recognised that the bridleway network is very minimal with only 3 bridleways recorded within the Borough.
• There are routes that horse riders use to take them into the neighbouring County of Essex but these involve some on-road riding. Due to the urban nature of the Borough it is very difficult to create additional off-road bridleways, although consideration will be given where appropriate.
• There are 4 footpaths that are consistently not available for use, 3 have been built upon and 1 is permanently cropped. The former will require extinguishment Orders. The latter is subject to a proposed diversion and / or claim as the route recorded on the DMS is not available on the ground although an alternative route is in place and well used.
• There are 12 culs-de-sac footpaths within the urban area.
• There are a number of PRoW that have been formerly adopted as part of the road network, but are still shown on the DMS.
• There are 9 footpaths, 2 bridleways and 1 byway that exist as links to the County of Essex.
• There are no routes that change status at the Borough / County boundary although there is 1 footpath that stops at the Borough / County boundary.
• There are 2 routes that appear to be available on the ground as a different route to that recorded on the DMS.
• A number of routes available on the ground and recorded on the definitive map are not recorded satisfactorily on the accompanying statement.
• There are outstanding enquiries / claims regarding bridleway routes that are not recorded on the DMS.
• There is 1 outstanding enquiry / claim regarding a footpath that is not recorded on the DMS.
• It is recognised that there is little or no published information available regarding the public right of way network.