Core Action A

Requirement:

Process modification orders and update the DMS. Southend Borough Council have a statutory duty to keep the DMS under continuous review¹³. This includes processing modification orders, public path orders, researching anomalies and processing claims.

Action:

The anomalies described in Section 6 above need to be corrected as claims and Modification Orders are processed accordingly. The DMS then needs to be consolidated.

Implementation:

This should be treated as a priority as, currently, the authority is not delivering its duty in this respect.

Core Action B

Requirement:

Maintain a network that is adequately signed, well maintained and free from obstruction.

Action:

Regularly survey the PRoW network.

A random 5% selection of the PRoW network will be surveyed bi-annually in accordance with the previous BVPI 178 standards. The remaining network will be surveyed annually, where possible, to monitor the condition of the entire network.

Implementation:

General maintenance of the PRoW network is funded through revenue. However a review of funding for this duty is required as the current budget is insufficient to deliver a proactive maintenance programme or to provide for a dedicated Public Rights of Way Officer.

Where possible, short-term maintenance requirements will be reduced by undertaking improvements to the network utilising capital funding through LTP2 programmes.

Core Action C

Requirement:

Provide more cycle routes and bridleways where possible.

Action:

The Cycling Strategy in LTP2 sets out to complete the cycle network within the Borough. Some links will encompass public footpaths. Where possible, legally implement cycle tracks where conversion of public footpaths is required. The Prittle Brook cycle track will be constructed as soon as funding becomes available.

Where possible, provide bridleways through creation or upgrade.

Implementation:

Funding to be sought through LTP2 schemes, S106 agreements ( e.g seeking contribution from developers through the planning process), Cycling England Demonstration Town Project and external bodies, where possible (e.g the Prittle Brook Greenway project is featured within the RSL 'regeneration framework').

Core Action D

Requirement:

Make the public rights of way network more accessible to all with reference to the DES.

Action:

Provide access for all where required, as far as is reasonably possible.

Consideration to be given to types of surface and drop kerbs where applicable.

Where required, maintenance of routes used by the less-able will take priority. A table of priorities will be established for future reference.

Implementation:

Funding to be sought through discussions with policy holders as these works come out of general highway maintenance funds but could also be supported through DDA and LTP2 funding.

Core Action E

Requirement:

Improve cross boundary links as well as those between public rights of way and other modes of transport.

Action:

Identify sites where improvement links may be possible. As the network is predominantly urban, these may be found more around the fringes than in the centre of the Borough and to this end working together with neighbouring authorities is essential. However, consideration will be given to the provision of access links wherever in the Borough they are identified.

Implementation:

This action requires further study before it can be taken forward.

Core Action F

Requirement:

Improve information sources to the public.

Action:

Promotion of the PRoW network and its benefits to health, safer journeys etc will be undertaken initially by submitting articles in OUTLOOK, the free magazine.

Descriptive leaflets will be made available for the less-abled.

As much information as possible will be published on the Borough council website, which is also accessible to visually impaired users.

Implementation:

This will require action from a PRoW Officer. Additional budget will be required to enable delivery of initial publicity in all modes described above. Once in place, staffing to keep the information sources up to date will need to be reviewed.

Apart from the staffing issues, costs should be low as submissions to the free OUTLOOK magazine are funded by the Council.

Requirement for further funding would need to be investigated.