Minutes of a meeting held on 25th November, 2015.


Present:  Councillor E. Williams (Chairman); Mr. F. Coleman, Mr. J.J. Herbert, Ms. C. Lucas, Mr. R. Pittard, Mr. R. Simpson, Mr. G. Thomas and Mr. R. Traherne.


Mr. J. Wyatt, Mr. S. Pickering, Mr. G. Teague and Mrs. S. Thomas (Vale of Glamorgan Council).



1.     Apologies for Absence


These were received from Ms. A. Haden, Mr. H.S. McMillan, Ms. E. Nash and Mr. B. Guy and from Ms. S. Tindal (Natural Resources Wales)


2.     Minutes


AGREED – T H A T the minutes of the two meetings held on 30th September, 2015 be approved as a correct record.


Referring to the list of projects which had been included within the 2015-16 Rights of Way Improvement   Plan (ROWIP) funding programme, Mr. F. Coleman referred to some sections of the Millennium Heritage Trail as being poorly signed or not particularly well   kept.  He questioned whether some kind of prioritisation exercise should take place, rather than just identifying issues (possibly in a similar way as occurred in respect of maintenance   issues).  Mr. G. Teague indicated that   the way-marking process would include reverting to an older / better design of disc.  Officers were currently  looking to produce work programmes across the county and discussions had   commenced with Valeways.  The Adopt a Path Scheme would also be utilised. 


A short discussion ensued as to the type of stone used in dealing with rollback following coastal   erosion.  Mr. Teague confirmed that Type 1 quarry stone was used.  Mr. R. Pittard informed Members that some Local Authorities were trialling blast furnace slag (which was a cheaper option than quarry stone). 


3.     Review of Rights of Way Improvement Plans: Guidance to Local Highway Authorities in Wales: Consultation Draft   –


In May last year the then Minister for Culture and Sport made it clear that Local Authorities would be required to revise the Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) for their area and that Welsh Government (WG) would issue Statutory Guidance to support this.  


The Vale of Glamorgan’s ROWIP was published in November 2007 and should therefore be republished before November 2017


Natural Resources Wales(NRW) had been asked to carry out targeted consultation with key stakeholders including Local Access Forums.  This was being delivered through the following:  

  •   production of Draft Guidance which had been produced with input from the ROWIP Guidance   Review Working Group (which comprised Local Authority and national park representatives, WG and NRW staff)
  •   issuing the Draft Guidance by e-mail for targeted Consultation: the consultation period ran until 27th November, 2015
  •   supporting a National Access Forum subgroup meeting that was held on 2nd November,   2015.

Responses made would be collated and considered by NRW and the Working Group before the Draft   Guidance was finalised and NRW advice issued to WG by the end of February 2016.


The Draft ROWIP Guidance revised guidance issued in December 2002 which supported the introduction of the first ROWIPs.  The draft covered the following areas: 

  •   Context and Scope of ROWIPs
  •   Developing a New ROWIP
  •   Preparing the New Assessment
  •   Preparing the New Statement of Action
  •   Developing and Renewing Delivery Strategies
  •   Publicising and Publishing the ROWIP
  •   Implementing the ROWIP. 

The guidance was updated to account for recent legislative changes, including sections incorporating: 

  •   The Well-being of Future Generations Act 2015
  •   The Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013
  •   The Equality Act 2010. 

A significant area of change was in acknowledging feedback to make ROWIPs more flexible and   responsive to changing circumstances.


As a result the draft guidance introduced ‘Delivery Statements’ encouraging such statements to be   annexed to the main plan.  Delivery statements were intended to comprise focused work plans that were linked to the ROWIP objectives but sat outside of the main plan.  This allowed them to be reviewed and adapted periodically without the need to republish the whole plan.


Other matters considered within the guidance included the possibility of jointly producing ROWIPs with neighbouring Authorities, which might have relevance in the light of any   prospective local government reorganisation.   The prospect of establishing an index of authorised structures was   also raised.


Mr. Teague considered there to be a potential role for the LAF in terms of the development and   review of a Delivery Statement.


Mr. Coleman considered the scope of the consultation document to be fairly prescriptive in terms of what was potentially going to be required and he asked what level of resources Mr. Teague envisaged (if any) were likely to be made available to   Authorities.  Given the statutory   requirement under ROWIP legislation, Authorities were being told that they would be unable to use, for example, ROWIP grants (as Local Authorities were already being paid to undertake the statutory duty).  Mr. Teague considered there might be a possibility of being able to use maintenance funding.  Nevertheless, Mr. Coleman suggested that the process would represent a significant commitment for a small team of officers.


Mr. Traherne asked whether the new ROWIP, once developed, would in fact be hugely different from the existing version.  Mr. Teague responded that there were likely to be a lot of similarities. 


Mr. Pittard commented that similar issues had been raised within the Bridgend Local Access Forum.  He commented that he had seen no reference to the linking of the ROWIP process to potential new Local Authority structures currently being aired.


Responding to a question as to the position regarding the ROWIP process in the event of Local Government Reorganisation taking place, Mr. Teague alluded to the potential difficulties in terms of  attempting to undertake the exercise on a cross-boundary basis (for example,   in terms of Public Path Orders).  There was a general consensus amongst Members of the Forum in terms of recording   concern regarding the potential resourcing of such a programme and also the fact that Members considered it would be more prudent to await the outcome of any Local Government reorganisation exercise before the production of a new ROWIP became a statutory requirement. 


Mr. Teague considered the Council was likely to receive ROWIP grant funding for 2016/17 and, as such, he confirmed he would prefer to progress the ROWIP process as a separate entity (i.e. and not to consider any form of joint approach with another Authority).


AGREED – T H A T the Forum’s response to the Consultation document include: 

  •   Expressing concern that sufficient resources should be made available for the assessment   and publication of new ROWIPs.  Whilst funding was previously being made available, the pressure on budgets was such that undertaking the production of new ROWIPs without additional resources would simply displace maintenance or other work;
  •   The view of the Forum that the exercise generally and consideration of, for example,   production of joint ROWIPs, would be capable of being considered more meaningfully after the Welsh Assembly elections in May 2017 and once greater clarity regarding local government reorganisation existed;
  •   The Forum considers the process for conducting the assessment to be onerous and, as   above, likely to be resource intensive.  The Forum requests that the consultation and assessment requirements be relaxed in order to reflect the review and update of the previous ROWIP.  It was appreciated that this might require changes to primary legislation.   


4.     Active Travel Consultation –  


In September 2014, the Welsh Government (WG) introduced the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013.  The Act made it a legal requirement for Local Authorities in Wales to map and plan for suitable routes for active travel within certain settlements specified by the WG.  The settlements identified in the Vale of Glamorgan were: Barry, Penarth, Llantwit Major, Cowbridge, Dinas Powys, Llandough and Rhoose.


The first stage of the Act required the Council to produce ‘existing routes maps’ that must be submitted to the WG by 22nd January, 2016 and as part of the process of identifying the existing routes, the Council had launched a public consultation exercise until 18th December to gather the views of local residents and key stakeholders


Active Travel had a 15 year implementation plan and within the next two years, a further integrated map   needed to be produced.  “Active travel” meant walking and cycling as an alternative means to motorised transport for   the purpose of making every day journeys.    An “active travel journey” meant a journey made to or from a workplace or educational establishment or in order to access health, leisure or other   services or facilities. 


Under the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2009, Local Authorities must make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way they exercise their functions.  In doing so, Authorities must consult, amongst others, representatives of persons who used, or were likely to use, services provided by the Authority.  The duties created by the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 were drafted   with these duties in mind.  The general equality duty under the Equalities Act 2010 required Public Authorities, in the exercise of their functions, to have due regard to the need to: 

  •   eliminate discrimination
  •   advance equality of opportunity
  •   foster good relations between those with a protected characteristic under that Act and   those without.  

In exercising functions under the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013, Local Authorities also had to   ensure that they were meeting their duties under the Equalities Act 2010. 


The consultation documents were attached to the report and were also available online at:  


Ms. Lucas asked how the definition of “settlements” had been determined.  Mr. Teague understood it to be based on a population basis, with perhaps “buffer zones” built on.  Recreational routes were specifically excluded and the provision was primarily within urban areas.  A number of Members, whilst supportive of the principle of the Active Travel scheme, considered it would potentially be   difficult to implement at a time of generally diminishing resources.  There was also a suggestion that take-up might well be limited. 


Given the nature of the document / survey form, the Forum had no specific comments to record. 


5.     Draft Annual Report 2014/15


The Secretary presented the draft Annual Report 2014/15 for consideration. 


AGREED – T H A T the draft Plan be endorsed for publication, subject to a further promotion / highlighting of ROWIP works being included within the document. 


6.     Dates of Future Meetings-


Consideration was given to potential dates for meetings in 2016. 


AGREED – T H A T meetings be held on the following dates (all commencing at 17:30): 

  •   Wednesday 24th February, 2016
  •   Wednesday 25th May, 2016
  •   A date to be agreed in July, 2016
  •   Wednesday 23rd November, 2016.