Agenda item

Mr Andrew Riley, Chair of Northwood Hills Residents Association, and a regular bridleway user, gave a short presentation. During this he detailed the history of the Hillingdon Equestrian Advisory Committee (HEAC). He also highlighted the good work of HEAC undertaken with the Council which included the installation of a Pegasus Crossing on Ducks Hill Road in 2011. He noted that HEAC had undertaken a number of surveys and, at the time of the last survey in 2004, there had been 3,000 horses kept in the Borough, and and even greaternumber of riders. Mr Riley expressed concern about both the lack of support currently given to the organisation by the Borough and the amount of money allocated to maintaining and improving bridleways.

In response to questions, Mr Riley explained that the condition of bridleways was generally good, but that the experience was variable. He noted that there were problems with mud in some areas, which could cause horses to lose their shoes, and said that there were also issues with the cutting back of vegetation, which could be dangerous for riders. In addition, litter caused a particular problem around Ruislip Lido, owing to the numbers of visitors, and also around Haste Hill. However, Mr Riley believed that it was unrealistic to expect the entire network to be perfect all of the time.

Mr Paul Richards accepted that the Council had not been proactive in dealing with bridleways in the 1990's.  However, since then, the Council had invested both time and money in improving the Borough's bridleways. He explained that the budget for improving permissive footpaths and bridleways was now £38,000, and that planned maintenance such as strimming took place every year. Mr Richards noted that the feedback received from users was invaluable in helping to manage the bridleway network.

Mr Richards advised that the Council had stopped sending officers to HEAC meetings as the number of users attending had dropped significantly. However, he was happy to liaise with Mr Riley about the possibility of providing meeting rooms for HEAC, and also about including equestrian representatives on other fora, such as the Yeading Valley Working Party.

In response to questions, Mr Richards confirmed that three Councillors had been appointed to the Yeading Valley Working Party. He explained that a number of working parties had been set up to improve the environment, and that these groups also dealt with issues beyond the Council's responsibility, such as obstructions in watercourses, which were the responsibility of the Environment Agency.

Mr Malcolm Trudgeon explained that Ramblers groups were set up in areas where there was demand. The Hillingdon branch was now twenty five years old, which showed the continued enthusiasm for walking in the Borough. He explained that he organised the walks on Saturday mornings, which were generally within the Borough. About half of all of the Hillingdon Ramblers walks were at least partially within the Borough. Mr Trudgeon noted that there were some problems with footpaths, but that generally they were in good condition. He mentioned that significant improvements had been made to the footpaths at Iver Lane, and at the bottom of Uxbridge Golf Course. He also commended the Council's response to those issues that were reported.

Mr Colin Acreman, the Hillingdon Ramblers' footpath's officer, felt that the Council's response to issues raised was very good. The main problems were, in his view, litter in urban areas, and irresponsible disposal of dog waste. The litter issue was most prevalent on those footpaths which were short unmade cut-throughs, whilst dog waste could be found across the Borough. It was noted that the Ramblers would be undertaking a nationwide survey during 2015, the Big Path Watch, which would highlight these types of issues.

Consideration was given to the provision of more dog waste bins but it was noted that it was difficult to install new bins as residents living nearby often objected to them. There were currently more than 400 dog waste bins across the Borough which proved expensive to empty and could sometimes be subject to vandalism.

Although the Ramblers supported the scheme nationally, the local Walking for Health Scheme was managed by Hillingdon Council. Mr Acreman believed that the Scheme appeared to have led to the condition of some paths being improved.

Mr Russell explained that hard surfaced footpaths were cleaned either on a weekly, roughly monthly, or occasional/reactive basis. He noted that there was potential to regularise the monthly cleaning schedule and noted the importance of reporting problems.

Mr John Fern explained that statutory rights of way and adopted footpaths were inspected annually. There was a planned maintenance schedule for footpaths, and Blue Sky Development and Regeneration had been contracted to remove vegetation and litter pick annually.

In response to Members' questions, Mr Richards explained that a weed spraying programme existed across the Borough, but that regulations had restricted the type of chemicals which could be used. This meant that only plants which were already growing could be killed.

It was noted that, although the terms of reference had mentioned the Street Champions and Neighbourhood Watch co-ordinators, this was not a suggestion, but merely a point for the Committee to discuss. It was acknowledged that the Committee felt that it would be inappropriate to ask these groups to carry out activities such as littler picking.

The Chairman thanked witnesses and officers for their contributions to the review.

RESOLVED: That the evidence given by witnesses be noted, and used in the preparation of a final report.