Section 6 - Drainage and Surfacing
The County Council as Highway Authority has a duty to maintain highways maintainable at public expense [Highways Act 1980 s41]. In some cases dual liability exists and the following policy states the County Council's position in this situation.
Where there are public footpath or bridleway rights on a route, which also has private vehicular rights, the County Council may consider making a contribution towards the costs of maintenance of the surface to the extent required for the level of public rights. .... The actual sum will reflect the cost to the County Council calculated as above, but may vary in accordance with the key principles. The contribution from the County Council would not normally exceed 10% of the cost of the appropriate maintenance works. [Policy 8-Executive Committee-Agenda item 4-29January2001]
This policy will ensure that the County Council does not waste money furnishing private rights where these are greater than the public rights over any given path. It applies to both drainage and surfacing works.
For example, where a landowner wishes to resurface an access track suitable for cars and heavy agricultural vehicles and the route is also recorded as a footpath. The County Council would not normally contribute more than 10% due to the minimal requirements of the public rights. However, if the circumstance, for example, relates to a significant safety issue where the County Council could be negligent, the contribution may be more in order to ensure public safety.
Where this relates to a bridge carrying higher private rights the County Council would normally only be liable for maintaining the running surface. The County Council is therefore not willing to fund work beyond its normal liability.
Relevant Legislation
Highways Act 1980
Section 100. Drainage of highways
Prioritising works
A decision to undertake drainage and/or surfacing works will be made on the basis of the three strategic principles:
- Prioritising routes where public safety could be substantially improved
- Prioritising routes according to the level of use
- Prioritising routes where the County Council's actions could result in a significant positive impact on the network
Practically this decision will be guided by the degree of damage to the existing surface. A site inspection will be required to estimate the level of use and the likely risk to public safety. The list below is a practical guideline (adapted from Kent CC) for prioritising drainage and surfacing works on the network.
Priority 1: Making the impassable passable
Places with deep ruts; founderous ground; streams crossing the path; standing water.
Priority 2: Serious surfacing problems
Very muddy or boggy ground only passable in dry weather or with wellingtons; places where people are deviating from the path because of poor ground; steep and slippery slopes with no steps; overgrown or blocked drainage.
Priority 3: Poor surface shape
Eroded paths with water flowing along the path in wet weather; absence of pipework for ditches; slippery surfaces; soft surfaces on routes used by pushchairs, wheelchairs.
Priority 4: Other problems
Blocked/damaged drainage not yet affecting the route; overgrown hedgerows and trees; local rutting which does not constitute a hazard.
It is likely that officers will need to close a route for the duration of any significant drainage or surfacing works. This can only be done by applying a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order [TTRO]. The TTRO procedures can be found here.
A PRoW requiring surfacing work will often have poor drainage; both problems should be tackled together. Appropriate drainage works should be carried out prior to determining possible surface treatments, as in many cases this is all that is required.
Go to section 6.1 - drainage.
Go to section 6.2 - surfacing.