Secret Paths in Bedford and Beyond

No signpost on Thurleigh Bridleway No. 56 where it leaves Whitwick Green Road. Grid TL 04324 59026
(Click image to enlarge it)

The Bedford Times and Citizen (our free local newspaper) has published an article on the scandal of missing signposts in Bedford and beyond - See HERE. The article arises from a press release (in full below).

Thanks Times and Citizen - Bedford Borough Council has shown a greater interest in this issue now.


No sign of Thurleigh Bridleway No. 56 which runs across the cultivated field from the vicinity of the tree second from left.
(Click image to enlarge it)

No signpost on Thurleigh Footpath No. 37 where it leaves the far (south) side of Milton Road. Grid TL 03986 57834. The footpath is signed on the north side (although it can't be used because it is obstructed).
(Click image to enlarge it)

OPEN SPACES SOCIETY NEWS RELEASE

‘END THE SCANDAL OF SECRET PATHS IN BEDFORD AND BEYOND’

Fifty years on from the Countryside Act 1968, which required local authorities to signpost a public path where it leaves a road, many paths still lack signposts.

The Open Spaces Society*, Britain’s oldest national conservation body, now calls for an end to this scandal.

The society and the Ramblers were responsible for winning the signposting provision which was enshrined in section 27 of the Countryside Act 1968.  This states that a highway authority (county or unitary council) must erect and maintain a signpost where a public path leaves a metalled road.  The signpost must show the status of the path, eg whether it is a footpath (open only to pedestrians), a bridleway (walkers, horse-riders and cyclists) or a byway (open also to mechanically-propelled vehicles).  If the authority considers it convenient and appropriate, the destination of the path and distance to that destination may also be given.

Says Brian Cowling, the Open Spaces Society’s local correspondent for Bedford Borough: ‘Signposts are important because they give people the confidence to use and enjoy public paths, which are public rights of way and highways in law.  Walkers, riders and cyclists should be able to rely on the council to signpost paths where they leave metalled roads, but here they cannot.  Bedford Borough has failed in its statutory duty to signpost paths in the parish of Thurleigh (photographs attached) and elsewhere.

‘Although paths are marked on Ordnance Survey maps, many people are deterred from using them if there is no indication that a route is a public path.  In any case, paths can be closed or moved making the maps out of date.

‘Without a signpost, a path can be a well-kept secret.

‘That is why the Open Spaces Society pressed for the inclusion of the signposting duty in the Countryside Act and why I am dismayed to find that there are still many missing signposts.’

‘I am working to persuade the council to use its scant resources on its statutory duties, such as signposting and removing illegal obstructions.  Unfortunately, the borough continues to give too much attention to its discretionary powers of processing applications to move paths, often against the public interest.

‘In this fiftieth anniversary year of the Countryside Act 1968 which gave highway authorities a duty to signpost paths, we call on Bedford Borough and other councils to make a real effort to ensure all their paths are marked and to give priority to its statutory duties on public rights of way.’

Photos attached:

Missing signpost on Thurleigh Bridleway No. 56 where it leaves Whitwick Green Road.

Missing signpost on Thurleigh Footpath No. 37 where it leaves the far (south) side of Milton Road. The footpath is signposted on the north side.

Brian reported both these missing signposts to Bedford Borough Council in January 2015.

*The Open Spaces Society was founded in 1865 and is Britain’s oldest national conservation body.  It campaigns to protect common land, village greens, open spaces and public paths, and people’s right to enjoy them.

Bedford Borough Council Officers Like To Do It (Part 2 of 2) Ultra Vires

Wilden Footpath No. 40
(Click image to enlarge it)

Last year, Bedford Borough Council officers made a total of 20 public path orders to create, extinguish and divert public rights of way under the provisions of the Highways Act 1980. Officers have since abandoned 16 of those orders because they did not follow the correct legal procedures when making them. However, it now turns out that none of the 20 orders should have been made in the first place because the officers did not have the authority to make them.

 

Council officers have claimed that the powers to make public path orders have been delegated to them by the Planning Committee. They have not.

 

Ironically, this has come to light because officers decided to stop publishing public path order details thereby making it more difficult for the public to find out what officers were doing but serving to make me more determined to do so.

 

This year, Bedford Borough Council officers have made a total of 8 public path orders (seven under the provisions of the Highways Act and one under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act). I considered them to be invalid and objected to them for that reason.

 

My claim that all the orders were invalid because officers had acted ultra vires in making them was dismissed by Chief Executive Philip Simpkins when I wrote to him in October. He said he was “confident” that all was well.

 

This month I was politely asked if I would withdraw my objections to the 8 orders. A deadline of 17 November was set – otherwise, I was told “ … the Authority currently intends to submit those orders to the Planning Inspectorate Office for determination by an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State.”

 

However, the penny seems to have dropped because I have now been informed that all 8 path orders will be abandoned. I await answers to my awkward questions which I’m told will be addressed within the next two weeks (that’ll be by 5 December).

 

That’s 16 orders abandoned, 8 orders to be abandoned and 4 that should have been abandoned but weren’t out of the 28 Highways Act path orders made over the last two years – probably a local authority record. And that’s only counting the Highways Act orders. I’ve not added up those made under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act.

 

Why am I angry about this?

 

For a start it’s an appalling case of incompetence leading to the unnecessary waste of resources. I doubt the cost could be calculated in terms of time and working hours but in financial terms it must amount to thousands of pounds.

 

Bedford Borough Council has the legal duty: “To assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway for which they are the highway authority, including any roadside waste which forms part of it.” (Highways Act 1980, Section 130(1).

 

But the Council’s officers choose not to, to an extent, so numerous paths are unavailable.

 

The same various powers can be used at the Council's discretion for other, non-statutory rights of way purposes – things that it can do but doesn’t have to, like diverting paths for instance. But officers choose to, to an extent. And then cock it up.

 

There’s no sign that council officers are concerned nor will there be until elected members and the public do more to hold them to account.

Bedford Borough Council Officers Like To Do It (Part 1 of 2) Behind Closed Doors

In 2013, the then Assistant Director of Environment and Communities at Bedford Borough Council approved public path order making procedures. It’s a well-written set of procedures contained in a three-and-a-half A4-sized page document offering: council officers clear, comprehensive working practices and; the public an explanation of a transparent, accountable process, snappily entitled: “Procedure for exercise of delegated powers in respect of public path orders under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA90), the Highways Act 1980 (HA80) and the Cycle Tracks Act 1984 (CTA84)". It’s a good and proper title but I’ll refer to it as the “Procedures Document”.

• “What’s delegated powers?” I hear someone mumble. 
• A local authority can delegate any of its functions to its officers. For example, it can direct that public path orders will be determined by council officers rather than, say, the council’s planning committee.
• Bedford Borough Council has done just that; it has delegated particular public path order making powers to nominated council officers as set out in the “Planning Committee Scheme of Delegations to Officers” which is contained in the Council’s Constitution. 

Back to the Procedures Document: where one of the procedures requires a Case Officer to submit a report relating to a public path order proposal to a Deciding Officer. The report sets out the case for or against a proposal with a recommendation that the proposal be approved or refused. At the same time (seven working days before a decision is scheduled to be taken) the Case Officer’s Report is published on the Council’s website. This is good practice and one that the Council can fairly claim is in accordance with the Local Government Transparency Code it says they adhere to.

Recently, following a review behind closed doors and without any consultation, a decision was taken to change the procedures. Despite requests for information, I haven’t been able to establish what the amendments amount to nor who approved them, although the immediate effects are that consultation periods have been reduced and reports have not been published. Since abandoning the Procedures document, in August I think, officers have administered the public path order process as they see fit.

In September, council officers made their first public path orders of the year – eight of them. No reports were published prior to the making of the Orders and none have been published since.

In October, when the path orders appeared, I requested copies of the reports. They can be mine to read, I was eventually told, but it would have to be treated as a request pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, the reports would be redacted, it could take up to 20 working days to supply them, and I’d have to pay £50. Yes Dear Reader, just £50 for something previously free, un-redacted and available before a decision was taken.

A compromise was called for (that’s me compromising with me) – fifty quid is a bit steep: I’d request just two for starters and save for the full set, to be told that there’ll be no charge for two reports. Buy eight for £50 or two at a time free strikes me as an odd business model.

It’s November and I now have three reports. I’d asked for Report Nos. 1 and 2 but was sent Nos. 1 and 3 (both incomplete) but have since received the missing parts and the absent No. 2. The next two are on order. I’ve been given different reasons at different times why the reports haven’t been published, none of which add up. I have had my own suspicion which is essentially that they’d rather do it without us watching.

It made me even more curious because I couldn’t help thinking that delaying tactics, among other things, were in play here. Or is it just me: CLICK

My curiosity led me to the Council’s Constitution and what I found was .. well, quite shocking but you’ll have to wait to find out until the next instalment later this week:

Bedford Borough Council Officers Like To Do It (Part 2 of 2) Ultra Vires.

Bedford Borough Council - Wasting Time

Wilden Footpath No. 6 - obstructed through gardens
(Click image to enlarge it)

Part of Wilden Footpath No. 6 cannot be used because it is obstructed through gardens as it has been for years. See HERE.

 

September 2016: Bedford Borough Council consults on a proposal to divert the path. See the consultation plan HERE. 

 

I reply by return: “The Open Spaces Society is very pleased to see your proposal and wholeheartedly supports it.” Other consultees including Wilden Parish Council, I know, are just as pleased.

 

October 2016: Consultation period ends.

 

When consultations are complete the procedure for the case officer is to compile, submit and publish a report recommending that orders should be made or not. A week after publication, another council officer approves or refuses the recommendation. If approved the way is clear to make orders which shouldn’t really take more than a couple of weeks.

 

January 2017: I write to ask about what I consider to be the inordinate delay.

 

The terse reply (in my own words) – "we only have a small team and we are busy doing other things as well. The two orders are being drafted,"
[An hour or so with a cuppa? A morning with more than one cuppa - max!]
"a decision to make the orders is expected within the next 6 weeks and orders made by the end of May."
[Whole morning writing a report? Cuppa? Ten minutes to read and approve it.]

 

May 2017. No report. No orders. No proper explanation or apology.

 

July 2017. I request information to be told that a report will be published within 4 weeks and the orders made by 25 August.

 

September 2017: End of year one. No report. No orders. No proper explanation (other than to say, after I contact the council, that they will get back to me in two weeks), No apology, and no footpath of course. I lodge an official complaint and wait.

 

It has to be done but I suspect that I am wasting my time just like the Borough Council is wasting it.

Bedford Borough Council - Wasting Public Money

Wilstead Footpath No. 8
Obstructed by stable block, shed, gates and fences

Bedford Borough Council has wasted thousands of pounds of public money by making an order to divert a footpath and then formally abandoning it because council officers forgot to tell anyone that an order had been made. Unapologetic and unrepentant, council officers plan to spend thousands more on a new order to divert the path.

 

The path in question is Wilstead Footpath No. 8.

 

Earlier this year I wrote about a proposal to divert the path. See HERE. What I didn’t know at the time of writing was that an order had already been made in 2013. No one outside the council knew either - because the council never gave notice of the making of the order which is a statutory requirement.

 

The path cannot be used because it is obstructed by the landowner. It seems reasonable to me that the council, whose legal duty it is to protect our public rights of way, should either take enforcement action against the obstructions or require the landowner to apply and pay for a diversion. It should not be for the council to assist a landowner to get round path law, and when it does choose to do so it shouldn’t cock up the procedure. Having wasted thousands, the council will use more public money to pay (to the tune of £3000 according to a council estimate) for a new diversion order.

 

See the council’s letter withdrawing the order HERE.

 

Despite what is said in the first paragraph of the letter, neither I nor the Open Spaces Society were consulted about the 2013 order (not that we have to be consulted). “The Authority” does not mean “Bedford Borough Council”; it means council officers on behalf of the council. And you won’t find any mention of costs, reasons for the delay or an apology for the cock up which I attribute to council officer incompetence and lack of elected councillors’ interest.

 

Regrettably, Bedford Borough Council has wasted more public money. On 4 August, “the Authority” also resolved to withdraw another twelve public path orders because they are flawed, with an officer resolution awaited on a further two flawed orders. The letter regarding the twelve (but not the cheque) is in the post I think.

Priorities

Looking towards Keysoe

As the highway authority, Bedford Borough Council has various legal powers which enable it to carry out its statutory public rights of way duties including: “To assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway for which they are the highway authority, including any roadside waste which forms part of it.” (Highways Act 1980, Section 130(1). The same various powers can be used at the Council's discretion for other, non-statutory rights of way purposes – things that it can do but doesn’t have to, like diverting paths for instance.

 

Our Council says it does not have sufficient resources to do everything it is required to, so complaints regarding its failure to fulfil its duties are not always followed up and resolved.

 

My argument is that if the Council doesn’t have enough resources then it must first carry out all its statutory duties before spending time and money (if any remain) to do the things it can but doesn’t have to. Simple right?

 

But our council officers (for it is they, not our elected members who decide) choose to do otherwise.

 

Last year, Bedford Borough Council made twelve public path orders to change the public rights of way network in the parishes of Thurleigh and Ravensden because the landowner wants the paths, some of which he has obstructed, laid out differently. However, the orders were flawed so they will have to be abandoned and the Council has said that they will make new orders. Let me call these: Jobs-to-Do - Nos. 1 & 2.

 

The Council also made public path orders in the interests of the landowner at the parishes of Stonely (Cambs), Pertenhall & Little Staughton. The orders were flawed as well so will have to be abandoned and the Council has said they too will be re-made: Jobs-to-Do – Nos. 3 & 4. Consultations have been carried out for separate public path orders at Bletsoe; Colmworth; Staploe; Wilden; Willington; Wilstead; and Wyboston: Jobs-to-Do - Nos. 5 to 11.

 

There is a small backlog of applications for Definitive Map Modification Orders (DMMOs). DMMO applications can be made by any member of the public where they consider there is evidence that a path should be added to or deleted from the Definitive Map and Statement. The Council is supposed to deal with applications within 12 months of receipt but hasn’t. And an opposed DMMO made in 2006 awaits action. More Jobs-to-Do. And more besides. I think you get the picture.

 

It would seem sensible to me, necessary even, to get to get rid of or get to work on the list of jobs outstanding. But no - our Council chooses instead to add another three jobs to its list. Last month consultees were “notified” that an order will be made to divert a footpath in the interests of a landowner at Wilden, another order will be made to divert a footpath in the interests of a landowner at Dean & Shelton (both to field edges where they will be fenced in), and an order will be made to extinguish a harmless bridleway at Oakley, at a cost to the public purse.

 

It seems wrong to me that Bedford Borough Council chooses to use its powers to change the public rights of way network as a result of applications from landowners (a discretionary function and at some cost to the public purse) rather than focussing on its statutory duties? And it doesn’t make sense to me that having decided to make path orders that the process is then put on hold whilst they propose making more.

 

The only reason for making a public path diversion order is that it would be in the interests of the public, or of the owner (or lessee or occupier) of the land crossed by the path, or both. Bedford Borough Council should sort out its priorities to attend to its statutory duties, and in the meantime impose a moratorium on the processing of applications for public path orders made in the interests of landowners.

As Easy As 1,2,3

Click to enlarge image

In the October 2016 edition of its monthly online magazine “Borough Monthly”, Bedford Borough Council informs us that:

“The Council has launched a new online tool for reporting issues on roads and foot paths [sic] around the Borough. The new ReportIt [naff for report it] tool allows residents to report a number of issues quickly and easily online, including:

Potholes
Drainage and flooding
Grass, hedges, trees and weeds
Snow, ice and gritting
Roads
Pavements
Cycling
Lorries
Signage and lines
Street lighting
Traffic signals”

It’s a pretty neat system. CheckIt (sorry) out HERE

However, when they say “foot paths” (there’s no such thing by the way) they don’t mean public footpaths because they along with the other types of public rights of way (public bridleways etc) are not included as a “required field” which must be completed when submitting a report. And they don’t mean “footways” which is the correct term for pavements which is listed. For some reason only eleven of the twelve available fields are listed in the article - “Bridges” having been omitted.

There are lots of problems on public rights of way and the procedure enabling the public to report them should be improved. Improvements have been promised but they are a long time coming so it seems a lost opportunity to me that it’s not part of this new system. I interpret this as yet more evidence that public rights of way are not really on the council’s list of things that it thinks about a lot or at least as much as it should because it has a legal duty to look after them.

GetAGripOfIt Councillors.

A Spanner In The Works?

Kimbolton, Pertenhall & Little Staughton Order Map

Bedford Borough Council has made public path orders (two in the first case) to divert and create public footpaths in the parishes of Kimbolton (Cambridgeshire), Pertenhall and Little Staughton, and (secondly) twelve - yes 12, public path orders to create, divert and extinguish footpaths and bridleways in the parishes of Ravensden and Thurleigh.

 

You can see the order map for the first case HERE and the second HERE.

 

The orders, which stem from applications from landowners (one is a Bedford Borough Councillor) have been made because council officers, on behalf of the Council, consider it is expedient (to create), in the interests of the landowners (to divert), and because the paths are not needed by the public (to extinguish).

 

I am opposed to the orders in principle because, as I said HERE, I believe the Council should use its limited resources to focus on public rights of way issues which it has said are a higher priority - paths which cannot be used because they are obstructed, or anomalies such as dead end paths for instance, and unrecorded rights of way - rather than spend its time and our money on costly orders such as those mentioned above.

 

Objecting on principle cuts no ice when it comes to opposing public path orders however. An objection has to be judged valid in law; that the order does not meet the test(s) of the legislation.

The costs of making public path orders (some of which can be recovered from the applicant for an order) arise from the administrative and legal procedures which include site visits, negotiations, drafting and preparation of orders and maps, consultations, correspondence, drafting and sealing orders, erecting notices on the affected paths, advertising the orders in local newspapers with copies sent to prescribed bodies, etc. It can be a lengthy process and a drain on resources. And there’s more to do after orders are made because the council then has to confirm them which it cannot do if anyone objects.

 

I have formally objected. In order to complete the process the Council will have to submit the orders to the Secretary of State for the case to be heard at two public inquiries where an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State will hear the arguments for and against before deciding the outcome.

 

I may have put a spanner in the works though.

 

Public Path Order Regulations state that "The map required to be contained in an order shall be on a scale of not less than 1:2500, or, if no such map is available, on the largest scale readily available."

 

The maps contained in these orders are on a scale of 1:5000. In my opinion a map on a scale of 1:2500 was readily available.

It is my view that the Council has not complied with the regulations so the orders are flawed. If that is true then it is also my contention that the Secretary of State does not have the power to amend such a substantial defect and the fourteen public path orders will have to be abandoned - a formal process which has to be advertised.

 

But would the Council start all over again. I expect it would.

An email to the Mayor of Bedford Borough - Update

I received a response to my emails to the Mayor of Bedford Borough – from a paid assistant rather than the man. It’s “budget pressures” stupid, which would be easier for me to accept if the full council had not resolved last month to increase elected members’ allowances. And to pad out the response the writer thought to include what sounded like a Cliché Of The Day which that day was “the need to work together”.

I hear you say it Dear Reader: “I could have told you so.” Or “What did you expect?”

It had to be said though. I tick the box that I said what I felt I had to say and the Mayor’s assistant consigns my concerns to the No Further Action or Thought Bin.

More chance of action had I sent a hard copy of my email up the chimney to the man’s merrier lookalike methinks. Next Christmas then …

An email to the Mayor of Bedford Borough

Dave Hodgson, Mayor of Bedford Borough

An email to Dave Hodgson, Mayor of Bedford Borough:

"Dear Mr Mayor,

It is now over a month since I wrote to you and I have not received your reply. If there has been a technical hitch then I would be grateful if you would forward your email or send me a copy of your letter, and I should like to apologise for having thought ill of you. Otherwise I would be grateful for the courtesy of your reply please.

It is a common occurrence for me to have to chase the Council for replies to my correspondence (this is the second such email today). I wonder if you can understand the frustration and irritation a member of the public might feel when they do not receive a response to correspondence. Some time ago now, in an effort to understand and improve communications I wrote to ask what the Council’s customer care policy was when replying to correspondence. The document that I received and kept states that an acknowledgement should be sent within three days if a full answer was likely to take longer, and that a full answer should be sent within ten days.

The Council has some fine customer care and public rights of way policies but it seems to me that it’s nothing to be proud of if the policies are not upheld.

The purpose of my correspondence and actions over the past few years has been to improve the public rights of way network in the Borough. I have not been successful. Numerous paths still cannot be used because even though the published policy (as contained in the ROWIP) is to open them, the priorities and actions have not been to do so. If I was convinced that you were interested in public rights of way, and if you had the budget that you would wish for, then I could be sure that our public rights of way would be in better shape and it would be a network to be proud of. Bedford could strive to become a Walkers Welcome town and borough http://www.walkersarewelcome.org.uk/  and the public and business could reap the benefits. It seems to me that as a portion of the Council’s budget and compared with the returns of the investment it would not require much more to noticeably improve our public rights of way.

You could make a start, if you haven’t already, by taking a closer personal interest in public rights of way. I feel that public rights of way needs a ”champion” – an elected member to ensure that the Council has the will and sufficient resources to carry out its legal duties as the Highway Authority and the Surveying Authority. For instance, in my opinion there is a vital need for a Senior Definitive Map Officer with at least one assistant to oversee and implement some of those duties. If the Council is not prepared to up the ante in securing a better than average Definitive Map Officer then it will not reap the benefits I talk of.

In addition to my question below [contained in my email dated 8th January], I should like to ask if you will do more to have our public rights of way improved, at least to a standard required by law and consistent with Council policies, and to seriously and urgently take into account the likely effects of the 2026 cut-off date given that there are numerous unrecorded rights of way in the Borough, and given that the Council currently only has a temporary (short term) definitive map officer?

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Brian Cowling

OSS Local Correspondent, Bedford Borough

 

website www.oss.org.uk
The Open Spaces Society is a registered charity (no 1144840) and a company limited by guarantee, registered in England & Wales (no 7846516). "

A Definitive Map Officer - Who, What and Why

Bedford Borough Council does not have a Definitive Map Officer. “Who? What?” I hear you say. Or if you know what the officer’s job involves and the importance of it then you may be thinking – “Why?”

 

The “Why?” first.

 

The incumbent resigned and left the Council on 8th January. The Council had at least one month’s advance notice of his departure but has not yet advertised to recruit a replacement. This may be because of the default inertia of officialdom, or by design because budget holders might see the vacancy as an opportunity to save or divert resources. Unfortunately, the Council has form on such tactics and may not have learnt the lessons of its past mistakes and of the pitfalls of false economies. The last time that the DM Officer post was left vacant it led to a legal situation (at Guru Ravidass Lane, Bedford) which cost the Council over £20k. And, an already swollen backlog of definitive map issues was allowed to grow.

 

And the “Who and What”?

 

The job is to manage Bedford Borough Council’s Definitive Map and Statement (DM&S) and to advise all and sundry on DM&S legislation, policy and procedures. The DM&S is the legal record of the position and status of public rights of way. See HERE for more information.

 

The officer’s duties and responsibilities in Bedford Borough include:

 

• Identifying, negotiating and adding public rights of way in what is known as the Bedford Excluded Area (an area for which there is no DM&S) and recording paths that will otherwise be lost following the year 2026 deadline;

 

This work has been of an urgent nature since the year 2000 when legislation was enacted to complete the definitive map process which had started in 1949. If left unrecorded, even public rights of way in general use in Bedford – alleyways off Bedford High Street and paths at the Embankment alongside the River Great Ouse for example – will not be protected, as well as rights of way not in use or of which the public is unaware. Numerous paths throughout Bedford Borough may be lost forever unless they are claimed and recorded before 1st January 2026.

 

• Delivering DM&S related actions in the Council’s Rights of Way Improvement Plan;

 

Nothing has been delivered over the targeted 4-year period 2012-2016.

 

• And processing applications for Public Path Orders and for Definitive Map Modification Orders to resolve anomalies and problems on the DM&S; and to create additional public rights of way including undertaking any necessary research and negotiations along with witness interviews.

 

Rather than concentrating on the above, in the recent past the Council has focussed on processing applications from landowners for public path orders to be made in their interests and at some cost to the public purse.

 

Generally, what “the council” does or doesn’t do is a mystery to the public and even inter-departmentally at the Council. Elected councillors show little or no interest in public rights of way – possibly because of public ignorance (and theirs) and there being no votes in it for them.

 

The Council has a legal, and I believe moral, duty to protect our public rights of way. It isn’t doing so properly because it doesn’t, amongst other things, provide sufficient resources. It should urgently appoint a well-motivated person capable of fulfilling the post of definitive map officer, having cast a wider net by offering a better than average salary. I am concerned that the Council will do neither of these things.