MAC 045

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 5996

Derbyniwyd: 23/06/2026

Respondent ID: 3370

Ymatebydd: Mrs Karen Burch

Cadarn? Heb nodi

I don't think the added words are robust enough to protect equestrian access to the countryside under SP12, which I have commented on previously.

A recent FOI request to CCC asking about equestrian consultation both for Active Travel and other communication under general planning, provides insufficient action or consideration of equestrians and the resulting decisions create a barrier for us to access our off road networks due to changes in the road network, development, and Active Travel routes. The Planning System only allows the Rights of Way Team to comment on actual rights of way, not how we access them and there are no other Statutory consultees that speak for us. We cannot teleport to our bridleways and green space. The FOI request reply confirms that comments by equestrians are not recorded at scheme level because we are not considered active travellers. In order to ensure that we have a voice, particularly about our safety when roadside paths are created or off road routes, it is necessary to include that we should not be worse off from a scheme that is designed to make improvements for other users.

How is CCC identifying whether equestrians are already using a route highlighted for AT improvement or whether there is demand to be included in any scheme, as per ATAG guidance below? The current public consultation process is not robust enough to conform to the guidance below and something needs to be added to the LDP SP12 to ensure that we are not put at risk on roads we have legal right to use and informal off road paths (railway lines) that we currently ride. More is needed to identify routes that we currently use and where there is demant for safe off road links in our ever shrinking network within our community because roads are now too dangerous to ride.

section 1.3.6:

“Equestrianism is overwhelmingly for leisure purposes rather than as a mode of transport as it rarely displaces a car journey. Forms of equestrian travel
(horse riding, carriage driving, pony and trap etc.) are not considered forms of active travel. However, in delivering the provisions of the Act, local authorities should be aware that equestrians are vulnerable road users and should not
restrict equestrian access to routes that they currently enjoy. Bridleways can be used by equestrians, walkers and cyclists and so may form part of an active travel route. Enhancements to bridleways should not impede
equestrian use or require them to use a less safe route instead. In some cases, it may be more appropriate for all users if separate provision is made for walkers, cyclists and equestrian users. Where active travel routes are planned on
an alignment for which there is also high demand from horse riders, the feasibility of accommodating them should also be assessed.”


8.2.10:

“Effective consultation at network and scheme level needs to target both current and potential users of walking and cycling infrastructure. Whilst the focus of active travel engagement will be upon utility journeys, these routes may also be used for leisure and sports purposes, including equestrians in rural/semi-rural areas and so this should be borne in mind when targeting who to seek input from during the engagement and consultation process.”

11.32.5:

“Equestrians should not be denied access to routes that they currently have the right to use by changing the classification of the rights of way. There needs to be clear signing of which routes are intended for use by equestrians. If widths permit, a separate unsealed surface may be preferable for equestrians.”


*Attachment re Towy Valley Path where equestrians robustly attended consultations and requested access to this route but there is no mention of equestrians in the Statement of Case

Noted. The plan makes appropriate provision for equestrian access. Whilst we note the comments made in relation to the FOI and Active Travel, these are matters outside the remit of this MAC consultation

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 6052

Derbyniwyd: 26/06/2026

Respondent ID: 2315

Ymatebydd: Natural Resources Wales

Cadarn? Ydi

Strategic Policy – SP 12: Placemaking and Sustainable Places.
We welcome the incorporation of flood resilient design to new construction in a flood zone. However, it should be stressed that new construction in a flood zone should only happen if it can be compliant with TAN15 and that resilient design should not be used as a reason, or as mitigation, for inappropriate development in flood zones.

We advise expanding point i. to include incorporating resilient design into redevelopment / alteration of existing development and not just confined to new development.

The Council agrees with the amendment proposed by the respondent in order to maximise flood resilience