North East Fife Area Committee

25th May, 2017. Agenda Item No. 7

Drumoig Path Diversion Report by: Paul Vaughan, Head of Community Provision

Wards Affected: 17

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to request approval for the diversion of a core path (55) at Drumoig Golf Centre.

Recommendation(s)

It is recommended that members agree to the promotion of the relevant Order for diversion of the core path under section 208 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

Resource Implications

There are no resource implications as the applicant will bear any cost.

Legal & Risk Implications

Fife Council must give public notice of any change to the adopted core paths plan and inform Scottish Ministers. The cost of this will be covered by the applicant for the diversion.

Impact Assessment

This proposed change does not change the overall sufficiency of the core paths plan. An Equality Impact Assessment has been completed, shown in appendix 7.

Consultation

The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 section 20C sets out procedure for carrying out a single amendment to the core path plan. The local authority must consult with those people that it thinks appropriate. In line with guidance approved by Fife Council in November 2012, the following people or organisations have been consulted by letter on 23rd February, 2017. All comments were requested to be sent in by Wednesday, 15th March.

Community Council – no response. Scottish Natural Heritage – no response. Ramblers Association – no response. Affected Neighbours – comments attached in table appendix 5.

9

Fife Access Forum – After discussion about the proposed surface of the diversion, it was agreed that the Forum would support the proposed diversion provided that the surface of the new path was sufficiently compacted to allow for easy access by wheelchairs, scooters, pushchairs, etc. Also, that there was a dropped kerb to link the car park and the path.

Scotways – no response.

Drumoig Community Trust – No objection

Fife Planning Department - Based on the information provided, Planning advise that the change of land use relating to the diversion proposed would not, in itself, require the benefit of Planning permission. However, the proposed Change of Use of ground associated with the Golf Course development to domestic garden ground would. Planning also advise that the proposed diversion in planning terms, (e.g. relating to our countryside access policies) would not raise any concerns from the Planning Service given it would only result in a slight increase in length from that it proposes to replace. It would be over ground that would not place any undue additional burdens on users provided its gradient was no steeper than before and it was suitably dimensioned and finished to accommodate users of all abilities.

Site visit by Ward members on 19th May to see the site.

Five letters of objections have been received highlighting a number of concerns, these have been addressed in a table in appendix 5.

Three letters of support have been received, also in appendix 5.

Copy of redacted letters can be seen in appendix 6.

1.0 Background

1.1 Core path 55 is part of the adopted Fife core paths plan. It was adopted in January 2012, under sections 17 and 18 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. Section 20 of this Act, and part 9 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016, allows core paths to be diverted where the local authority considers it expedient to do so.

1.2 The core path plan describes the path surface as “On minor road, off-road (unsurfaced), quiet access road and footway”.

1.3 At present, the core path is 4.06km, the proposed core path will be 4.106km long. The width of the path will remain the same. The surface of the new path will be a type one path, topped with road planings as shown in the photo example, appendix 2. The new path will be suitable for multi-use. The first part of the new path will move onto the speed cushions in the car park, the second part will be new path constructed on the grass and then the new path will link into the existing path as shown on the map in appendix 1. A fence will separate the present path from the new path.

1.4 The diversion of the core path will give increased privacy to the applicant and allow the original path to be used as a driveway to the newly constructed house, in relation to planning application 14/03933/FULL. Initial planning permission refused 13th June, 2015, planning permission granted by appeal 8th December, 2016 by Scottish Ministers.

10

2.0 Issues and Options

2.1 Fife Council must also consider whether the alternative route for the core path is reasonable and expedient, will not unduly inconvenience users of the route and will enable the development for which planning permission has been granted to be carried out.

2.2 At present, the core path is 4.06km long and the proposed new path will be 4.106km long. The width of the path will remain the same. The new path will be suitable for multi-use access, including occasional vehicle access.

2.3 Objections raised have been addressed in appendix 5.

3.0 Conclusions

3.1 In conclusion, the recommendation can be supported on the following grounds:-

3.1.1 The overall sufficiency of the core paths plan for Fife would be preserved by the proposed diversion.

3.1.2 The new route will be developed at the land owners cost and will allow for multi-use access.

3.1.3 The new path must be open and complete before the old path is closed.

3.1.4 The new path must be the same width as the old one.

3.1.5 The new path will be type one with a dusting, topped with road planings, suitable for multi-use and vehicle use when necessary.

3.1.6 Ground works must be undertaken to make sure that the camber of the new path is suitable for multi-use access.

3.1.7 The entrance to the new path will be open and free from obstruction.

3.1.8 The applicant will be responsible for a health and safety and risk assessment of the new path in relation to the golf driving range and golf course. The applicant has assured us that the users of the core path will be safe, particularly as golfers will also be using the path to access the course.

3.1.9 The applicant will be responsible for gaining any relevant permissions from the planning authority.

List of Appendices 1. Map showing location and diversion2. Picture showing path surface type3. Pictures showing views from new path and original path4. Picture showing golf driving range lights5. Table of points raised by letters6. Copy of redacted letters7. Equality Impact Assessment

11

Background Papers The following papers were relied on in the preparation of this report in terms of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1973.

• Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003

• Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016

• Part 1 Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003: Guidance for Local Authorities and NationalPark Authorities.

• Fife Council Procedures and Guidance relating to Section 20 (2) & 20 (4), LandReform (Scotland) Act 2003. Removal or diversion of paths form the core paths plan.

Report Contact Sarah Johnston Access Officer County Buildings Cupar Telephone: 03451 555555 Ext No 440618 Email - sarah.johnston@fife.gov.uk

12

Proposed path diversion. Core path 55.

Craigie to Forgan via Drumoig.

Original length 4.06 KM.

Proposed new length 4.106KM.

Section of path by Golf Driving Range

Golf Driving Range

carpark

Appendix 1

13

Appendix 2

14

Appendix 3

View from new path

View from path at present

15

Appendix 4

16

Appendix 5

Table of comments from letters

Comment from member of the public Response from Access Team If this path is relocated I have concerns that it will lead walkers into the line of danger of golf balls from the driving range.

All issues of Health and Safety are the responsibility of the land owner, who has carried out his own risk assessment.

What insurance is being taken to cover personal injury caused by being hit by a golf ball?

Insurance is a matter for the Landowner.

There is no public footpath along the main road from Drumoig so the path is important in relation to access and if the Council give permission for the path to be moved, then they must take responsibility for any injury caused.

Members of the public use core paths at their own risk, the Council does not accept any liability. The applicant and landowner has responsibility to risk assess the path.

Please see his last alterations to this core path and reasons. Health and safety. Now he wants to do the opposite and take us through the golf course and the driving range.

The core path is not being moved onto the Driving Range and will be adjacent to the golf course. The new path will also be used by golfers to access the golf course, and it has been risk assessed by the owner.

To increase PRIVACY is not a valid reason when the owner was fully aware of the situation when the planning application for his house was submitted.

The landowner is a liberty to ask for a core path to be moved that is on his property. In this case he wishes to take the original core path into the curtilage of the new build and use it a drive way.

The core path as it stands has been in place for over 20 years.

The core path was adopted on January 24th 2012, and the current path was built when the driving range opened in 1999.

While I am absolutely grateful that the neighbours have been contacted about this request. I do feel that this is a path used by the community, not only the few houses that happen to run adjacent to it. As such is there anything that can be done to issue the same letter out to the community for their input? I do believe the Drumoig Community Trust have been in contact regarding this, however in the past they have always seemed to have been biased to the applicant rather than the community as a whole. I have already asked them to forward your letter to the community, but they have principally refused to do so.

The consultation process was done according to section 20C of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 and the Fife Council guidance as agreed by the executive committee November 2012. No further information leaflets were distributed.

17

If the physical manpower of hand delivering the letters is the issue. I am sure I could arrange for this to be done if you could supply the hard copies?

The applicant went to great lengths previously to have another section of the path moved away from the golf course as a requirement of improved safety, how can this request now be considered when users will be moved ONTO the golf course and put into greater risk of injury. If accepted will Fife Council be responsible for any injury that may occur on this section of the path?

The new path is not on the golf course but adjacent to the golf course. The applicant has his own risk assessment for safety of users of the golf course and the public.

The house planning application was created around 16 years after the inception of the path, it has been designed by professional architects who take privacy into consideration, hence the reason for the 1.8m high 1m wide beach hedge around the property. Moving the path away could not possibly gain benefit.

The proposed diversion of the path is also to allow the original path to be used as a private driveway.

The path in reality is no different to a pavement around virtually every other house in a built up area, there are no concerns over privacy in these cases, why is this being treated differently, when in fact it is the norm?

Each application to move a core path is looked at individually. In this case the diversion request is seen as acceptable.

The application, or at least the data supplied, does not give confirmation if this revised layout would be across the grass or on a newly built concrete equivalent path, to which any less than the same would be seen as a degradation of the existing provision.

It will be a newly constructed path, specification as outlined in the committee report.

The privacy aspect would negatively impact on other houses in the area, where core path users would effectively now be walking directly towards houses for a significant stretch, thus severely impacting their privacy.

See photos in appendix 3.

There are a number of vehicles that require the current path for access, such as Scottish water and LPG deliveries, how would this now be managed? Have they been advised of this request?

The new path will be suitable for the occasional vehicle use.

18

What access method will be used to join the path at the south side, Stile, Gate, Open entrance?

The start and end of the diversion will have an open entrance.

Walkers, particularly with dogs would now be subject to increased access restrictions by moving the path onto the golf course.

The same access rights apply to the new path as the old.

What risk assessment has taken place to users now crossing the entrance to the car park, with significantly reduced visibility as compared to crossing at right angles to the current entrance?

The land owner has done his own risk assessment.

The street light at the end of the path improves visibility at night, this again would be lost if the path is moved to its proposed location.

There is no requirement to light core paths, but the same street light will still illuminate the diverted route.

What limitations would be set to stop users continuing to walk on the current path, any changes to the entrance which would connect it to the new property would be subject to an application change, while I accept this is not your area of concern, it should be highlighted to the applicant.

The east end of the original path will be blocked off. Any planning issues will need to be addressed by the planning department.

Suspect the change of route would mean walking directly into the path of the range flood lights, this in itself in an increased hazard and must be reviewed.

See photo in appendix 4. The corner lights face into the centre of the driving range, the glare of the lights would appear to remain the same.

If this request is approved, who is financially liable to implement the agreed changes and who will carry out the inspections to ensure all areas have been completed to the agreed levels?

The applicant will cover all cost of the development of the new path. The Access Team will inspect the path to make sure it is up to the required standard.

What are the next steps of this request, is the final decision down to Fife Access, what are the options for both parties to appeal the decision?

The decision to move the core path is not a delegated decision, it will be made by the Fife Council area committee. There

19

is no appeal of the decision by either party.

In the same way that loss of privacy of surrounding houses was not considered for the application of the new house I do not see how this request bears any merit and should be rejected without further waste of the council’s time. It is clear that the applicant is not happy with the core path being there at all, as can be seen from the number of changes / requests being made and they continue to make it difficult for the public to use the core path. I seem to recall that no more than a few months ago we had confirmation via Fife Access that there would be no changes to the concrete section of the path, so my final question on this, what happened?

The applicant is entitled to apply to divert the core path.

Lack of detail by the applicant makes it difficult to comment specifically on the proposal.

The information provided was of the required standard.

What happens to the ground between the core path and the new build - extended garden, a tee?

This is up to the landowner.

Are tees/holes being moved to accommodate this change and what are the safety implications?

The land owner will be required to do his own health and safety assessment.

To “increase privacy” is not valid reason when the owner was fully aware of the situation when the planning application was submitted.

The land owner is allowed to apply to move a core path.

Standing on the existing core path behind the planned 6ft hedge, users will not see the new build. From the repositioned core path the new build will be in plain view – privacy decreased!

The applicant wishes to develop a private drive way.

Walkers on the new path will be looking directly into a neighbour's house as they walk down the slope affecting their privacy.

See photo’s appendix 3.

There are no details of how large utility vehicles (water and gas) will gain access.

The new path will be suitable for occasional vehicle use.

There are no details of the type of surface to be used, we are surely entitled to like for like. Multi-use is mentioned which would appear to indicate a poorer surface.

Details of the surface are outlined in the committee report.

20

Previously the applicant refused the use of a gate to allow access to the golf course at the cemetery, only allowing a stile. Is this happening again in the car park?

The start of the new path will be an open entrance with no gate.

The proposed route has a bad camber, will this be addressed?

The applicant will address the camber when building the new path.

The shipping container creates a blind bend, some drivers do enter the car park at speed, potentially endangering walkers. Will the containers be removed? Their temporary status has now lasted 3 years.

This is a planning issue and a risk management issue to be addressed by the applicant.

The existing footpath crossing the car park being used for the proposed core path gives the impression pedestrians have the right of way.

The path will be on speed cushions which are used to allow for safe pedestrian access across carparks.

Parked vehicles will screen users from cars exiting the car park.

The path will be on speed cushions which are used to allow for safe pedestrian access across carparks. The applicant will carry out appropriate risk assessment.

Why is the first part of the path in the car park? Moving it eastwards along the outside edge

To allow for safe passage across the car park on the speed cushions.

Who pays for this? Tax payers money was used in the previous core path move by this landowner, equating to a subsidy for a purportedly successful business.

The landowner will cover all costs.

A formal Health and Safety review would be helpful. This may have been done in the past, but without public input. There are many issues on the core path and on the golf course affecting both golfers and pedestrians which need reviewed.

The land owner will be doing his own health and safety risk assessment.

The new path is angled towards the driving range therefore, when walking from Forgan with the floodlights on, you cannot even see your own feet.

See photo in appendix 4. The corner lights face into the centre of the driving range, the glare of the lights would appear to remain the same.

The land owner's primary reason for his house build was security of his facilities. This proposal could adversely affect that concern.

No comment.

The last change made to this core path was to push the public away from golfers for their

Each section of the core path has a different assessment of

21

safety, now the public are being pushed towards golfers for the sake of privacy.

risk in relation to the golf course. The previous work addressed one identified risk. This diversion proposal has been risk assessed.

How are the public coming from Forgan going to be directed off the old path onto the new?

The new path will be signed with way markers, and the east end of the diverted section will be blocked off.

Similarly, at the car park end, what will stop the public using the old path?

The old path be a dead end and will not enable a through route to the core path.

This proposal would make the planning application 14/03933/FULL factually incorrect. If approved will amendment to the planning application/consent be required?

This is a planning issue.

I would like to object to the grant of planning permission. The applicant says that the request is for ‘increased privacy’. Do we know why he needs more privacy than a normal person? Many of them have pavements and roads right alongside their property without any detriment. In addition his house will be nearly 20 feet above the existing path on an elevated area so there is already no chance of him being over looked or his privacy violated. This reason for the path diversion has no merit.

The diversion is to allow for the original path to be changed into a private drive way.

Last year we were told that the public had to be kept away from the golf course and driving range for ‘health and safety reasons’, hence all the un-necessary fencing that has reduced and obstructed access in the area to move us a few feet away from the existing path. Now it seems the plan is to move us a similar distance towards the golf course and driving range. Surely the same H&S reasons still apply and the line of the existing path should be maintained to ensure similar standards of H&S and to protect the public?

Each section of the core path has a different assessment of risk in relation to the golf course. The previous work addressed one identified risk. This diversion proposal has been risk assessed.

22

Appendix 6

Copy of redacted letters.

Support

The Committee of the Drumoig Community Trust has examined the proposed diversion of the core path at Drumoig Golf Centre and we wish to make the following comment.

The DCT has no objection to the proposal provided due process is followed by the Outdoor Access Team and the Landowner to ensure the path remains open and safe.

Drumoig Community Trust

..................................................................................................................................

I refer to your letter of 22nd February 2017 re. Proposed diversion of Core Path 55. I have no issue about the proposed diversion and consider it unlikely to adversely affect anyone who may wish to use the path. ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. Thank you for your letter of 22 February 2017 advising me about the proposed diversion of core path ( 55 ) at Drumoig Golf Centre, Drumoig. I am pleased that the path will continue to be suitable for multi-use and that it will be the same width. I have no objection to the proposed diversion and can see no reason for it not to go ahead. I fully understand that the applicant wishes to divert the path to increase his privacy for the new build.

Objection

I have walked this path in its present location regularly for the past fourteen years as access to the Graveyard. When the present owners started renovating the driving range I used the path that runs behind the sheds to avoid the work being carried out by green keepers but was approached by the owner and told not to go that way as it was a health and safety Problem for their staff on machinery so the only way through as identified by them is via the present path. If this path is relocated I have concerns that it will lead walkers into the line of danger of Golf balls from the driving range. What insurance is being taken to cover personal injury caused by being hit by a golf ball? Also consideration has to be given to the fact that being hit by a golf ball can cause can cause a fatal injury.

23

There is no public footpath along the either main road from Drumoig so the path is important in relation to access and if the Council give permission for the path to be moved, then they must take responsibility for any injury caused. I am pleased and wish the Driving range business success and support the building of the house but am concerned as to the new route proposed for the path. ………………………………………………………………………………………………. Please note my objections to the proposed diversion of core path 55.

1 Please see his last alterations to this core path and reasons. Health and safety. Now he wants to do the opposite and take us through the golf course and and the driving range.

WHY

2 To increase PRIVACY is not a valid reason when the owner was fully aware of the situation when the planning application for his house was submitted.

3 The core path as it stands has been in place for over 20 years.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

I have had time to consider the implications of the request and have attached my comments for your reference and action.

While I am absolutely grateful that the neighbours have been contacted about this request. I do feel that this is a path used by the community, not only the few houses that happen to run adjacent to it. As such is there anything that can be done to issue the same letter out to the community for their input? I do believe the Drumoig Community Trust have been in contact regarding this, however in the past they have always seemed to have been biased to the applicant rather than the community as a whole. I have already asked them to forward your letter to the community, but they have principally refused to do so.

If the physical manpower of hand delivering the letters is the issue. I am sure I could arrange for this to be done if you could supply the hard copies?

Diversion of core path in Drumoig, Ref 55 Firstly let me say that I am absolutely against this request as it puts subjective privacy over the safety of users as follows:

24

1) The applicant went to great lengths previously to have another section of the path moved away from the golf course as a requirement of improved safety, how can this request now be considered when users will be moved ONTO the golf course and put into greater risk of injury. If accepted will Fife Council be responsible for any injury that may occur on this section of the path?

2) The house planning application was created around 16 years after the inception of the path, it has been designed by professional architects who take privacy into consideration, hence the reason for the 1.8m high 1m wide beach hedge around the property. Moving the path away could not possibly gain benefit.

3) The path in reality is no different to a pavement around virtually every other house in a built up area, there are no concerns over privacy in these cases, why is this being treated differently, when in fact it is the norm?

4) The application, or at least the data supplied, does not give confirmation if this revised layout would be across the grass or on a newly built concrete equivalent path, to which any less than the same would be seen as a degradation of the existing provision.

5) The privacy aspect would negatively impact on other houses in the area, where core path users would effectively now be walking directly towards houses for a significant stretch, thus severely impacting their privacy.

6) There are a number of vehicles that require the current path for access, such as Scottish water and LPG deliveries, how would this now be managed? Have they been advised of this request?

7) What access method will be used to join the path at the south side, Stile, Gate, Open entrance?

8) Walkers, particularly with dogs would now be subject to increased access restrictions by moving the path onto the golf course.

9) What risk assessment has taken place to users now crossing the entrance to the car park, with significantly reduced visibility as compared to crossing at right angles to the current entrance?

10) The street light at the end of the path improves visibility at night, this again would be lost if the path is moved to its proposed location. 11) What limitations would be set to stop users continuing to walk on the current path, any changes to the entrance which would connect it to the new property would be subject to an application change, while I accept this is not your area of concern, it should be highlighted to the applicant.

12) I suspect the change of route would mean walking directly into the path of the range flood lights, this in itself in an increased hazard and must be reviewed.

25

13) If this request is approved, who is financially liable to implement the agreed changes and who will carry out the inspections to ensure all areas have been completed to the agreed levels?

14) What are the next steps of this request, is the final decision down to Fife Access, what are the options for both parties to appeal the decision?

In the same way that loss of privacy of surrounding houses was not considered for the application of the new house I do not see how this request bears any merit and should be rejected without further waste of the council’s time. It is clear that the applicant is not happy with the core path being there at all, as can be seen from the number of changes / requests being made and they continue to make it difficult for the public to use the core path. I seem to recall that no more than a few months ago we had confirmation via Fife Access that there would be no changes to the concrete section of the path, so my final question on this, what happened?

……………………………………………………………………………………………….

Diversion of Core Path (Ref. 55) 1. Lack of detail by the applicant makes it difficult to comment specifically on the proposal. 2. What happens to the ground between the core path and the new build - extended garden, a tee? 3. Are tees/holes being moved to accommodate this change and what are the safety implications? 4. “To increase privacy” is not valid reason when the owner was fully aware of the situation when the planning application for his new house was submitted. 5. Standing on the existing core path behind the planned 6ft hedge, users will not see the new build. From the repositioned core path the new build will be in plain view – privacy decreased! 6. Walkers on the new path will be looking directly into a neighbour's house as they walk down the slope affecting their privacy. 7. There are no details of how large utility vehicles (water and gas) will gain access. 8. There are no details of the type of surface to be used, we are surely entitled to like for like. Multi-use is mentioned which would appear to indicate a poorer surface. 9. Previously the applicant refused the use of a gate to allow access to the golf course at the cemetery, only allowing a stile. Is this happening again in the car park? 10. The proposed route has a bad camber, will this be addressed? 11. The shipping container creates a blind bend, some drivers do enter the car park at speed, potentially endangering walkers. Will the containers be removed? Their temporary status has now lasted 3 years. 12. The existing footpath crossing the car park being used for the proposed core path gives the impression pedestrians have the right of way. 13. Parked vehicles will screen users from cars exiting the car park.

26

14. Why is the first part of the path in the car park? Moving it eastwards along the outside edge of the car park would seem far more logical and cost effective. 15. Who pays for this? Tax payer’s money was used in the previous core path move by this landowner, equating to a subsidy for a purportedly successful business. 16. A formal Health and Safety review would be helpful. This may have been done in the past, but without public input. There are many issues on the core path and on the golf course affecting both golfers and pedestrians which need reviewed. 17. The new path is angled towards the driving range therefore, when walking from Forgan with the floodlights on, you cannot even see your own feet. 18. The land owner's primary reason for his house build was security of his facilities. This proposal could adversely affect that concern. 19. The last change made to this core path was to push the public away from golfers for their safety, now the public are being pushed towards golfers for the sake of privacy. 20. How are the public coming from Forgan going to be directed off the old path onto the new? 21. Similarly, at the car park end, what will stop the public using the old path? 22. This proposal would make the planning application 14/03933/FULL factually incorrect. If approved will amendment to the planning application/consent be required. …………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Would like to object to the grant of planning permission.

The applicant says that the request is for ‘increased privacy’. Do we know why he needs more privacy than a normal person? Many of them have pavements and roads right alongside their property without any detriment. In addition his house will be nearly 20 feet above the existing path on an elevated area so there is already no chance of him being over looked or his privacy violated. This reason for the path diversion has no merit.

Last year we were told that the public had to be kept away from the golf course and driving range for ‘health and safety reasons’, hence all the un-necessary fencing that has reduced and obstructed access in the area to move us a few feet away from the existing path. Now it seems the plan is to move us a similar distance towards the golf course and driving range. Surely the same H&S reasons still apply and the line of the existing path should be maintained to ensure similar standards of H&S and to protect the public?

Is there a site I need to visit to lodge these objections officially or will you be posting them for us?

27

Equality Impact Assessment

Part 1: Background and information

Title of proposal Core path diversion Drumoig

Brief description of proposal (including intended outcomes & purpose)

To divert a core path at Drumoing. No cost to the Council.

Lead Directorate / Service / Partnership

Communities

EqIA lead person Sarah Johnston

EqIA contributors Fife Access Forum

Start date of EqIA 24.5.17

How does the proposal meet one or more of the general duties under the Equality Act 2010? (Consider proportionality and relevance on p.12 and see p.13 for more information on what the general duties mean)

General duties Please Explain Eliminating discrimination, harassment and victimisation Advancing equality of opportunity Fostering good relations Path diversion will be accessible to

disabled users in the same way as the existing path. Surface and camber will be appropriate to situation. Will foster good relations between owner and disabled users.

Having considered the general duties above, if there is likely to be no impact on any of the equality groups, parts 2 and 3 of the impact assessment may not need to be completed. Please provide an explanation (based on evidence) if this is the case.

The change to the core path will be accessible to all the same users who can use the existing route. The path surface will change from concrete to hard compacted type 1 and road planings. The owner of the land has provided photographic evidence that the path surface will remain suitable for use by cyclists, pushchairs and wheelchairs.

Item 07 - Drumoig Path Diversion Appendix 7

Appendix 7

28

Part 2: Evidence and Impact Assessment Explain what the positive and / or negative impact of the policy change is on any of the protected characteristics Protected characteristic

Positive impact Negative impact No impact

Disabled people X Sexual orientation X Women X Men X Transgendered people

X

Race (includes gypsy travellers)

X

Age (including older people aged 60+)

X

Children and young people

X

Religion or belief X Pregnancy & maternity

X

Marriage & civil partnership

X

Please also consider the impact of the policy change in relation to: Positive impact Negative impact No impact Looked after children and care leavers

X

Privacy (e.g. information security & data protection)

X

Economy X • Please record the evidence used to support the impact assessment. This

could include officer knowledge and experience, research, customer surveys, service user engagement.

• Any evidence gaps can also be highlighted below.

Item 07 - Drumoig Path Diversion Appendix 7

29

Evidence used Source of evidence 1. Fife Access Forum discussion Minutes of meeting of 14th

March 2017 2. 3. Evidence gaps Planned action to address

evidence gaps 1. 2. 3.

Part 3: Recommendations and Sign Off Recommendation Lead person Timescale

1. Recommend proceed with diversion of path

Sarah Johnston June 2017

2. 3. 4. 5.

Sign off (By signing off the EqIA, you are agreeing that the EqIA represents a thorough and proportionate analysis of the policy based on evidence listed above and there is no indication of unlawful practice and the recommendations are proportionate. Date completed: 24th May 2017 Date sent to Equalities Unit:

Enquiry.equalities@fife.gov.uk

Senior Officer: Name Alison Irvine

Designation: Team Leader (Access)

FOR EQUALITIES UNIT ONLY EqIA Ref No.

Date checked and initials

Item 07 - Drumoig Path Diversion Appendix 7

30

Equality Impact Assessment Summary Report (to be attached as an Appendix to the committee report or for consideration by any other partnership forum, board or advisory group as appropriate) Which Committee report does this IA relate to North East Fife Area Committee What are the main impacts on equality? Path diversion will be accessible to disabled users in the same way as the existing path. Surface and camber will be appropriate to situation. Will foster good relations between owner and disabled users. What are the main recommendations to enhance or mitigate the impacts identified? The change to the core path will be accessible to all the same users who can use the existing route. The path surface will change from concrete to hard compacted type 1 and road planings. The owner of the land has provided photographic evidence that the path surface will remain suitable for use by cyclists, pushchairs and wheelchairs If there are no equality impacts on any of the protected characteristics, please explain. Further information is available from: Name / position / contact details: Sarah Johnston Access Officer Fife Coast and Countryside Trust 2nd Floor Rothesay House Glenrothes 440618

Item 07 - Drumoig Path Diversion Appendix 7

31

One of the following statements must be included in the “Impact Assessment” section of any committee report. Attach as an appendix the completed EqIA Summary form to the report – not required for option (a). (a) An EqIA has not been completed and is not necessary for the following

reasons: (please write in brief description) (b) The general duties section of the impact assessment and the summary form

has been completed – the summary form is attached to the report.

(c) An EqIA and summary form have been completed – the summary form is attached to the report.

Item 07 - Drumoig Path Diversion Appendix 7

32