Footpath Checklist
Footpath name or location Gypsey Lane (Hitchin Rd to Kingswood Ave) 19 (see ‘About Hitchin’ map)
Footpath number 094 – classified as ‘Public Restricted Byway’ (see definitive HCC map
Estimated length 700yds
Scores 1 = poor, 3 = acceptable, 5 = excellent NA=not applicable
Criterion and examples |
Score |
Comment |
Is the path made easy to use and is it worth using? |
||
Signage (legible, accurate and useful statement of destination, distance, any hazards, not vandalized?) |
2 |
This section of the anticlockwise HOOP is poorly signposted from the previous section. It involves walking along the busy Hitchin Rd (no pavement) for about 150m. AS far as we could tell, there is no warning sign to motorists to beware of pedestrians on the approach to the Wymondley Rd / St Michaels Rd rdbt. The sign at the start of the track (‘Public restricted byway 94 Purwell ½’) is fine, but HOOP walkers walking anticlockwise without a map would not realize it was there. |
Connectivity (is the path useful in connecting locations, providing a shortcut or alternative to road journey) |
3 |
Usefulness constrained – see above. The continuation of the track to the south of Hitchin Rd offers a route to open country. |
Attractiveness (are there points of interest, pleasant surroundings, wildlife opportunities, freedom from noise – e.g. of factories) |
3 |
There is access to the Purwell Meadows Nature Reserve on the west side with a rewarding short walk through ‘overgrown’ vegetation (probably deliberately managed to maximize habitat for insects). Information boards are provided at a board-walk which gives views over ponds (some litter) and reed-beds. There are plenty of wildflowers and bird activity. The area is quiet, although graffiti, litter (including a fly-tipped motorbike frame) and vandalism suggests there may be times of day when this might be less pleasant. |
Health, safety and security |
||
Surface (evenness, potholes, evidence of recent maintenance, dry and not muddy, where paving slabs, are they secure and even?) |
3 |
At the time of writing, the surface was firm, although slightly muddy in places. It is frequently rutted, and this would make wheelchair access difficult. It is, nevertheless a rural path, and this is only to be expected. |
Boundaries (are they in good repair, clear of graffiti or other vandalism, overgrown where hedges, is the path free of over-hanging branches?) |
4 |
Hedges provide a distinct boundary on both sides. There is a missing gate at the start of the footpath near to the site of the Roman villa. Some graffiti (on old seat near north end) and on fencing in nature reserve. |
Wheelchair access (wide enough, suitable surface and gradient, steps?)
|
NA |
Surface not appropriate, but this is a rural path, probably used by farm vehicles. |
Barriers to prevent children running onto busy roads at ends? |
N |
|
Barriers to prevent access by motor vehicles? (are they broken or have they been removed / damaged?) |
N |
|
Cycling – do cyclists routinely ride, do they pose a danger |
Y |
Designated a Public Restricted Byway, so legitimate. Frequently used by cyclists (and probably motor cyclists and 4WD) which accounts for some of the ruts. If motor cyclists there would be danger if they were not riding responsibly. |
Lighting (distance between, does it work?) |
NA |
No lighting, but this is a rural path – lighting would not be appropriate. |
Visibility (is there passive surveillance, are there bends or corners which would raise perceived crime threat?) |
NA |
Rural path. |
Litter and vandalism |
||
Is there evidence of vandalism, litter and / or fly-tipping (both on path and in visible surroundings) Is litter ‘offensive’ – e.g. syringes / condoms? |
2 |
Fly-tipped motorbike frame at N end. Much of the path is unaffected by litter, but the N end is near to a recycling bank, some of the intended contents of which are strewn around. Cans have been discarded in the water in the nature reserve. A poorly sited plastic seat has been deliberately broken and needs to be removed. |
Litter bins – are there any and have they been emptied? |
Y |
|
Dog fouling – recent? |
Y |
|
Dog excrement bins – are there any? |
Y |
One at N end in Kingswood Avenue. |
Conclusions · A pleasant rural walk marred by some vandalism, dog-fouling and litter. · The above may signal to some that this is a route that is best avoided at certain times of day. · The removal of the recycling bank at the N end when the kerbside plastic collections begin may help. · There are no signs to direct walkers along the road to the path and nothing to warn motorists of the likely presence of walkers. |
Recommended action · Steps to reduce litter, vandalism and dog-fouling need consideration. · Signage to the path along the road is needed, ideally together with a footway and a warning to westbound motorists to indicate the likely presence of walkers. |