There are a number of relevant issues which would be worthy of consideration.
If the land is owned by the county council, the PC would need to engage the landowner and seek consent / agreement prior to undertaking any works.
This is not an uncommon arrangement since many county councils will have sought to disaggregate the provision of non statutory responsibilities to town and parish councils over the years as part of ‘efficiency’ measures - public toilets, public rights of way (PRoW) etc, etc.
In relation to PRoW, the responsibility for maintenance falls to the local authority (LA) but may be disaggregated (if agreed by the lower tier council) under a Local Maintenance Arrangement (LMP.)
LMPs would normally take the form of something like:
LA agrees to:
- Provide reimbursement for the work with a grant of £125.89 per kilometre per cut on gold paths and £50.36 per kilometre for silver paths. Also, a payment of £6.29 is made available for the cutting of isolated gates and stiles on gold paths
- Provide technical advice and support to the local council
- Carry out major structural works, such as replacing defective bridges, in line with published path priorities
The local Council agrees to:
- Maintain Gold paths and cut Silver paths if necessary
- Appoint a co-ordinator to liaise with the Operational Delivery Area Rangers. This can be the Clerk, a Councillor or any member of the local community
- Submit claims for grant with supporting invoices
- Check and hold copies of contractors' public liability insurance and training certificates
It’s a matter for consideration whether a lower tier council would accept and deliver the services on behalf of the LA - does the reimbursement make it worthwhile? Would TC/PC be able or willing to provide the service at (at least equal to but preferably) greater standard?
Whilst that is a bit of an aside, it sets the scene for the art of the possible - the TC/PC ‘could’ if it wanted to, seek to take over the role completely - if a LMP arrangement existed.
Back to the exam question - should the PC do some ‘extras’ on behalf of the LA? You’d have to have an arrangement if you wanted to and so it might be worth exploring the formal LMP route.
Should the PC assume a cost from precept that ‘should’ already be covered from CT? Well, that’s one you’d have to justify to your electors.
Does the PC have the experience and capacity to undertake a competitive tender for the service provision or will it just be some bloke with a ride on mower? (That is likely to be a bigger question than might immediately be obvious…)
And to top all of that off - PRoW are classic examples of where town and parish councils expose their complete inability and lack of capability to properly scope the requirement, tender the services, manage service delivery, monitor performance indicators and achieve value for money. So much money is wasted by contracting services that either don’t need doing or are done inadequately.
PRoW responsibility lies with the county and they draw the funding for it from CT payers. If you have a resident with a complaint / concern, I’d suggest PC should invite ward member to address the resident’s concern. A LMP offer may fall from that.
Does 1 or 2 people complaining to a PC, about a responsibility that falls to a county council, warrant the additional, un-forecast expenditure of parish precept? Does your parish precept have sufficient funds to cover it? Does your financial SOs allow emergent spend?
FWIW - I’d suggest forwarding it to county in the first instance.
