Cookham Discussion Board
December 19, 2018, 12:50:44 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
20 December 2018 - Open Minds - The Teenagers Debating Group

25 December 2018 - Christmas Day Carols by Candlelight

26 December 2018 -  Boxing Day Games

5 January 2019 - BFI Film Academy (ages 16-19)

TO REGISTER TO POST ON THIS DISCUSSION BOARD email the Webmaster@cookham.com with a User name you would like. This is due to spammers.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8
  Print  
Author Topic: Bridleway 19  (Read 55852 times)
Cervantes
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 72


« Reply #15 on: April 02, 2015, 01:37:28 PM »

Agreed, buildings are put up with no consideration to the character of the area. If work NEEDS to be carried out RBWM should insist designs match existing traditional buildings. I guess most landowners and councillors don't have to look at them everyday so its less of a concern.
Logged
Dragonman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 348


« Reply #16 on: April 02, 2015, 05:43:38 PM »

Jumpingjackflash wrote: "The council should listen to those that 'vote' them in, and not side with particular land owners." It has happened in the past with what is known as a backhander! As certain people we know will always sweeten the pot to get their way!
Logged
FionaBeaumont
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 68


« Reply #17 on: April 27, 2015, 08:31:25 PM »

A new notice has been posted on this Bridleway follows.

"Following support from Cookham Parish Council and the local district councillors and not the least, users of the path, the RBWM have recently decided to undertake improvement works  to the North end of the path (Long Lane end). The work will be undertaken in July/August in order that improvements are in place in time for next winter".
It is signed Tom Copas.

I have emailed the Parish council asking if it is true that they supported this scheme, and if so, which councillors voted for it.
Below is the last communication I had from the public rights of way office at RBWM I received on 26th November 2014.

Hello,

Thank you for your response to the recent consultation regarding the proposed resurfacing of Cookham Bridleway 19. After considering the responses to the consultation and weighing up the competing interests in this particular issue the Council has decided that the best approach is to abandon both the surfacing proposal for the northern section of the Bridleway and the woodchip surface for the southern section.

Whilst the proposed harder surface along the northern section of the bridleway will benefit walkers, cyclists, pushchairs and wheelchair users it will adversely affect horse riders who use this bridleway as an important link in the network. Outside of the muddy conditions in winter there has been little demand for an improved surface by the public. With regard to the southern section, this part is used regularly in farming operations and a woodchip proposal would pose increased maintenance liabilities for the Council at a time when public funds are limited. Whilst it does not allow a canter speed the section is still suitable for horse traffic to pass and access is not prevented. Leaving one part capable of handling farm traffic and one part natural it is felt this is an acceptable compromise in this situation.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks and Best Regards,

Andrew Fletcher
Public Rights of Way Officer
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
Town Hall, St. Ives Road, Maidenhead, SL6 1RF
Tel: 01628 796122



PLEASE, PLEASE we need to get Cookham Parish Council and RBWM to explain themselves.

Email
cookhamparishcouncil@outlook.com

Also, if you consider the hard surfacing of one of the few natural paths and Bridleways to be a disgrace, especially as RBWM previously agreed that this could not happen (saving the taxpayer valuable money on a  complete white elephant), email
PROW@RBWM.gov.uk

I notice that my last two emails to them received NO REPLY even.
Logged
Jo Jo
Full Member
***
Posts: 228


« Reply #18 on: April 27, 2015, 09:05:35 PM »

I suppose they are all too busy with the elections to care about anything else.
Logged
FionaBeaumont
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 68


« Reply #19 on: April 28, 2015, 10:25:32 AM »

Exactly why I have asked them which councillors supported this plan and which were against.
Then I have a clue as to who to vote for.
Logged
Paris
Guest
« Reply #20 on: April 28, 2015, 10:50:45 AM »

Unbelievable, these people really need a kick up the .......

Although given their attitude towards equestrians in the village design statement or plan or whatever it is called it is hardly surprising.  I forget the exact words, but it wasn't an encouraging read if you have any kind of equestrian interest in the Cookhams.  Which is bizarre when you think of the achievements at international and national levels of the Matthews and Gilbert-Scotts over the years (forgive me if I've not added other notable names).

I hope you get an answer, please post on here if you do.
Logged
FionaBeaumont
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 68


« Reply #21 on: April 28, 2015, 03:22:11 PM »

I have now had a response from Anthony Hust at RBWM.

Following a review of the condition of the Bridleway over the winter months, and consultations with Cookham Parish Council,  the Council has decided to proceed with the surfacing of the northern part of the bridleway in July/August this year.

The surface will be crushed limestone and limestone dust, over a chalk sub-base. The Council has previously used crushed limestone/limestone dust as a bridleway surface elsewhere in the borough, for example on the Hurley section of the Knowl Hill Bridleway Circuit (the bridleway that runs northwards from the Dew Drop Inn).


I am waiting for a reply from Cookham Parish Council.

I have also replied to Anthony Hurst asking what guidance they took from equestrian users, and pointing our that the limestone dust will be blown and washed away in a nano-second, leaving a hard compacted, slippery surface below.

If anyone from Cookham Parish Council would like to reply (Mandy Barr, you said you noticed this thread when we spoke on my doorstep a few days ago), please do. I fail to understand why we are at this point.

Actually, the cynically me understands total, it's about building a totally unnecessary ROAD across a green field. So far, Mr Copas has run down Cannon Court farm and converted it's grazing land to crops with roads all around them, used bird scarers right by the bridleway, installed an impossible access gate at the Canon Court end with too hard a spring, installed two car parks, hard surfaced half of the bridleway and now wants to hard surface the other half. He must just as well say, horse riders - get off my land!
« Last Edit: April 28, 2015, 03:28:16 PM by FionaBeaumont » Logged
Paris
Guest
« Reply #22 on: April 28, 2015, 04:53:50 PM »

I've just had one of those emails from Andrew.  I've sent my reply, and it was not in favour of the proposed surface.

I totally and utterly completely fail to see why Mr Copas is being allowed to ride (scuse the pun) roughshod all over the planning rules and get away with not restoring the surface to its original condition.  If he wants an access road then he can put one alongside the bridlepath.  There is no reason whatsoever for messing up a perfectly good public right of way.  If this were a footpath the Ramblers would be all over this like a rash but because horse riders are seen as an elite minority their needs and lawful rights are being swept away.  If any of our local councillors or our would be MP turn up on my doorstep canvassing they are going to get short shrift.

« Last Edit: April 28, 2015, 05:09:08 PM by Paris » Logged
Merlin
Guest
« Reply #23 on: April 29, 2015, 09:38:16 AM »

Why do these references to Copas not surprise me in the slightest.
Logged
Paris
Guest
« Reply #24 on: April 30, 2015, 10:55:50 AM »

So, reply sent to Anthony Hurst two days ago, and as yet not even so much as an acknowledgement of receipt.  Not impressed. 
Logged
FionaBeaumont
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 68


« Reply #25 on: April 30, 2015, 03:25:57 PM »

I've had a response from Cookham Parish Council.

Representatives from the Parish Council attended a site meeting in February when RBWM described the surfacing and the reasons why it was being proposed.
 This information was reported at the next Council meeting and Councillors were asked to submit any objections to the proposal.
 As there were no objections, the Council did not challenge the decision to re-surface and, overall, agree that it will improve the accessibility of the Bridleway for the majority of users.


No objections!!!! Are RBWM illiterate or deaf or what?Huh
Logged
Paris
Guest
« Reply #26 on: April 30, 2015, 05:20:23 PM »

Honestly you couldn't make it up could you?

It would be nice if the PC did actually consult properly with those that actually use the bridleway for its intended use rather than presenting a fait accompli.  Consultation appeared to stop after the first nonsensical woodchip proposal wasn't any good. Most likely because there was never any intention of putting this ludicrous situation right.  Rather they would spend council tax payer's money on a project that should be being paid for out of a private purse if they are not prepared to stick to the rules and make the landowner back down and put right what he shouldn't have done in the first place.
Logged
Paris
Guest
« Reply #27 on: April 30, 2015, 05:54:14 PM »

Have had the most useless reply ever from Mr Hurst.  Basically saying that the council will be monitoring the surface regularly to make sure it is fit and safe for public use.   What a total load of rubbish - I'll be telling him that too.  The surface should never have been allowed to have been tampered with in the first place.  Granted, it may still be suitable for walking on, but you could canter on the old surface as well which will now not be possible without a greater risk of injury (all fast work carrying a certain degree of risk) so it really can be said that the new surface is not fit for purpose to start with.  You just can't argue with these people, or even reason with them. 
Logged
Cervantes
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 72


« Reply #28 on: April 30, 2015, 06:15:41 PM »

Surprised they haven't looked into alternatives. It's almost as if this proposal is designed to limit horse riders. Below is an image of a road surface suitable for farm traffic and providing a soft centre for horses to trot/canter. Not saying that any resurfacing is ideal but at least make an effort to accommodate everyone.







This pic is just to illustrate the idea, two tyre sized tracks with a soft surface in the middle
« Last Edit: April 30, 2015, 06:18:07 PM by Cervantes » Logged
jumpingjackflash
Guest
« Reply #29 on: May 27, 2015, 10:43:00 AM »

I called Mr Anthony Hurst yesterday in regards to the re-surfacing of the 'Pig-Track' (the bridle way that crosses the field from Malders lane up to Spring Lane.

It seems that all objections previously raised with Andrew Fletcher have been ignored, as Mr Hurst informed me that the land owner would be surfacing this track, starting in July 2015.

Agreement to surfacing this land was made following his review in the winter, when no doubt it looked its worse.

The surface is going to be crushed limestone scalpings and dust  - VERY USEFUL FOR SLIPPING ON WHEN WET, BREAKING A LEG ETC. And NOT ideal now for having a controlled trot or canter up hill!


If any of you have any concern about the 'Over-Development' of our countryside - I ask you to phone or email Mr Hurst and ask this track to be left in its originally natural state.


Mr Hurst: 01628 796 180 / Anthony.Hurst@rbwm.gov.uk

« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 09:43:34 AM by jumpingjackflash » Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!