Bridge over strande water

[Paris]

The metal bridge over Strande water, at the back of CIM has been blocked by black wrapped bales of silage.  So no-one can walk, ride, cycle or whatever across the stream at that point.

It's been in use as a bridleway and footpath for as long as I can remember (over 40 years) so who ordered this to be done and how can we get it cleared? 

[Roger]

It does look a if someone really does want it blocked rather than just dumping rubbish.

[Paris]

Allegedly, there has been a change of farmer, to one with a track record of being intolerant of rights of way.

I think a bit of Cookham style campaigning is required.  Otherwise there will be even more horses on the roads 😠 as this blockage denies access to some wonderful off road riding around field edges that has been permitted for well over 40 years as in my first post. 

I'll add pictures if I can work out how to do it.

[Cookham Webmaster]

Put the photo on the internet in flickr or whatever. Then use the icon on this page just below the I and insert the URL.  Alternatively type in "[ img]http://URL.......[/img ]" Do not put in the spaces that I have done by the img it is because it does not show up on the post otherwise.

[Paris]

The pics I was going to post are on the facebook noticeboard. 

For anyone who isn't aware, you can view the noticeboard without being a member of facebook. 

[Cookham Webmaster]

This is one of the photos

[Paris]

Thank you webmaster.  I'd tried all sorts, including your suggestion to add pictures, nothing worked tho

[James Hatch]

That bridge was originally built by the Astor's so they had access to their fields on the west side of Strande Water and only used by farm traffic and it was closed by a locked gate. Then in the 1950's the farm manager removed the gate for the ease of tractor traffic. My wonder is, has the fields on the west side of Strande Water been sold on the QT! It would be worth investigating. Mind you they are all in flood known area. After the gate was removed of course it soon became a walkers right of way, and it joined up with a well established footpath from Cookham to Maidenhead.

[CLIPPER]

Speaking to other well established Cookham Residents, they also confirm what you have echoed here James, for as long as they can remember, they have had access to cross the fields as short cuts. One resident even recalls visiting stand Castle and having 'cream teas' at the folly.

This weekend has been a pain,  I could not walk / cycle through, along with a number of other walkers who were in disbelief that someone could just do this 'over night'.

The person who has blocked this path this side of Cookham and on the other side of Sutton Road, really is not in the keeping of the 'spirit' of Cookham, no notice given either. If its who I think it is, then as Cookham Residents had mentioned to me, it is just expected.

Lets hope the Fresh, Newly Elected Cllrs can do something about 

[Ian64]

<sup>Lets hope the Fresh, Newly Elected Cllrs can do something about

I'm one of the old stale cllrs but I'm still happy to investigate this on your behalf!</sup>

[Paris]

Thank you Ian64.   Would you be able as part of your investigative efforts to find out how long a path has to be in use before it can be deemed a public right of way?

I'm Cookham born and bred, and I've known that as a path pretty much my whole life.

When there was a riding school called Hamer's in the 70s that bridge and the adjoining footpaths were well trodden by pony feet, and provided a safe route for us kids to learn our riding skills outside of a riding school environment.  So it's not even as if anyone can claim its only been used by riders in the past few years; or that it is barely used by riders now, as it's used pretty much on a daily basis and not just be riders from the soon to close White Place Farm livery yard.

[Kate]

Keep an eye on the RBWM Landowner Declaration register: https://www3.rbwm.gov.uk/info/200215/rights_of_way/893/landowner_declaration_register

"The Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 requires the council to keep a register of landowner statements and declarations lodged under Highways Act 1980 and landowner statements lodged under the Commons Act 2006. Highway Act statements and declarations enable landowners to formally acknowledge public rights of way across their land and, in doing so, create a presumption that they have no intention to dedicate any further routes across their land. Commons Act statements allow a landowner to deposit a landowner statement accompanied by a map which brings to an end any period of recreational use 'as of right' over the land to which the statement and map relate."

You may find useful information on the Open Spaces Society website: https://www.oss.org.uk/. Have a look here:
https://www.oss.org.uk/what-do-we-fight-for/footpaths-rights-of-way/claiming-a-public-footpath/

Having previously completed a village green application myself (in a different county) I can confirm this sort of thing is not for the faint-hearted, but with local evidence, good research and attention to detail it is certainly achievable.

[TaylorMadeLiveries]

Hi Kate

Yes that is correct you can fill out a declaration of all public rights of way across your land thus creating a legal interruption for the purposes of a '20 year new footpath claim'.

[TaylorMadeLiveries]

Howeveeerrrrr.....if there is a 20 year period that predates that legal interruption  a new footpath can still be created. In the case of the above path the evidence is pretty good.

During your searches if you come across a legal interruption it could be mine, filed about 6 years ago. Its because we have many permitted footpaths across the land and I want horses to have priority on our created paths.

Mark

Not sure why it made me write that in 2 posts...phone maybe

[Kate]

Thanks Mark. As it currently stands it would seem the landowner in this case is perfectly entitled to protect his land unless the 'right of way' appears on the definitive map; if it does then the obstruction should be reported to RBWM rights of way, if it doesn't then the good people of Cookham have a defined legal process to complete to have the route added should they so wish.

What is important to note for those who are concerned about the loss of historic walking routes in Cookham is that there are legal changes proposed with the intention of drawing a line in the sand in 2026, such that any routes which are not recorded on the definitive map by that date may be automatically extinguished. Again from the OSS website:

"under Part II of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, historical footpaths and bridleways, which came into existence before 1949 but which have not been recorded on the definitive map and statement by 1 January 2026, may be extinguished (the precise criteria for extinguishment have not yet been set out in regulations). "

So if you (collectively, not just Mark!) plan to challenge this instance it may be worth forming a Cookham working party to examine the definitive map and ensure all the rest of your well-loved and well-used historic paths are on it and challenged if not. It's not legally a 'right of way' if it's not on the definitive map.

The relevant definitive maps are online at RBWM here: https://www3.rbwm.gov.uk/info/200215/rights_of_way/1017/definitive_map_of_public_rights_of_way