Agenda item

PRoW Improvements/Issues

Minutes:

A summary of LCAF proposals for new / modified Public Rights of Way (PRoWs) and access routes was provided in Appendix 2 of the agenda reports pack.  Hugh Fitzwilliams highlighted that proposal number 15 (Bridleway route to link Warfield development area to Hazelwood Lane and Warfield BR26) was confusing.  The comment section stated that ‘There is not a horse route west of West End Lane on the Greenway through Woodhurst Park either into Forest Road or Sopwith Rd.’ Hugh suggested that the reference to Sopwith Rd should be removed as that was in the opposite direction.  Colin Bird agreed to review and amend the wording.  (Action: Colin Bird)

 

Mosses path

Graham Pockett explained that it had been proposed to dedicate Mosses path adjacent to Binfield Football Club as a PRoW on the definitive map.  The land was owned by Bracknell Forest Council (BFC) but leased to the football club.  This proposal had been explored as a condition following consultation with Binfield Parish Council to delete a stranded bridleway, Binfield BR23A, from the definitive map; it was felt that dedicating Mosses path as a PRoW would balance the loss of the bridleway. 

 

The treasurer of the Football Club had raised no objections in principle as long as there was no work for them in terms of increased maintenance.  This could be settled in the agreement; furthermore, Binfield Environment Group already did a lot of routine maintenance in this area

 

The track was well used by horse riders.  The forum discussed that, if it was dedicated as a footpath, it could not be used by horses unless permissive access was agreed by the landowner.  It was not necessarily suitable to become a formally dedicated bridleway due to concerns about the width of the path and the surface which did not provide suitable access all year-round.  It was suggested that it could be a footpath and have Bracknell Forest Council provide a green sign permitting use by equestrians, and that consideration would be needed as to whether to permit cyclists as well. 

 

LCAF supported the proposal.

 

Winkfield FPs 13 and 19

BFC had made a diversion order, but this could not be confirmed until all the paths were in a convenient condition for public use as footpaths.  One section had not been landscaped at all and was impassable due to flooding. 

 

Colin expressed his disappointment at the landowner’s lack of respect for the PRoW.  This had required Bracknell Forest Council, particularly Graham, to invest a lot of time in trying to resolve the issue.

 

LCAF discussed the following options:

·       Members suggested how publicity via social media had been helpful in other situations to rally public support and interest; for example, Bracknell News and Facebook groups such as “We Love Sandhurst”.  Rose Wicks agreed to liaise with the BFC comms team for their advice on this matter.  (Action: Rose Wicks)

·       Query if local could be approached on this issue.  This would come only if stronger enforcement action was unsuccessful.  (Action: Councillor Brossard)

·       BFC could use stronger enforcement action.  Graham agreed to send an official letter to the landowners regarding the destruction of the surface and giving notice to make good within a fixed period of time.  (Action: Graham Pockett)

 

Geoff Paxton shared that Winkfield Parish Council was arranging a spring footpath walk which would usually be attended by 15-20 residents.  Geoff suggested that the route could include this area and would make this proposal to the parish council.  (Action: Geoff Paxton)

 

Binfield FP9

Rob Solomon explained that major vegetation maintenance work had been done along Binfield FP9.  This was done every three years.  Rob confirmed that the path linked to the other side of Binfield and he had seen people using it. 

Supporting documents:

 

Contact Information

Democratic services

Email: committee@bracknell-forest.gov.uk