Agenda item

The Forum had received a report, which summarised the actions delivered in 2019/20 against RoWIP2 policies.  The report had originally been prepared for the council’s department management team (DMT).

A correction was required on page 14 of the report, Item 6 (Preserve Rural Character) as the FP in question was Warfield FP23, not Warfield FP12.  Colin asked Graham Pockett to clarify whether the proposal to tarmac the path was going ahead.  Graham explained that it had been refused by BFC, with one area of concern relating to losing the rural character of the FP.  There is the chance that this decision will be appealed by the developer.  Graham added that there was a separate planning application for four houses immediately to the left of the area, which could also impact on the local RoW.  .  Colin asked how much weight would be given to the policy of preserving rural character in planning applications.  Graham replied that it would be considered as part of the whole balance.  As an individual reason it probably wouldn’t carry much weight.

Graham updated the Forum on the Binfield FP10 project.  The request to improve the FP came from Cllr John Harrison.  Robert Solomon is in the process of running a project to improve the surface, particularly at the southern end which got very wet in winter and had been flooded due to drainage works and being in the flood plain of the river.  BFC has identified some Section 106 developer money that could be used to fund these works..  These improvements would also improve off-road links for cyclists and pedestrians.  The route was identified as cycle route but was technically a FP, not a bridleway. 

Regarding the Warfield BR27 (Hedge Lane) surface, Graham explained that BFC was doing their utmost to maintain the surface of bridleway.  BFC has obtained planings at a reduced cost and was carrying out the works themselves.  This was an economical way to manage similar projects going forward.  Richard Mosses felt that drainage needed to be provided underneath the FP, not just resurfacing it.  Graham explained that that would form part of a longer-term solution, but the current work was more of a temporary fix.

Colin updated on the attempt to get Thames Water to agree to establishment of a permissive path from Cabbage Hill to Hazelwood Lane.  Colin has been unable to get any contact with the biodiversity officer which meant that this project was struggling.  Hugh added that he has also been unable to contact the biodiversity officer and suggested approaching the regional director or going back to the CEO.  Colin and Graham agreed to compose a letter from LCAF and BFC to Thames Water, as this type of joint approach would hold more weight.

(Action: Chair / Graham Pockett)

Regarding the Crowthorne FP8 gates at Broadmoor, Graham updated that he had still not heard back from the NHS site owners, so no progress had been made re the problematic steel stiles.  Rose suggested that a letter could be co-signed by BFC and the Forum.  Colin added that the Forum may have to explore if any powers could be used.  The stiles needed to be removed as they were not accessible.  Graham and Colin would compose a letter to the NHS Trust.

(Action: Chair / Graham Pockett)

Richard Mosses referred to the Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) at Broadmoor alongside Crowthorne FP8 and raised the fact that there was no connection between the spaces via the FP.  Graham explained it was because the SANG  was so close to the Special Protection Area (SPA) at Wildmoor Heath; we couldn’t complete a SANG with a car park and then have a direct link to the SPA as that would risk increasing visitor numbers to the SPA.  Natural England’s policy would be against allowing it.